Changes from report parliamentary committee draft to plenary report

RemovedThe wording should remain closer to the existing wording in the Schengen Borders Code. The Rapporteur does not agree with dealing with matters more properly reserved for the EU asylum acquis in the Schengen Borders Code.

Recital 19: (19) Migration and the crossing of external border by a large number of third-country nationals should not, per se, be considered to be a threat to public policy or internal security.

Change 11

RemovedThe text is similar to the current recital 26 of the Schengen Borders Code. As this is an amending Regulation, this principle in this Regulation should be restated.

AddedRecital 20: (20) To counteract irregular migration and cross-border crime linked to irregular migration, such as human trafficking, migrant smuggling and document fraud, and to combat other forms of cross-border crime, Member States could be required to take measures to verify the identity, nationality and residence status of persons provided that such verifications are, not systematically carried out at the border or in border regions, do not breach the principle of non-discrimination, and are carried out on the basis of risk analysis.

RemovedRecital 20: (20) To counteract irregular migration and cross-border crime linked to irregular migration, such as human trafficking, migrant smuggling and document fraud, and to combat other forms of cross-border crime, Member States could be required to take measures to verify the identity, nationality and residence status of persons provided that such verifications are not systematically carried out at the border or in border regions, do not breach the principle of non-discrimination, and are carried out on the basis of risk analysis.

AddedRecital 21: (21) The use of modern technologies to monitor traffic flows, notably on motorways and other important roads determined by the Member States, can be instrumental in addressing threats to public policy or internal security. The prohibition of internal border controls should not be understood as preventing the lawful exercise of police or other public powers to carry out checks that entail the use of monitoring and surveillance technologies which are generally used in the territory or that are based on a risk assessment for the purpose of protecting internal security.

RemovedThe actions taken by Member States to tackle irregular migration cannot be allowed to justify internal border control.

RemovedRecital 21: (21) The use of modern technologies to monitor traffic flows, notably on motorways and other important roads determined by the Member States, can be instrumental in addressing threats to public policy or internal security. The prohibition of internal border controls should not be understood as preventing the lawful exercise of police powers to carry out checks that entail the use of monitoring and surveillance technologies which are generally used in the territory or that are based on a risk assessment for the purpose of protecting internal security. In order to allow for such technologies to be effective, it should be possible to apply proportionate speed limits at road crossings.

Recital 22: deleted

Change 12

RemovedRecital 25: (25) In order to strengthen the functioning of the Schengen area, and to assist Member States in countering irregular migration, including between Member States, and combat unlawful stays, within the last ten years, the Union has adopted numerous flanking measures, including the establishment of an Entry/Exit System (EES), the establishment of a European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS), the establishment of a European Criminal Records database in respect of third country nationals, the reform of the Schengen Information System (SIS), the reform of the Visa Information System (VIS), two substantial overhauls of the mandate of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, and the establishment of an interoperability framework to allow Union databases in the area of freedom, security and justice to communicate with one another.

AddedRecital 23: deleted

RemovedIt is important to highlight the measures already taken to protect the Schengen Area without internal border control. The deletion is consequential to the deletion of Article 23a.

AddedRecital 24 a (new): (24a) Before resorting to the reintroduction of border control at internal borders, Member States should give precedence to alternative measures. Member States should assess whether the situation could be adequately addressed by way of increased cross-border cooperation, both from an operational point of view and from that of information exchange between police services and other competent authorities of the Member State.

RemovedRecital 26: deleted

AddedRecital 24 b (new): (24b) In the absence of internal border controls, targeted joint patrols in intra-EU border areas are a valuable tool to counter migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings, to prevent irregular stays and cross-border crime linked to irregular migration. It is possible that such checks prove more effective than internal border controls, in particular as they are more flexible and can be adapted more easily to evolving risks. When opting for cross-border police cooperation, it is important that they are devised and executed in a manner clearly distinct from systematic checks on persons at the external borders and in a non-discriminatory manner.

RemovedIt is not the role of the Schengen Borders Code to introduce an internal return procedure into the Schengen Area. This is clearly contrary to the spirit of the Schengen Area without internal border control and reflects the need for progress on reform of other policy areas.

AddedRecital 25: (25) In order to strengthen the functioning of the Schengen area, andto assist Member States in countering irregular migration, including between Member States, and combat irregular stays, within the last ten years, the Union legislature has adopted numerous flanking measures, including the establishment of an Entry-Exit System, the establishment of a European Travel Information and Authorisation System, the establishment of a European Criminal Records database in respect of third country nationals, the reform of the Schengen Information System, the reform of the Visa Information System, two substantial overhauls of the mandate of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, and the establishment of an interoperability framework to allow EU databases in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice to communicate with one another.

AddedRecital 25 a (new): (25a) Where, in the context of joint police patrols as part of cross-border police operational cooperation, national law enforcement authorities of a Member State apprehend third country nationals, who have no right to stay, in the vicinity of internal borders, and where that Member State has not reintroduced internal border control, , it should then be possible for those authorities to transfer those third country nationals to the Member State from which they entered, where the law enforcement authorities of that latter Member State are participating in the joint police patrols. The Member State from where the person came directly should in turn be required to receive the apprehended third country nationals.

AddedRecital 25 b (new): (25b) To prevent racial profiling, the information on the basis of which joint police patrols are carried out in the vicinity of the internal borders should not be based on information collected through automated processing of data available in different data sources or in different data formats in order to forecast or predict trends related to migration and border crossings.

AddedRecital 26: (26) The procedure by which a Member State may transfer third country nationals with no right to stay to a Member State from where the person came directly should take place swiftly but be limited and subject to safeguards and carried out in full respect of fundamental rights, in particular the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in Article 21 of the Charter. Since Union-level rules governing persons seeking international protection and beneficiaries of international protection are laid down in the asylum acquis, including the procedures for the transfer of such persons between Member States, it should be clear that this procedure does not apply, in any circumstances, to persons seeking international protection or beneficiaries of international protection. In line with Articles 9 and 24 of the Charter, such a procedure should not apply to minors or members of their family arriving together from another Member State. Moreover, the procedure should also not apply to third-country nationals who are holders of long-term residence permits or their family members, third-country nationals who enjoy the right to free movement in the Union, third-country nationals who are holders of valid long-stay visas and their family members in accordance with national law, third country nationals who are holders of a valid short stay visa or to third country nationals who are entitled to visa-free travel within the Schengen Area in so far as they have been on the territory for less than 90 …

AddedRecital 26 a (new): (26a) It should be possible for the authorities to carry out a verification of relevant information immediately available to the authorities concerning the movements of the persons who might be the subject of such a procedure. Such information can include objective elements that would allow the authorities to conclude that the person had recently travelled from another Member States, such as the possession of documents, including receipts or invoices, evidencing recent travel from another Member State. Third country nationals subject to the transfer procedure should be provided with a reasoned decision in writing. While the decision should be immediately enforceable, the third country national should have an effective remedy before a court or tribunal to appeal against or seek review of the transfer decision. That remedy should not have suspensive effect.

Recital 27: (27) Nothing in this Regulation should affect the existing possibility for Member States to return irregular third country nationals in accordance with bilateral agreements or arrangements referred to in Article 6(3) of Directive 2008/115/EC (the “Return Directive”), where such persons are detected outside of the vicinity of internal borders.

Change 13

RemovedThe standstill clause in the Return Directive was intended to ensure that the EU moves to a more harmonised approach. The Rapporteur does not want to move backwards in that respect, by encouraging more bilateral agreements within the Schengen Area that only serve to bi-pass EU rules.

AddedRecital 28: (28) In exceptional cases, addressing identified threats to the Schengen area may, as a last resort, require the adoption of measures at the internal borders by the Member States. As free movement of persons is affected by the temporary reintroduction of internal border control, any decision to reintroduce such control should be taken in accordance with commonly agreed criteria and should be duly notified to the Commission, the Parliament and the Council or be recommended by a Union institution. Within the framework and limits laid down in this Regulation, Member States remain competent to determine the need for the temporary reintroduction of border controls. Under the existing rules, the reintroduction of controls at internal borders is provided for in circumstances where a serious threat to internal security or public policy manifests itself in a single Member State for a limited period of time. In particular, terrorism and organised crime, large scale public health emergencies or large scale or high profile international events such as sporting, trade or political events can amount to a serious threat to public policy or internal security.

Change 14

ChangedRecital 28: (28)29: In(29) exceptionalFurthermore, cases,it addressingis threatspossible to the Schengen area may require the adoption,consider bythat thea Memberserious States,threat ofto measurespublic atpolicy theor internal borders. As freesecurity movementcould ofalso personsresult isfrom affectedan byexceptional thesituation temporaryin reintroductionwhich ofthere internalis borderan control,unexpected anyand decisionsudden tolarge-scale reintroduceunauthorised suchmovement controlof shouldirregular bemigrants takenbetween inthe accordanceMember withStates, commonlywhere agreedthis criteriacreates anda shouldsituation beputting dulyat notifiedrisk toof the Commission or be recommended by a Unionoverall institution.functioning Underof the existing rules,area thewithout introductioninternal ofborder controlscontrols, atwhere internalthe bordersother ismeans provided for inunder circumstancesthis whereRegulation aare seriousassessed threatnot to internal securitybe orsufficient publicto policyaddress manifeststhese itselfinflows inand amovements. singleIn Memberthis Statecontext, forMember aStates limitedshould periodbe ofable time.to Inrely particular,on terrorismobjective and organised crime, large scale public health emergencies or largequantified scalereports oron highunauthorised profilemovements internationalwhenever eventsavailable, suchin asparticular, sporting,when tradeproduced oron politicala eventsregular canbasis amountby tothe acompetent seriousUnion threatagencies toin publicline policywith ortheir internalrespective security.mandates.

Change 15

RemovedThe basis on which the temporary reintroduction of internal border control should take place is already set out in the current version of the Schengen Borders Code, see Recital 23. This basis should not be confused by new recitals suggesting a different approach.

AddedRecital 30: (30) While action at Union level is provided for in circumstances where the nature of a threat derives from persistent serious deficiencies at the external borders, there is no Union-wide mechanism to ensure Union-wide coordination where, within the Schengen area, a serious threat to internal security or public policy area is affecting several Member States at the same time, putting at risk the well-functioning of the Schengen area. The gap should be filled by putting in place a new Schengen area safeguard mechanism permitting coordinated solutions to protect the interests of persons entitled to benefit from the area without controls at internal borders, by maximising the effectiveness of the measures taken while minimising their negative side-effects.

RemovedRecital 29: deleted

AddedRecital 31: (31) Given the politically sensitive nature of a decision which regulates the possibility for Member States to reintroduce or prolong internal border control in particular circumstances, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission to initiate the new Union-level Schengen area safeguard mechanism authorising the reintroduction or prolongation of internal border controls, where this is justified by a particular threat, identified on the basis of notifications received from several individual Member States, a risk assessment, and other available information, and to provide supplementary rules on mitigating measures that should be established at national and Union level. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. When preparing and drawing up delegated acts, the Commission should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.

RemovedThe need for reform in other policy areas should not be used as a pretext for internal border control. This recital is simply offering Member States a new ground for introducing internal border control which was until now not lawful. It is impossible to reconcile this recital with the legal basis as laid down in Article 77(2)(e).

AddedRecital 32: (32) In determining whether a reintroduction or prolongation of internal border controls by the Member States is justified, the Commission should take into account that internal border control remains a measure of last resort which has a serious impact on all persons having the right to move within the area without internal border control. The Commission should assess whether the measure is appropriate, necessary and proportionate. The scope and duration of any temporary reintroduction of such measures should be restricted to the minimum needed to respond to the serious threat to public policy or internal security. The Commission should consider whether any other measures that could ensure a high level of security within the territory are available. In the event that a prolongation of the controls is not considered justified, internal border controls should be lifted immediately and the Commission should recommend the use of other measures deemed more appropriate to address the identified threat.

RemovedRecital 31: (31) The new Union-level Schengen area safeguard mechanism should allow the Council to adopt, upon a proposal by the Commission, and after having consulted the European Parliament, a decision authorising the reintroduction or prolongation of internal border controls, where this is justified by a particular threat, identified on the basis of notifications received from individual Member States, a risk assessment, and other available information. Given the politically sensitive nature of such a decision which regulates the possibility for Member States to reintroduce or prolong internal border control in particular circumstances, implementing powers to adopt a decision should be conferred on the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, and after having consulted the European Parliament.

AddedRecital 34: (34) In order to ensure compliance with the principle of proportionality, the delegated act should be adopted for a limited period of time of up to six months that may be prolonged subject to regular review, up to a maximum period of two years in exceptional cases. The initial delegated act should include an assessment of the expected impact of the measures adopted, including its adverse side-effects, with a view to determining if controls at internal borders are justified or whether less restrictive measures could be applied in their place in an effective manner. Any subsequent delegated act prolonging internal border control should take account of the evolution of the identified threat. The Member States should immediately notify the Commission, the Parliament, and the Member States of the reintroduction of internal border controls in accordance with the delegated act.

RemovedParliament as a co-legislator needs to be given a role in determining whether the reintroduction of internal border control is appropriate.

RemovedRecital 32: (32) In determining whether a reintroduction or prolongation of internal border controls by the Member States is justified, the Commission, the Council and the Parliament should take into account that internal border control remains a measure of last resort which has a serious impact on all persons having the right to move within the area without internal border control. The reintroduction or prolongation of internal border controls should be exceptional and the principle of proportionality should be respected. The scope and duration of any temporary reintroduction of such measures should be restricted to the minimum needed to respond to the serious threat to public policy or internal security. The Council should consider whether any other measures that could ensure a high level of security within the territory are available. In the event that a prolongation of the controls is not considered justified, internal border controls should be lifted immediately and the Commission should recommend the use of other measures deemed more appropriate to address the identified threat.

RemovedRecital 34: (34) In order to ensure compliance with the principle of proportionality, the decision of the Council should be adopted for a limited period of time of up to six months that may be prolonged subject to regular review upon a proposal from the Commission, up to a maximum period of two years in exceptional cases. The initial decision should include an assessment of the expected impact of the measures adopted, including its adverse side-effects, with a view to determining if controls at internal borders are justified or whether less restrictive measures should be applied in their place in an effective manner. Subsequent decisions should take account of the evolution of the identified threat. The Member States should immediately notify the Commission, the European Parliament, and the Member States of the reintroduction of internal border controls in accordance with the decision of the Council.

Recital 35: (35) Reintroduction of internal border controls should also remain possible where serious deficiencies in the management of the external borders persist, putting at risk the overall functioning of the area without internal border control.

Change 16

RemovedThe cumulation of periods of internal border control is not conducive to reducing the use of internal border control and has been ruled unlawful by the CJEU. Precisely this sort of cumulation of grounds for internal border controls was used by Member States to keep border controls in place for longer.

AddedRecital 36: (36) The reintroduction of border controls at internal borders, whether on the basis of Union level decisions or unilateral decisions of the Member States, has serious implications for the functioning of the Schengen area and the rights of individuals. In order to ensure that any decision to reintroduce border controls is only taken where necessary, as a measure of last resort, the decision on temporary reintroduction or prolongation of border controls should be based on common criteria and be strictly necessary and proportionate. The proportionality principle requires that the reintroduction of internal border controls be subject to safeguards that are to be respected before internal border controls are considered and that increase over time.

RemovedRecital 36: (36) The reintroduction of border controls at internal borders, whether on the basis of Union level decisions or unilateral decisions of the Member States, has serious implications for the functioning of the Schengen area. In order to ensure that any decision to reintroduce border controls is only taken where necessary, as a measure of last resort, the decision on temporary reintroduction or prolongation of border controls should be based on common criteria and be strictly necessary and proportionate. The proportionality principle requires that the reintroduction of internal border controls be subject to safeguards that increase over time.

AddedRecital 36 a (new): (36a) Any derogation from the fundamental principle of free movement of persons should be interpreted strictly and the concept of public policy presupposes the existence of a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. Where Member States reintroduce internal border controls for foreseeable threats, they should be able to do so for a period of three months, renewable up to a maximum period of 18 months.

RemovedRecital 36 a (new): (36 a) Any derogation from the fundamental principle of free movement of persons should be interpreted strictly and the concept of public policy presupposes the existence of a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society.

AddedRecital 37: (37) In the first instance, Member States should assess the appropriateness of internal border controls having regard to the nature of the serious threat identified as well as the appropriateness of alternative measures to pursue the same objectives as internal border controls, such as proportionate checks as carried out in the exercise of police or other public powers or through forms of police cooperation as provided for under Union law, including the possibility to use the transfer procedure. In this context, the Member States should pay particular attention to and assess the likely impact of internal border controls on the movement of persons within the area without internal border controls and the functioning of the cross-border regions. This assessment should be part of the notification that Member States are required to transmit to the Commission, the Parliament and the Council. In case of prolongation of internal border controls for foreseeable events beyond a period of six months, the Member State should also carry out a risk assessment. That risk assessment should also include details on the scale and anticipated evolution of the identified serious threat, information on how long that serious threat is expected to persist and which sections of the internal borders are affected, information on coordination measures with other Member States impacted or likely to be impacted by such measures and the measures that the Member State concerned has taken and intends to take…

RemovedThe text is in line with the Parliament’s first reading position on previous proposed reform of the SBC.

AddedRecital 38: (38) In order to limit harmful consequences resulting from the reintroduction of internal border controls, any decision to reintroduce internal border controls should be accompanied by mitigating measures , but always with a view to lifting internal border control as soon as possible. Such measures should include measures to assure a smooth operation of transit of goods and transport personnel and seafarers by the establishment of ‘green lanes’. In addition, and to take account of the need to ensure the movement of persons whose activities may be essential for preserving the supply chain or the provision of essential services, Member States should also apply the existing guidelines on cross-border workers45 . Against this background, the rules for the reintroduction of border controls at internal borders should take account of the guidelines and recommendations adopted throughout the COVID-19 pandemic as a solid safety net for the Single Market, for the purpose of assuring that they are applied by the Member States as mitigating measures during reintroduced internal border controls, with a view to safeguarding the interests of cross-border regions and of ‘twin cities’ including for instance authorisations or derogations for the inhabitants of cross-border regions.

RemovedRecital 37: (37) In the first instance, Member States should assess the appropriateness of internal border controls having regard to the nature of the serious threat identified. In this context, the Member States should pay particular attention to and assess the likely impact of internal border controls on the movement of persons within the area without internal border controls and the functioning of the cross-border regions. This assessment should be part of the notification that Member States are required to transmit to the Commission and the European Parliament. In case of prolongation of internal border controls for foreseeable events beyond an initial period of three months, the Member State should also carry out a risk assessment, including an assessment of the appropriateness of alternative measures to pursue the same objectives as internal border controls, such as proportionate checks as carried out in the exercise of police powers or through forms of police cooperation as provided for under Union law.

AddedRecital 39: (39) The notification to be provided by the Member States should be decisive when assessing compliance with the criteria and conditions for a temporary reintroduction of internal border controls. In order to ensure proper supervision and monitoring of internal border controls that have been reintroduced, and improve the quality of the information it receives, the Commission should adopt a template for the notification of reintroduction of border controls at internal borders in an implementing act. Member States should be entitled to classify parts of the information provided in the notification, without prejudice to the functioning of appropriate and secure police cooperation channels and to the availability of information to the Commission, the Parliament and the Council.

RemovedRecital 38: (38) In order to limit harmful consequences resulting from the reintroduction of internal border controls, any decision to reintroduce internal border controls should be accompanied by mitigating measures if needed, but always with a view to lifting internal border control as soon as possible. Such measures should include measures to assure a smooth operation of transit of goods and transport personnel and seafarers by the establishment of ‘green lanes’. In addition, and to take account of the need to ensure the movement of persons whose activities may be essential for preserving the supply chain or the provision of essential services, Member States should also apply the existing guidelines on cross-border workers45 . Against this background, the rules for the reintroduction of border controls at internal borders should take account of the guidelines and recommendations adopted throughout the COVID-19 pandemic as a solid safety net for the Single Market, for the purpose of assuring that they are applied by the Member States as mitigating measures during reintroduced internal border controls.

AddedRecital 40: (40) In order to ensure that internal border controls are truly a last resort measure applied only for as long as necessary and in order to allow for assessing the necessity and proportionality of internal border controls to address foreseeable threats and to allow the Commission to assess that such controls are an exceptional measure, Member States should prepare a risk assessment to be submitted to the Commission when internal border controls are prolonged beyond a period of six months in response to foreseeable threats. The Member States must in particular, explain, the scale and evolution of the identified serious threat, including how long the identified serious threat is expected to persist and which sections of the internal borders may be affected, why alternative measures will not resolve the identified threat, as well as their coordination measures with the other Member States that are impacted or likely to be impacted by such measures.

RemovedRecital 39: (39) The notification to be provided by the Member States should be decisive when assessing compliance with the criteria and conditions for a temporary reintroduction of internal border controls. In order to ensure proper supervision and monitoring of internal border controls that have been reintroduced, the Commission should adopt a template for the notification of reintroduction of border controls at internal borders by way of a delegated act. Member States should be entitled to classify all or parts of the information provided in the notification, without prejudice to the functioning of appropriate and secure police cooperation channels.

AddedRecital 42: (42) In order to ensure sufficient level of supervision, transparency and accountability with regard to actions taken by Member States affecting travel without internal border controls, the Member States should provide the notifications of reintroduction of internal border control to the European Parliament,the Council and the Commission at the same time in accordance with this Regulation... Every year, pursuant to Article 33 of the Schengen Borders Code, the Commission should present to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the functioning of the area without internal border control (‘State of Schengen report’) which should pay particular attention to the border controls that have been in place for longer than twelve months. The report should include all the decisions to reintroduce internal border control and details of the actions taken by the Commission with regard to internal border controls reintroduced.. It should also assess the necessity and proportionality of the all reintroductions of border controls in the period covered by that Report building on the information available from the competent authorities of the Member States. The State of Schengen report shall also cover the reporting obligations resulting from Article 20 of the Schengen Evaluation Mechanism46 .

RemovedGiven that the notification by Member States is so important in determining compliance with the Schengen Borders Code rules, the notification template must be considered to be an element that will supplement non-essential elements of the Regulation.

AddedRecital 43: (43) The mechanism for the temporary reintroduction of border controls at internal borders in urgent situations or to address foreseeable threats should oblige the Commission to organise consultations between Member States, including at the request of any Member State. Relevant Union Agencies may be involved in this process in order to share their expertise, where appropriate. Such consultations should look at the possibility of applying alternative measures, and if necessary the modalities of carrying out internal border controls and their time-line. Where the Commission or a Member State has issued an opinion expressing concerns regarding the reintroduction of border controls, such consultations should be mandatory. Where border controls at internal borders have been prolonged beyond a period of six months, the necessity, proportionality and duration of those controls should be discussed in the Schengen Forum.

Change 17

ChangedRecital 40: (40) In order to44: ensure(44) thatThe internalCommission borderand controlsMember areStates trulyshould aretain lastthe resortpossibility measureto appliedexpress onlyany forconcern as longregards asthe necessarynecessity and in orderproportionality toof allowa fordecision assessingof thea necessityMember andState proportionalityto ofreintroduce internal border controls to addressfor foreseeablereason threats,of Memberurgency Statesor shouldto prepareaddress a riskforeseeable assessmentthreat. toIn becase submittedcontrols toat theinternal Commissionborders whenare internalreintroduced borderand controlsprolonged arefor prolongedforeseeable beyondthreats anfor initialcombined threeperiods monthsexceeding innine responsemonths, toit foreseeableshould threats.be Thea Memberrequirement Statesfor mustthe inCommission particular,to explain,issue an opinion assessing the scalenecessity and evolutionproportionality of thesuch identifiedinternal seriousborder threat,controls. includingSuch howan longopinion theis identifiedwithout seriousprejudice threatto isthe expectedenforcement tomeasures, persistincluding andinfringement actions, which sectionsthe Commission, in its role as guardian of the internalTreaties, bordersis mayrequired beto affected,take whyat alternativeany measurestime willagainst notany resolveMember theState identifiedfor threat,failure asto wellcomply aswith theirits coordinationobligations measuresunder withUnion thelaw. otherWhere Memberan Statesopinion thatis areissued, impactedthe orCommission likelyshould tolaunch beconsultations impactedwith bythe suchMember measures.States concerned.

Change 18

RemovedRecital 42: (42) In order to ensure sufficient level of supervision, transparency and accountability with regard to actions taken by Member States affecting travel without internal border controls, the Member States should provide detailed information to the European Parliament and the Council on the planned reintroduction of border controls. In justified cases, Member States may also classify such information. Every year, pursuant to Article 33 of the Schengen Borders Code, the Commission should present to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the functioning of the area without internal border control (‘State of Schengen report’) which should pay particular attention to the border controls that have been in place for longer than six months. It should also assess the necessity and proportionality of the all reintroductions of border controls in the period covered by that Report. The State of Schengen report shall also cover the reporting obligations resulting from Article 20 of the Schengen Evaluation Mechanism46 .

AddedRecital 44 a (new): (44a) Where a Member State considers that there are exceptional situations justifying the continued need for internal border control in excess of the maximum period of 18 months based on the same foreseeable serious threat, it should be able to request the Commission to propose to the Council an implementing decision authorising the prolongation of internal border control for a period of three months. If the Council adopts such an implementing decision, and at the end of that three-month period, the Member State in question still considers that the exceptional situation remains, it may make a maximum of two further requests to the Commission for a prolongation of a further three months.

RemovedThe State of Schengen Report should focus on the Schengen Area without internal border control and the lifting of internal border controls that have been introduced.

AddedRecital 45: (45) In order to enable the post factum analysis of the decision on the temporary reintroduction of border controls at the internal borders, Member States should remain obliged to submit a report on the reintroduction of border control at internal borders to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission once they lift the controls. Where the controls are kept in place for a period exceeding six months, such a report should also be submitted after that six-month period and every six months thereafter., if exceptionally controls are maintained and for as long as the controls are maintained. The report should outline, in particular, the initial and follow-up assessment of the necessity of internal border controls and the respect of the criteria for reintroduction of border controls at internal borders. The Commission should adopt in an implementing act a template and make it available online.

RemovedRecital 43: (43) The mechanism for the temporary reintroduction of border controls at internal borders in urgent situations or to address foreseeable threats should provide for the Commission to organise consultations between Member States, including at the request of any Member State. Relevant Union Agencies may be involved in this process in order to share their expertise, where appropriate. Such consultations should look at the possibility of applying alternative measures, and if necessary the modalities of carrying out internal border controls, their time-line and possible mitigating measures. Where the Commission or a Member State has issued an opinion expressing concerns regarding the reintroduction of border controls, such consultations should be mandatory.

RemovedRecital 44: (44) The Commission and Member States should retain the possibility to express any concern as regards the necessity and proportionality of a decision of a Member State to reintroduce internal border controls for reason of urgency or to address a foreseeable threat. In case controls at internal borders are reintroduced and prolonged for foreseeable threats for combined periods exceeding six months, it should be a requirement for the Commission to issue an opinion assessing the necessity and proportionality of such internal border controls. Such an opinion is without prejudice to the enforcement measures, including infringement actions, which the Commission is required to take at any time against any Member State for failure to comply with its obligations under Union law. Where an opinion is issued, the Commission should launch consultations with the Member States concerned.