EUROPEAN AND INTERNATIONAL
JUSTICE HOME AFFAIRS
SCHENGEN
Schengen, a village at the point where Luxembourg borders France and Germany
= birthplace of the partnership (Schengen agreement) between the Benelux countries,
France and Germany
The Schengen acquis has been integrated into the European union
1. ORIGIN AND HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
1.1. CONTEXT
Even though the systematic custom controls on goods at the borders between EC
(=European Community) member states had been lifted, the control on persons had not
been lifted
Free movement of persons as an EC notion did not imply the lifting of control on persons at
the borders, on the contrary
Free movement for EC citizens required EC citizenship to be documented at the border
Because this resulted in long waiting time at the French-German border, there was an
agreement signed in 1984 in Saarbrucken, to abolish the controls on persons at their
border.
In doing so, France and Germany in fact followed the early example of the Benelux
countries, which had already lifted systematic controls at their internal borders
As a result, the five countries signed the so-called Schengen Agreement in 1985, in
which they agreed to the gradual abolition of internal border controls for persons at all
their common borders
The Schengen Implementation Convention (= SIC) was signed in 1990
1
,1.2. AIMS
1.2.1. LIFTING INTERNAL BORDER CONTROLS FOR PERSONS
The Schengen Implementation Convention (SIC) established a free movement of persons,
lifting controls at the internal borders, whereas the controls at the external borders of the
Schengen states were reinforced
To implement the lifting of internal borders, a distinction needed to be made between
two types of ‘movement’
1.) Intra-Schengen movement = movement within the Schengen area
Border control for persons no longer existed for them
2.) External border movement = movement in and out the Schengen area
Those controls were reinforced for them
From then on, airports needed to distinguish ‘intra-Schengen travelers’, who are not subject
to controls and ‘other travelers’, who are subject to controls
1.2.2. FLANKING MEASURES
To support the policy regulating the entry of persons into the Schengen area, several
flanking measures were introduced to make it work in practice
CARRIERS LIABILITY
Anyone bringing third-country nationals into the Schengen area is liable for the repatriation
costs should it turn out that these persons do not possess the required travel and residence
documents
It has been picked up at the level of the European Union, where it was further developed
and complemented with a system of fines
OBLIGATION TO REGISTER
Providers of accommodation were obliged to register the name, citizenship and ID number
of all guests
These registration cards must be available to the competent authorities in order to
support them in their duties to prevent danger
2
,HANDLING ASYLUM APPLICATIONS & EURODAC
The Schengen Implementing Convention (SIC) established a mechanism to determine a
single state competent (1 land bevoegd maken) to deal with an asylum application
submitted in any of the Schengen states.
The lead principle: to put the responsibility for handling asylum applications with the so-
called country of first entry and to allow other states, confronted with the application of an
asylum seeker who had first entered the Schengen area elsewhere, to return the asylum
seeker concerned to that state of first entry
De verantwoordelijkheid voor het behandelen van asielaanvragen ligt bij het land waar de
asielzoeker eerst binnenkwam in de Schengen-zone elk ander land dat geconfronteerd wordt met
de aanvraag van een asielzoeker die eerst een ander land van de Schengen-zone binnenkwam, mag
die persoon terugsturen naar dat eerste land
Only by the end of 2000, the EU has taken steps to make the above system more proof
(meer waterdicht) by adopting the Eurodac Regulation, which has taken effect in 2003
From then onwards, Member States were given access to Eurodac, an EU-wide database
where they needed to store the fingerprints of asylum applicants and which
automatically compares newly stored fingerprints with already stored fingerprints
This made it possible to avoid asylum fraud under a fake identity
A recast Eurodac regulation has been proposed in 2016, aiming to radically widen the scope
of Eurodac to a database in which Member States will also store and check fingerprint data
of thirdcountry nationals or stateless persons who are not applicants for international
protection and have irregularly crossed the external border or are found to be staying
irregularly in the EU
SCHENGEN VISA FOR SHORT STAY & VIS
The information exchange regarding visa applications had to be improved
Given the possibility for citizens to move freely within the Schengen area, a common
understanding with respect for 2 criteria had to be established
1) Common criteria based on which non-Schengen nationals would be either allowed or
refused entry into the Schengen area had to be agreed upon
2) The Schengen countries had to establish uniform visa criteria for foreigners, i.e.
thirdcountry nationals or non-EC nationals, who remain in the Schengen area for less
than three months
In order to facilitate information exchange, the Visa Information System (VIS) was
developed
It allows Schengen countries to exchange visa information and check if someone
presenting himself at the external border of the Schengen area possesses a valid visa to
enter
3
, OPERATIONAL POLICE AND JUDICIAL COOPERATION
The SIC prioritized an improved cooperation between police and judicial authorities to
compensate for the removal of internal borders and respond to the possibility for criminals
to actively abuse their right to move freely in the Schengen area
Crossborder observation and pursuit was regulated, and provisions regarding the use of
firearms and ammunition were introduced
Beter samenwerking om de opheffing van de binnengrenzen te compenseren & de mogelijkheid voor
criminelen om hun recht op vrij verkeer te misbruiken, aanpakken
INFORMATION EXCHANGE VIA SIS
Information exchange was improved through the introduction of the so-called Schengen
information system (SIS) allowing competent authorities, predominantly in the context of
their tasks to monitor the Schengen external border and to issue alerts in their national part
of the SIS (NSIS) the alerts relate to:
Foreigners who should be denied access to the Schengen area
Persons for whom a provisional arrest is warranted with a view to subsequent
extradition
Missing minors
Persons intelligence services considering a threat to national security
Stolen vehicles or money
Besides inserting their own alerts, competent authorities can also consult alerts entered by
counterparts from other states
This caused technical hurdles, the development of a second-generation SIS (SIS II) was
necessary
The SIS II was supplemented with a mechanism to exchange bilaterally additional
information that can be required to validate alerts
To facilitate this kind of exchange, so-called SIRENE bureaus (supplementary
information request at the national entry) were installed in each Schengen
country
Furthermore, an important corpus of data protection rules was elaborated
4