Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-13-Speech-2-073"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010313.7.2-073"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today we are holding a joint debate on four Member State initiatives: on mutual recognition of expulsion decisions, on implementing powers with regard to the procedures for examining visa applications and for carrying out checks outside the Schengen borders and, lastly, on freedom to travel within the Schengen area.
I will begin with the aspects relating to the provisions that come within the Schengen framework. First of all, I want to congratulate Mr Deprez on his precise and detailed examination of institutional relations in regard to the power to implement the rules established by the Council, powers relating to comitology as laid down in Article 202 of the Treaty establishing the Communities. The Commission does, in fact, believe that it should be possible to amend, adapt or update some of the provisions in the joint consular instruction, in the joint handbook and in the specifications of the Schengen consultation network, by a simplified method based on comitology. We can also subscribe to the initiatives of the Republics of Finland and Portugal, but we cannot subscribe to the majority of the proposed measures, which reserve implementing powers to the Council without, however, providing any circumstantial evidence that this really is a specific case that is an exception to the general rule laid down in the Treaty.
The Commission agrees with the analysis and the arguments put forward by Mr Deprez in his explanatory statement. Joint consular instruction, the joint handbook and the specifications of the Schengen consultation network have been integrated as the legal basis for Articles 62 and 67 of the Treaty of the European Communities, under Title IV. However, Title IV contains no institutional derogation from Article 202 of the Treaty. Moreover, most of the implementing measures linked to these instruments are purely technical in nature. They constitute no more than the practical formulation of political decisions taken by the Council in primary legislative acts, which are themselves governed by the appropriate provisions of Title IV.
Consequently, I wish to express the Commission's total satisfaction with Parliament's position, a position entirely in line with that of the European Commission. And for the time being, the Commission not only emphasises its agreement but also hopes that the Council will listen to and accept the rapporteur's arguments, which I hope Parliament endorses, and the arguments along the same lines put forward by the Commission. In the event that it adopts a different interpretation, we will no doubt consider reacting by taking other measures…
...measures which the Commission and Parliament can, in fact, take jointly.
The Commission can endorse the aim of the Portuguese proposal for a regulation concerning the period during which third-country nationals who are exempt from the visa requirement can travel freely within the territory of the Member States. Indeed, Article 62 of the Treaty invites the Council to adopt, within five years following the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, measures laying down the conditions under which third-country nationals can move freely within the territory of the Member States for a period of not more than three months.
However, and here it manifestly contradicts the Portuguese proposal, while the Treaty lays down a period of not more than three months, this is certainly not restricted to third-country nationals exempt from the visa requirement. That is why I agree with the comment by your rapporteur, Mrs Frahm, that it is not a good idea to regulate the situation of a single category, just as it seems obvious to me that we cannot extend the period of residence on the territory of the Member States beyond three months, up to a total of six months, solely on the basis of reciprocity agreements.
The Commission realises that the main object of the Portuguese initiative – for underlying reasons that are easy to understand – is to safeguard a number of existing bilateral agreements between the Member States and, for example, third countries such as the United States of America, Canada, Japan and Australia."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples