Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-07-04-Speech-3-482-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120704.29.3-482-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, let me assure you that the Commission is willing to help ‘detox’ this file if you would so like.
The legal analysis conducted by the Commission led to the conclusion that the Dutch mobile surveillance does not contravene the Schengen Borders Code or the case law from the Melki case. We await of course the Court of Justice ruling in this matter.
On a broader note, as I have said repeatedly, the Commission will make use of our prerogatives to keep defending the rights of citizens to travel within the Schengen area without controls. That commitment is also reflected in our proposal for a new Schengen monitoring and evaluation mechanism which included the verification of absence of controls at internal borders.
I still believe that a truly effective mechanism implies a stronger role for the Commission based on Article 77 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. I am also convinced that the political legitimacy of that proposal would benefit from the European Parliament acting as co-legislator.
From the Commission’s side we naturally reserve the right to take whatever legal action we may deem necessary to safeguard the integrity of the roles that the Treaties have defined for each of the Union’s institutions, but at this moment let us not speculate on legal action.
No final decision has been taken so let us take some time for reflection and discussion and seize the opportunity to sit down to see if we can improve the text during the Cyprus Presidency and make sure that we have a balanced, good Schengen governance that all three institutions can support. The Commission is certainly willing to do everything it can to support such an outcome.
The possibility to travel within Schengen without being subject to border control is of course one of the most valuable rights for European citizens. It is one of the most tangible effects of European integration for citizens and it is the role of the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, to make sure that this will still be the case. We will not hesitate to initiate infringement procedures if appropriate.
My services are currently investigating a number of possible violations of the relevant EU legislation, including the Schengen Borders Code. These cases cover both obstacles to fluid traffic flow at internal land borders and police checks that might have an effect equivalent to border controls.
From last November to April, we investigated 11 different cases involving 10 different Member States. You have highlighted in your questions here two of these cases: the German authorities’ controls on passengers on Czech buses and mobile surveillance by the Dutch authorities at their borders with Belgium and Germany. The Commission is aware of both.
In the German-Czech case, the Commission has repeatedly requested information from the German authorities on the frequency of controls and their justification. However, the information we have received so far from the German and Czech authorities has not provided sufficient details to fully assess whether the controls were equivalent to border checks and whether they are in breach of the Schengen Borders Code.
We have not let the matter rest here. In May, we asked three major Czech bus companies to assist us with more information over a longer period. We hope to have additional facts by October, which would enable us to carry out a more thorough analysis of the situation at that border. I am of course ready to come back to you and report on these results.
Regarding the Dutch mobile surveillance, there have been several recent cases in various Dutch courts, questioning whether it is compatible with the Schengen Borders Code. In addition to the decision that you have highlighted, Dutch courts have referred two similar cases to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling. The basic question is whether Dutch mobile surveillance contravenes the prohibition of border checks or their equivalent laid down in the Schengen Borders Code.
The Schengen Borders Code specifies that the abolition of border controls does not affect the use of police powers under national law, as long as they do not have an effect equivalent to border checks. This is valid in particular, but not only, if these police checks do not have border control as an objective – they are based on general police information and experience – and if they are carried out in a manner clearly distinct from border checks and on the basis of spot-checks.
In both of the cases referred to the Court of Justice, the Commission’s view is that the Dutch mobile surveillance has neither the same purpose nor the same modalities as a border check. The surveillance is targeted on the fight against illegal residence and is subject to limitations, for example on the frequency of checks."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples