Member of the European Parliament
I have mit IPPEN.MEDIA darüber gesprochen, warum Grenzkontrollen irreguläre Migration nicht stoppen werden. Schließlich haben Menschen auch bei einer Grenzkontrolle das Recht einen Asylantrag zu stellen. Stattdessen müssen wir, auch im Sinne des Rechtsstaats, unseren Umgang mit Asylsuchenden in Europa ändern.
I have commissioned a critical analysis of Germany's internal border controls for the Green Group in the European Parliament to see whether they are compatible with EU law. You can read the whole study here on German and English read.
The absence of internal border controls is a fundamental principle of European law and the basic principle of the free Schengen area. Although internal border controls in the Schengen area should therefore be a strict exception, there has been a massive increase in these controls in Germany and other member states since 2015. According to the German government, the main reasons for this are more irregular migration, the threat of terrorism and the coronavirus pandemic. However, the question arises as to what extent the reintroduction of these internal border controls is compatible with EU legal obligations.
The Schengen Borders Code only allows internal border controls in exceptional situations, for example if there is a threat to the security and order of a Member State. However, internal border controls may only be used as a last resort and may only be reintroduced temporarily, as the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has also confirmed.
Germany does not always seem to adhere to these regulations. The various federal governments have repeatedly extended internal border controls, especially at the border with Austria, since 2015. This is a clear violation of EU law. The expert opinion I commissioned comes to the conclusion that there is no legal basis for the controls at the border with Austria, which have been taking place since November 2017 "for reasons of migration and security policy". This means that these controls have been unlawful since then.
The main problem here is that the German government is referring to increasingly vague risk situations instead of actual threats, as required by the Schengen Borders Code. In addition, border controls are often disproportionate.
Overall, border controls increasingly appear to have a socio-political symbolic effect. At the same time, the European Commission is finding it difficult to stop this structural erosion of the Schengen Borders Code and is only insufficiently fulfilling its mandate and role as "guardian of the treaties".
The way the German administrative courts deal with complaints against these internal border controls is similarly problematic. Here, the admissibility requirements are interpreted so narrowly that complaints against internal border controls are dismissed as inadmissible. Those affected therefore currently have no effective legal protection against unlawful internal border controls. This primarily affects EU citizens.
After years of systematic misapplication of the Schengen Borders Code, the reform of certain parts of the law was recently completed. You can read more about this here in my briefing. The current reform of the Schengen Borders Code is therefore a response to these challenges. On the one hand, it expands the member states' scope for action, for example in the case of increased migration controls at internal borders. On the other hand, the requirements for Member States' internal border controls are being tightened. Whether this will lead to a reduction in internal border controls in practice depends above all on the Commission's willingness to enforce the new rules of the Schengen Borders Code.
The Schengen Borders Code regulates entry conditions and border controls at the EU's external and internal borders. It deals, for example, with the question of the conditions under which internal border controls are possible.
The Borders Code is an important instrument for ensuring freedom of movement in Europe; however, Member States often do not comply with the Code. For example, they introduce internal border controls and disregard the legal basis for them. These controls jeopardize the Schengen area by hindering the free movement of people, goods and services, which is so important for the functioning of the EU and its associated countries (Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein). In border regions in particular, internal border controls not only cost a lot of money, but also restrict people's lives. At the same time, they often do not lead to the achievement of self-imposed goals, for example because they cannot prevent asylum applications, although this is repeatedly claimed.
The European Commission attempted to reform the Schengen Borders Code in 2017, but the member states were unable to agree on a common position.
After the Member States closed internal borders during the coronavirus pandemic without coordination at EU level, the Commission proposed a new reform that includes provisions for major health emergencies, such as pandemics.
The Commission proposal from December 2021 was controversial to say the least, followed by an even more problematic Negotiating position of the Member States. Despite the often emphasized importance of the Schengen area for the realization of freedom of movement in the EU, these texts would have led to Member States being able to introduce endless internal border controls under certain circumstances. The European Parliament, on the other hand, with its Negotiating position a compromise that protects the Schengen area.
Parallel to the reform process of the Schengen Borders Code, the European Court of Justice has ruled in a Basic ruling not only interpreted the duration of internal border controls under the current code very strictly, but also clearly stated that endless internal border controls violate the freedom of movement enshrined in EU law. This made it clear that freedom of movement is a right that EU member states may not restrict indefinitely. The co-legislators (Council and Parliament) must therefore find a balance between "freedom" and "security" that only works with a fixed time limit for internal border controls in the reformed Schengen Borders Code.
The interinstitutional negotiations led to a Compromiseon which we will vote in the European Parliament in the last plenary week of the legislative period (end of April 2024).
We are critical of the outcome of the negotiations because: The maximum Duration of internal border controls to be increased from the current 6 months to 3 years. However, Member States have a new, more detailed reporting obligation when they introduce internal border controls. In return, the Commission has slightly more duties and powers to monitor application. Experts doubt whether this will lead to border controls being more restricted.
It will also there are additional reasons to allow internal border controls. This sensibly includes a health emergency on a large scale, but also the highly controversial reason of unauthorized secondary migration of third-country nationals on a large scale. This effectively legalizes the practice that has been in place since 2015 of member states introducing internal border controls in order to "curb" "irregular" migration.
The outcome of the negotiations also includes a new procedure for the internal transfer of third-country nationals without the right to stay between member states. This procedure will probably lead to an increase in "racial profiling" and, in the worst case, even Chain deportations can take place.
The introduction of the term "Instrumentalization", Member States can limit the number of border crossing points and their opening hours and intensify border surveillance if they feel that they are being instrumentalized. However, the exact cases that are considered instrumentalization are not defined at all and are therefore left to the discretion of the member states. In addition, the possibilities for police checks and the general number of police officers deployed on the territory have been Control and monitoring technologies expanded. These additional provisions shall enter into force immediately after publication if Parliament and the Council have given their consent.
In practice, however, it remains to be seen whether the Member States will actually comply with these new rules and whether the Commission will use its powers as guardian of the treaties to ensure that they do.
The Committee on the Interior, in a Vote the negotiation results achieved with the Council on the Introduction of digital Schengen visas confirmed and thus adopted.
It is planned to introduce a QR code similar to the ESTA system in the USA, which will replace the conventional sticker in the passport. A common EU application platform will be set up to make the application and processing accessible online.
As my group's shadow rapporteur, I focused on ensuring that people with limited digital skills and applicants from regions with unstable Internet connections also have access to the digital visa application process. It was also important to me that the personal data of applicants be strongly protected.
In the Paper Shooters we, the Greens/EFA Group in the European Parliament, explain why Europe's internal border controls are wrong.
They jeopardise the possibility of travelling and living together in a common area without border controls. Border controls at the EU's internal borders separate families and friends, they create borders between long-integrated regions and neighbourhoods and undermine the development of new regional cooperation. They tangibly restrict our freedom.
Internal border controls against the Corona pandemic are also ineffective and illegal. They do nothing to prevent the spread of the virus and harm the economy and family life in border regions.
Our call for the protection of freedom of travel in the Schengen area is not a call for a „return to normality“. Containment measures against Corona are still necessary when infection rates are high. a plea against future border closures is not a call for a return to normality. Until a vaccine is available, we will have to limit ourselves and be cautious. We need to wear masks, wash hands, keep our distance and avoid mass gatherings.
However, the current focus on border controls is a distraction from real solutions. There are other measures that, unlike border controls, can effectively prevent the spread of the virus. It is therefore all the more unjustified to jeopardise the achievements of the Schengen area.
On the 35th anniversary of Schengen, I wrote a guest article in the Tagesspiegel. The title is „The most beautiful borders are open. “ It is gratifying that most internal borders have been open again since today. However, we should be careful not to close the borders again in a second wave. Otherwise we risk what is probably the EU's most important achievement. That we can move freely in large parts of this continent and settle wherever we want. that we can move freely in large parts of this continent and settle wherever we want.
On the 35th anniversary of Schengen, I have a Guest article in the Tagesspiegel written. 35 years ago, on 14 June 1985, five European Member States laid the foundations in the small town of Schengen for the fact that today 400 million people in the great Europe can travel and live together without restrictions. This achievement is at the heart of the European project.
Here you can read why the uncoordinated border closures were no good in the fight against Corona and what other, more helpful measures we should use in case of a second wave against the virus.
