RESOLUTION on the signing of the Supplementary Schengen Agreement
01 January 1991
RESOLUTION on the signing of the Supplementary Schengen Agreement
bacdoc May=1991
The European Parliament - December 1989
- having regard to the preambles of the EEC Treaty and of the
European Single Act, which explicitly confirm respect for the
principles of the UN Charter of Human Rights and the European
Convention on Human Rights and compliance with the law,
respectively,
- having regard to Article 5 of the EEC Treaty providing that the
Member States shall abstain from any measure which could jeopardize
the attainment of the objectives of the Treaty,
- having regard to Article 229 of the EEC Treaty providing for
`appropriate' relations of the Commission with the UN agencies,
- having regard to the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status
Refugees and the additional 1967 Protocol, signed and ratified by
ail Member States, in particular the preamble and Articles 31, 33
and 35 of the 1951 Convention (UNHCR), all providing for
cooperation with the UNHCR in matters relating to refugees,
- having regard to Annex 9 of the 1944 Chicago convention on
International Aviation, prohibiting fines on airlines transporting
passengers with inadequate documents,
- having regard to Article 169 of the EEC Treaty which confirms the
commission's role as guardian of the Treaty,
A. aware that the rush to sign a Supplementary Schengen Agreement on
15 December 1989 is an attempt to avoid parliamentary and public
debate on an issue which is vital for the Europe we are to create
and for the legal protection and human rights position of persons
living in the European community,
B. concerned that the Supplementary Schengen Agreement could have a
detrimental effect on refugees and migrant workers by tightening up
the considerable restrictions on such people to enter the five
states concerned at a level of the most restrictive state,
C. concerned that the nationals of no leas than 98 countries will
require visas for entry into the Schengen states,
D. considering that the Supplementary Schengen Agreement could result
in uncontrolled police competences, which can lead to discretionary
policy action and information gathering,
E. concerned that the Supplementary Schengen Agreement endanger-i the
legal protection, the right of defence and the right to privacy of
individuals,
F. concerned that the secret discussions, without democratic control
by parliamentary supervision, on matters of police action, internal
and external security and immigration, namely those affecting
refugees, by Member States acting outside the competence of the
European institutions, within fora such as Schengen, TREVI and the
ad hoc Immigration Group, violate the aforementioned conventions
and democratic principles,
G. concerned that the commission's 'White Paper, endorsed by the
Member States governments provides for a draft directive on `the
coordination of the rules concerning the right of asylum and the
status of refugees', thereby implicitly confirming its competence
in this matter,
H. concerned that the inclusion of policies related to internal
security matters, visas, right of asylum and refugee status in the
list of essential measures to be implemented by the so-called Group
of Coordinators set up at the initiative of the European Council of
Rhodes in December 1988 implies a reaffirmation of the Commission's
competence in such matters,
I. concerned that proposals adopted by the Schengen states are likely
to be adopted by the rest of the European Community after 1992,
J. taking notice of the resolution of the Council of the Bars and Law
Societies of the European Community of 28 October 1989, which
mentions that the `innovations