Tuesday

23rd Apr 2019

EU states should control new border force, MEPs say

  • The new EU border guard is set to be operational by the summer (Photo: Frontex)

Deployment of the EU's new border force should be controlled by member states, not by the European Commission, an MEP's report discussed in parliament on Monday (11 April) has concluded.

Artis Pabriks, rapporteur on the European Border and Coast Guard proposal, said in his report that the right to intervene should be decided by the Council, which represents member states, “to further emphasise the sovereignty”.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Support quality EU news

Get instant access to all articles — and 18 year's of archives. 30 days free trial.

... or join as a group

The European Commission had initially proposed last December that it should control interventions by the new border force.

EU leaders hope that the new border force will be operational by the summer, and will eventually replace the current Warsaw-based border agency, Frontex.

It would have the right to intervene in emergencies if a member state persistently failed to protect the bloc’s external boundaries, if national action is lacking and if there is a threat to the Schengen area as a whole.

In a controversial aspect of the proposal, the border force could also be deployed even if the member state concerned rejected intervention.

Pabriks, a Latvian centre-right MEP, sided with member states in his draft report.

“Given the sensitivity of the matter, which is clearly linked to the sovereignty of the EU member states, it should be the council and not the commission which takes such a decision,” his report said.

If the member state does not comply with the council’s decision, reintroducing border controls in neighbouring member states “might be necessary” to protect the Schengen area.

The draft report says: “The Council may as a last resort, to protect the common interests within the area without internal border control and taking into account the principles of proportionality and necessity, recommend that one or more member states decide to reintroduce border control at all or specific parts of their internal borders for a period of up to six months.”

That period may be extended no more than three times.

MEPs in the civil liberties, justice and home affairs committee generally welcomed his ideas, but emphasised the need for clear areas of responsibility and accountability between the new EU border agency and the member state concerned when European border guards “intervene”.

Peter Niedermuller, the shadow rapporteur for the socialist group in the EU assembly, said: “Liability and accountability for the action of the agency together with member state are blurred in many areas, like the cases of return, fundamental rights, data protection, relation with third countries.”

“Further clarification is needed,” he added, saying the commission's proposal is not at all clear on who is responsible, for what, when and where.

Some MEPs also criticised the idea of a European “return” office within the new agency that would be tasked with sending back illegal migrants. They said the border agency’s role as guardian of the external borders should not be mixed up with asylum policy.

A vote is planned in the committee on 24 May. Negotiations among member states and the EU parliament will then begin.

New EU border force: 'right to intervene'

New EU border force, to be proposed Tuesday, would have “right to intervene” if member states fail to protect external boundaries, a draft text, seen by EUobserver, says.

Investigation

Frontex resource limitations put agency in straitjacket

The EU border agency has the potential to police Europe's borders, save lives and reduce human trafficking, but lack of means and political will reduces it to a resource-poor coordinating agency, says a report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

MEPs question EU border guard proposal

Leftist and Green MEPs criticise proposals that would allow EU border guards greater powers to intervene in member states, questioning legal responsibility for rights violations.

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Counter BalanceSign the petition to help reform the EU’s Bank
  2. UNICEFChild rights organisations encourage candidates for EU elections to become Child Rights Champions
  3. UNESDAUNESDA Outlines 2019-2024 Aspirations: Sustainability, Responsibility, Competitiveness
  4. Counter BalanceRecord citizens’ input to EU bank’s consultation calls on EIB to abandon fossil fuels
  5. International Partnership for Human RightsAnnual EU-Turkmenistan Human Rights Dialogue takes place in Ashgabat
  6. Nordic Council of MinistersNew campaign: spot, capture and share Traces of North
  7. Nordic Council of MinistersLeading Nordic candidates go head-to-head in EU election debate
  8. Nordic Council of MinistersNew Secretary General: Nordic co-operation must benefit everybody
  9. Platform for Peace and JusticeMEP Kati Piri: “Our red line on Turkey has been crossed”
  10. UNICEF2018 deadliest year yet for children in Syria as war enters 9th year
  11. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic commitment to driving global gender equality
  12. International Partnership for Human RightsMeet your defender: Rasul Jafarov leading human rights defender from Azerbaijan

Latest News

  1. Ukraine comic-president invited to EU capitals
  2. Trump's Israel plan to 'test' EU resolve
  3. Romania drafts EU code on NGO migrant rescues
  4. Bulgaria, Hungary, and Malta shamed on press unfreedom
  5. EU drafts $20bn US sanctions list in aviation dispute
  6. Brunei defends stoning to death of gay men in EU letter
  7. US Democrats side with Ireland on Brexit
  8. Wifi or 5G to connect EU cars? MEPs weigh in

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us