What about the Neighbours? The Impact of Schengen along the EU’s External Borders

Joanna Apap and Angelina Tchorbadjiyska assessed the impact of Schengen along the EU’s external borders. In the first part of the presentation, Apap started by raising two questions: to what extent can there be flexibility in implementing Schengen rules to prevent marginalising the new EU neighbours, and what can the EU neighbours do in the short, medium and long term to promote trust and to one day hope to come off the Schengen ‘negative list’.

After looking at the Commission Communication on «Wider Europe - Neighbourhood», as well as at the Schengen legal themes, tools and principles, Apap pointed out how over the last years the EU has communicated a paradoxical discourse by promoting good neighbourly relations while at the same time emphasizing the need to implement strictly the Schengen acquis concerning border controls and visa regimes. She stressed that from the point of view of human contacts and cross-border cooperation the main problem of a strict application of Schengen is that it will affect adversely the social, economic al, political and cultural dimensions of living in the external border regions.

Apap then explained three different models of flexible border practice, i.e. the cases of Spain, Portugal and Greece, which outline possible solutions when a country has either a specific geographic position or special relations with third countries. First, in a Declaration attached to the Accession Treaty, Spain negotiated the continuation of the specific arrangements for visa exemptions for local border traffic between Ceuta and Melilla and the two Moroccan provinces that border them - Tetuan and Nador. Those Moroccan nationals resident in the latter provinces and who wish to enter the territory of the towns of Ceuta and Melilla are not subject to the visa requirement. Second, the Declaration of Portugal refers to its Visa Waiver Agreement with Brazil. On accession to Schengen, Portugal undertook the responsibility to readmit to its territory Brazilian nationals who having entered the territories of other Schengen countries via Portugal are intercepted in their territory after the legally allowed period for which they were admitted. Finally, Greece became full Schengen member in 1999. Yet during a period of seven years, this country needed to find a solution to serve its non-Schengen neighbours in order not to seriously obstructing the cross-border traffic particularly in relation to Albania. One of the solutions found was the issuing of visas with limited territorial validity. Such visas are allowed under the Schengen agreement but under certain conditions.

In the second part of the presentation, Angelina Tchorbadjiyska applied some of the insights of Apap’s view to an outsiders’ experience: the case of Bulgaria. She commenced her presentation stressing that following the incorporation of the Schengen borders acquis into the EC Treaty, a new Regulation on the countries whose nationals require a visa to enter the EU territory was adopted by the Council in March 2001 and Bulgaria was removed from the black list (and therefore exempted of the mandatory visa requirement). Tchorbadjiyska pointed out that the Commission report noted the following matters as relevant to the lifting of the visa requirements: Bulgaria introduced new passports meeting the requirements of the EU with regard to safety measures against forgery. Also, the facilities for issuing visas at the border were abolished and criminal sanctions and fines for irregular border crossing and forged documents were set. Concerning sanctions on illegal emigration to the member states, Bulgaria also introduced legislation making it a crime to commit an offence against the immigration law of any member state. Further, sanctions were established on the facilitation of illegal immigration/emigration. Currently, Bulgaria is also aligning its visa policy to that of the EU - it is in the process of introducing visa requirements for Georgians, Russians, Ukrainians and Tunisians. Finally staffing and equipment at Bulgarian borders were additionally provided. Tchorbadjiyska then concluded that all these changes may show the path for some of the other countries being included in the negative visa list for being removed from it.

After pointing out a series of policy recommendations, both Apap and Tchorbadjiyska concluded that there is a need to define the exact scope of flexibility for candidate countries in the implementation of the Schengen acquis and identify the actors responsible for these competencies. A climate of trust and cooperation must be promoted between member states, candidate countries and their future eastern neighbours. Further, an analysis of the potentially flexible practices and assess the viability of exporting these to other parts of the future border needs to be carried out.

Back to the programm