MEPs question liability in EU border guard proposal

MEPs on Monday (29 February) quizzed the EU Commission on the proposed European Border and Coast Guard that aims help member states with protecting external borders of the bloc, even if the member state does not agree with the intervention.

The proposal by the commission put forward last December attempts to tackle the problem of member states failing to protect the external borders of the EU.

Under the proposal, a beefed-up Frontex, the EU’s border agency, pooling in national capabilities would be able to intervene in a member state under disproportionate pressure even against that country’s will, if the passport-free Schengen area is at risk.

The controversial proposal is the latest attempt by the EU Commission to tackle the issue of protecting the external borders of the EU in the midst of an unprecedented influx of migrants.

Under an ambitious timetable, the Dutch presidency of the EU Council is set to come to a political agreement between member states and the European Parliament on the proposal by the end of July, and the aim is to have the new border guard agency operation during the summer.

Members of the civil liberties, justice and home affairs committee challenged Matthias Ruete, the head of the Directorate General for Migration and Home Affairs, on that deadline.

Liberal and green MEPs expressed worry that because of the EU agency intervening against the will of the member states, legal responsibility during the operation is blurred.

They also expressed the need for better protection of fundamental rights under the proposal.

Ska Keller i, Green MEP from Germany warned that the proposal is giving Frontex “unprecedented levels of competences to intervene in member states, yet fundamental rights protections and parliamentary and public controls is not keeping up on that.”

She also highlighted that there is no impact assessment done by the Commission on the proposal, and questioned why the Commission is in such a hurry with the proposal.

Several other MEPs also questioned the issue of legal responsibility shared between the member states and the EU border guard in case for instance fundamental rights are infringed.

EU Commission's Matthias Ruete said the EU is facing an existential crisis, that is why the proposal needs to move as fast as possible.

“There is enormous pressure also from our citizens to see if we can move for a more collective management of external borders,” he said, adding that the proposal reflects the new political challenges of the EU.

He highlighted that the member state, where the intervention would take place, needs to agree to a joint operational plan, and there is no way the Commission can force that country to cooperate. “We can take the member state to court, that's all” he added.

Reute stressed the intervention is based on a common decision.

The EP i committee is expected to vote on the proposal, for which Latvian MEP Artis Pabriks i rapporteur is responsible for, in May.

Pabrisk said the timetable is difficult, but manageable.

“If we succeed with this file, we can show to our electorate that the EU is serious, and efficient,” he told fellow MEPs.