—

having regard to the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union (11997D/PRO/02),

—

having regard to Article 4(2) of the 2005 Act of Accession,

—

having regard to the draft Council decisions on the full application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania of 29 September 2010 (14142/2010) and of 8 July 2011 (14142/1/2010),

—

having regard to the draft Council decision on the framework for the full application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania of 7 December 2011 (14302/3/11),

—

having regard to its legislative resolution of 8 June 2011 on the draft Council decision on the full application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania (1),

—

having regard to the conclusions of the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 9 and 10 June 2011, 22 and 23 September 2011, 25 and 26 October 2012, 7 and 9 March 2013, and 5 and 6 December 2013,

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 October 2011 on the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to Schengen (2),

—

having regard to the Commission’s eighth biannual report on the functioning of the Schengen area of 15 December 2015 (COM(2015)0675),

—

having regard to its resolution of 30 May 2018 on the annual report on the functioning of the Schengen area (3),

—

having regard to the Council decision (EU) 2017/1908 of 12 October 2017 on the putting into effect of certain provisions of the Schengen acquis relating to the Visa Information System in the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania (4),

—

having regard to the draft Council decision on 18 April 2018 on the putting into effect of the remaining provisions of the Schengen acquis relating to the Schengen Information System in the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania (15820/1/2017),

—

having regard to its legislative resolution of 13 June 2018 on the draft Council decision on the putting into effect of the remaining provisions of the Schengen acquis relating to the Schengen Information System in the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania (5),

—

having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0365/2018),

A.

whereas Bulgaria and Romania adopted the Schengen acquis upon their accession to the European Union in 2007; whereas in 2008 Bulgaria issued its declaration of readiness to start the evaluations carried out by the Schengen Evaluation Working Group (SCH-EVAL), comprising experts from Schengen Member States; whereas in 2007 and 2008 Romania issued its declaration of readiness to start the evaluations carried out by SCH-EVAL;

B.

whereas the completion of the Schengen evaluation process for Bulgaria and Romania and the state of preparedness of the two countries to implement all the provisions of the Schengen acquis were confirmed by SCH-EVAL experts, and by the Council in its conclusions of 9 and 10 June 2011; whereas in its draft decision of 8 July 2011, the Council verified that the necessary conditions for the application of the Schengen acquis had been met in all areas, namely data protection, air borders, land borders, police cooperation, the Schengen Information System, sea borders and visas; whereas in addition to the challenge of managing external borders of the European Union, the completion of the Schengen evaluation process has entailed both countries fundamentally restructuring their border surveillance systems and investing in increased law enforcement capacity; whereas according to the 2005 Act of Accession, the successful completion of the Schengen evaluation procedures is the only prerequisite for the full application of the Schengen acquis, including the abolition of checks at internal land, sea and air borders; whereas Bulgaria and Romania’s state of preparedness to apply the Schengen acquis in full has been acknowledged by heads of state and government in the Council on multiple occasions, as well as by the Commission and Parliament, most recently in the Commission communication of 27 September 2017 and Parliament’s resolution of 30 May 2018;

C.

whereas in its draft decision of 29 September 2010, the Council proposed the full application of the Schengen acquis in Bulgaria and Romania and the abolition of checks at internal land, sea and air borders; whereas in its legislative resolution of 8 June 2011, Parliament approved this decision and asked the Council to consult Parliament again if it intended to substantially amend it;

D.

whereas in September 2011 the Council Presidency presented a proposal for partial implementation of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in Bulgaria and Romania, namely the abolition of checks at internal sea and air borders only, while envisaging a separate decision, at a subsequent stage, as regards land borders;

E.

whereas in its conclusions, the Justice and Home Affairs Council confirmed on multiple occasions its commitment to base any future decision on the abolition of checks at internal borders for Bulgaria and Romania on a two-step approach; whereas the adoption of that decision by the Justice and Home Affairs Council has been repeatedly deferred;

F.

whereas with the Council decision of 12 October 2017 Bulgaria and Romania were granted passive access to the Visa Information System; whereas in its draft decision of 18 April 2018 the Council proposed the full application of the remaining provisions of the Schengen acquis relating to the Schengen Information System in both Member States;

G.

whereas neither the 2005 Act of Accession nor the Schengen evaluation mechanism provide for setting different timeframes for the abolition of checks at internal land, sea and air borders; whereas all previous enlargements of the Schengen area were established with a single legal act;

H.

whereas the Schengen area is an unique arrangement and one of the greatest achievements of the European Union, allowing the free movement of people through internal Schengen borders; whereas this has been made possible through a variety of compensatory measures, such as the establishment of the Schengen Information System (to reinforce the exchange of information), as well as the creation of an evaluation mechanism to verify the implementation of the Schengen acquis by Member States and foster mutual trust in the functioning of the Schengen area;

I.

whereas the maintenance of internal border controls in the Union and their reintroduction in the Schengen area has a serious impact on the lives of European citizens and all those who benefit from the principle of free movement within the EU, and seriously undermines their trust in the European institutions and integration; whereas this entails direct operational and investment costs for cross-border workers, tourists, road freight transporters and public administrations, with crippling effects on the economies of the Member States and the functioning of the internal market of the EU; whereas the maintenance of internal border controls for Bulgaria and Romania has a negative impact on the exports and imports from and to both Member States, as well as on the transport operations from and to some of Europe’s largest southern civilian fleet and freight ports, meaning lost benefits and increased spending; whereas estimates of the costs linked to the reintroduction of border controls for the European Union range between EUR 0,05 billion and EUR 20 billion in one-off costs and EUR 2 billion in annual operating costs (6);

J.

whereas the maintenance of internal border controls in the Union and their reintroduction in the Schengen area appears linked to a perception of threats to public policy and internal security, rather than sound evidence of the actual existence of a serious threat; whereas the abolition of checks at internal borders as a result of the full application of the Schengen acquis in Member States that have already acceded has not led to higher crime rates; whereas the Schengen enlargement of 2007 is associated with lower acquisitive crime rates in both the newly acceding Schengen Member States and existing Schengen Member States, and has not increased the perception of insecurity among EU citizens (7);

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.