Schengen: Joint Supervisory Authority denied resources(feature)
01 May 1999
The Schengen Joint Supervisory Authority's (JSA) annual report published in March contains a catalogue of issues on which the JSA feels its views have been ignored.
JSA demands and decisions ignored
During 1998 the JSA put forward a series of proposals: i) to include its decisions under the process of incorporating the Schengen acquis; ii) providing technical and administrative support; iii) providing for a small increase in its already small annual budget. All of these proposals were rejected by the Schengen Executive Committee:
"Despite all the initiatives and proposals put forward by the JSA, we did not see the Executive Committee adopt any of the measures to increase its human, technical and financial resources as promised. For there to be true democratic checks, it is not sufficient for there to be an independent authority, it is essential that that authority be given the necessary means and instruments to function. This is particularly important in view of developments in police information systems (Europol, Eurodac and the Customs Information System) and improvements in the means of cooperation available to combat large-scale organised crime.
It is therefore important that the means of cooperation between the Joint Supervisory Authorities, which are responsible for safeguarding the fundamental values of freedom and citizenship in relation to each system, be strengthened. It is vital that within the European Union, the correct formula be found to ensure the SIS remains secure and that there is effective and independent supervision of the system."
Of particular concern to the JSA was that when their role was transferred with the incorporation of the Schengen acquis in the acquis communautaire of the EC and EU it should have a proper staff and budget. Both requests were rejected, even though out of 70 Schengen Secretariat staff transferred to the Secretariat General of the Council only one-fifth of one person's time was available to them. The report says this was due to a "blatant lack of support from Schengen's decision-making bodies".
On 29 March the chair of the JSA, Mr Labescat, presented their views to the Schengen Acquis Working Party - SIS Integration. He told the meeting that staff had to be "at the disposal of the JSA and be supervised and directed by the Chairman of the JSA." Little support was forthcoming from the member states and the Council's Legal Service said that: "the General Secretariat staff was accustomed to serve delegations in an independent way to the general satisfaction of all concerned."
Nor have the JSA's formal opinions been received much better. In 1998 the response of the Central Group of Schengen (the equivalent of the old K4 Committee) said that many of their findings could not be followed-up because of "technical problems" and wthey were only sent to the JSA nine months after it had been discussed by the SIS Steering Committee. The JSA report comments: "The JSA did not wish to embark upon a pointless controversy and therefore simply acknowledged the report". This reaction is not surprising as the SIS Steering Committee told the JSA that the Schengen Convention did not lay down any obligation to implement the JSA's recommendations.
Schengen figures
The official figures for "alerts" (record entries) entered into the SIS since its launch in March 1995 are as follows:
1995: 3,868,529
1996: 4,592,949
1997: 5,592,240
1998: 8,826,856 (5 March 1998)
These figures are simply based on the total number of "alerts" held in the SIS on a single day, they do not reflect the numbers deleted or added during the course of a year (see analysis below). "Alerts" held on the SIS include "persons" (for example, those wanted for arrest, extradition, to be refused entry, for discrete surveillance) and "objects" (vehicles, arms, documents including passports and identity cards, bank notes).
As the JSA annual report observes the SIS can be consulted<