Talk:Schengen Agreement/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ireland wants to join

I've read a few articles suggesting that Ireland wants to join Schengen, but was effectively vetod by the UK using rules in the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921. Anybody know more about this? Seabhcan 11:38, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What are the reasons to UK not wanting to join? ✏ Sverdrup 14:19, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From Foreign Office :

"Maintaining the UK's frontier controls is the most effective way for us to control immigration and combat international and organised crime. Given our island status, incoming traffic is naturally channelled through our ports and airports, giving us a particular advantage in controlling our frontiers. Other EU countries, by contrast, have to police long land borders, which is more difficult, and they therefore place a greater emphasis on in-country controls (such as identity cards) rather than frontier controls."

From Irish Centre for Migration Studies:

"Measures comparable to the freedom of movement provided for in the Schengen acquis have been in place between the UK and Ireland from the early 1950s. UK subjects and Irish citizens have the right freely to travel between the two jurisdictions without having to carry a passport. For this very reason, it has never been viewed as practicable for Ireland to adopt the full Schengen arrangements in the absence of a British decision to do likewise, as the logical outcome would be the imposition of border controls between the UK and Ireland. In the case of the North/South land frontier this would be virtually unworkable, while enormous inconvenience would undoubtedly be caused to people in two societies which, in trading and labour market terms, are still highly integrated."

Seabhcán 13:23, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for the research! ✏ Sverdrup 17:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also from "Select Committee on European Scrutiny TUESDAY 30 MARCH 1999" [1]

8. On the question of the relationship between the United Kingdom and Ireland, the briefing notes I have seen say that because of the consequence of the passport free relationship we are tied in together. Is there any indication that there might be circumstances where Ireland might find it is in its interests to sign up fully to Schengen and leave us in the situation where we have to sort out our relationship with the passport free zone that we have created? It seems a position where possibly strains could exist. Are there any indications that there are separate discussions going on with Ireland?

(Kate Hoey) No. Relations between the ministers from Ireland and the ministers from the United Kingdom are extremely good. There were pre-discussions obviously between the Home Secretary and the Minister for Justice in Ireland on this. They were very clear on our views and we were very clear on their views. There has never been any hint that they would in any way want to disrupt what is an extremely good working relationship, not just on the whole question of Schengen but particularly on the cooperation between the Garda and the Royal Ulster Constabulary that has been extremely good in combating terrorism activities. I really do not think that is going to happen. It helps us as well in terms of getting the support of the other European countries for our bids to opt in to certain aspects of Schengen because Ireland is doing it at the same time. It is going to be quite difficult, for example, for Spain to argue a logical argument opposing us going in, using Gibraltar if, at the same time, they are going to support Ireland. I do not think any sensible European colleague from other countries would see that as something that was rational. That does not mean to say it will not happen, but it is certainly not a rational position. I would hope that our close working relationship will continue.

Seabhcán 11:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've writen up all I could find about the Ireland-UK situation into a new Common Travel Area article. Can someone check this for me? 22:34, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

i would like to know why Ireland didnt join in the begining anyway?

Britain and Ireland have a common traval area and strong economic ties since long before the EU existed. 217.7.209.108 12:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Britain also has the problem with 'Asylum seekers' from Sangatte in France trying to use the Channel Tunnel to get to England; would adherence to the Schengen agreement let them into Britain (what's wrong with France?). But Sarkosy wants to close the camp at Sangatte.

In Britain, as in the whole EU, the Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national is applicable. It determines which Member State is responsible for processing an asylum application. If some asylum seeker had been in France before, that asylum seekers's would have to be processed by France. However, if it is impossible to prove how the asylum seeker got into the United Kingdom, but is "just there", the UK would be responsible. However, I doubt if the UK's joining the Schengen zone would lead to a larger influx of undocumented asylum seeker, as security checks at ports and the Channel Tunnel could well be maintained, and suspicious persons would be detected there before entering the UK. It is the same situation as with air traffic within the Schengen zone: No undocumented alien really would be wanting to enter a plane within the zone or even a flight within one single member state, since the flight operators routinely demand some identification, even if only a customer, credit or debit card. --DanSchultz (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

European micro-states and Schengen

What is the relation between Schengen and Liechtenstein, Andorra, Vatican City, Monaco, San Marino? Signed agreements, pratical issues at borders (are there any passport controls, are visas required - for nationals of "big neighboor state", for nationals of Schengen states, for other nationals) Now, that Switzerland joins Schengen - what are the effects on Liechtenstein?

I remember reading something somewhere that Vatican City State, Monaco, San Marino are de-facto Schengen countries, while Andorra isn't, but I haven't found anything proving the latter statement, so I suppose it might have been outdated information and Andorra is also a de-facto Schengen country now. When Switzerland joins, Liechtenstein will also become a de-facto Schengen country. Nightstallion 05:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Liechtenstein will only be a semi-de-facto Schengen country. While there will be no border checks on the Swiss/Liechtenstein border, there will be borderchecks on the Austrian/Liechtenstein border (if I have understood things correctly). (Stefan2 12:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC))

There are currently no border controls between Liechtenstein and Switzerland, though there are between Liechtenstein and Austria, conducted by the Swiss authorities on the Liechtenstein side. If boarder controls cease between Switzerland and the Schengen area, they will cease between Liechtenstein and Austria as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.85.147 (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dependencies, Exclaves and Schengen

Why is Heligoland outside Schengen? Are other dependencies of Schengen states (France's, Portugal's, Norway's, Denmark's, etc.) part of the Schengen area? Any agreemnts and practical issues (passport checkings, visa requierments - for nationals of... as in the above post)

As far as I know: France's own Departements d'outre mer (Réunion, Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guiana) are within the Schengen treaty as they are integral parts of the French Republic. New Caledonia and Wallis and Futuna I don't know, as well as St. Pierre et Miquelon, the first I assume not. Portugal's Azores and Madeira are part because they are integral parts of the Portuguese Republic. Denmark's Faroe and Greenland are part of the Schengen treaty because they are part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Faroe Island also are part of the Nordic passport union, but Greenland never has been a part of it. About Norway's Svalbard and Jan Mayen and so on I don't know much. Perhaps this can help you at least a bit. --EBB 09:41, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And how about the British territory of Gibraltar? Particularly as the Spanish exclaves of Ceuta and Melitta in Morocco appear to be included?. I suppose the Channel Islands ie Guernsey, Jersey, Sark and the Isle of Man which are attached to Britain are also excluded? They are all Crown dependencies and British Islands. But Gibraltar is one of the British overseas territories (the only other one of these near Europe is/are the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus. See also European microstates.

Gibraltar is not part of the Schengen Area, and there are passport checks between Gibraltar and Spain. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are part of the Common Travel Area that takes in the UK and Ireland, although the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not actually part of the UK. They have their own immigration regulations, but that is rarely relevant for people travelling there from the UK for short stays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.85.147 (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And I agree with someone else that the problems with the Kaliningrad exclave of Russia (eg Russians travelling there from Russia) should be mentioned in the article Hugo999 (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Switzerland

The article does not explain whether Switzerland has implemented the treaty or not yet. Lysy 23:55, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done. Nightstallion 05:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I found an article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050605/ap_on_re_eu/switzerland_referendum. Enjoy. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The map needs to be updated -- Switzerland is still shown in light blue. I don't know how to do it. --Bob 04:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it doesn't - Switzerland still hasn't implemented Schengen, only ratified. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

According to a newspaper article this week, Switzerland is due to implement in late 2008. In practice, border controls on the Swiss external border have been gradually getting laxer for years. But, citizens of countries who require visas will still need a separate visa for Switzerland until then time. TiffaF 10:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

whoa! 2004-2008. it takes FOUR YEARS to implement? gosh..... i think the other larger countries moved much faster.

What are you talking about?! The original signatories to the treaty signed it in 1985 and implemented it in 1995 for the first time. Switzerland signed in 2004, ratified in 2005 and is to implement the agreement together with 8 new member states in late 2008. That is by all means much faster. Maartenvdbent 21:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

question to Ukcreation about microstates

Are you sure about your comment about the microstates? Paricipating in Schengen is not the same as "free movement aggreement with a Schengen member state". If Monaco has free movement aggreement with France, that does not automaticaly mean that it applies to Norway citizens crossing into Monaco or about Monaco citizens crossing into Norway. Also a "free movement agreement" may just mean that Andorra citizens can enter into Spain without visa, but that does not mean that there is no border checkpoints/crossings, that Andorra participates into SIS-I/II, etc. Ireland/UK and the other EU (also EEA/EFTA?) states have free movement agreements too, but Ireland/UK are outside the Schengen area. Maybe there are even more implications and incosistent things that I can not imagine/do not know, but anyway this paragraph needs reworking. If you have particular data and details on the microstates status/agreements it is better to write it instead of the vauge "are within the Schengen area by default"...Alinor 10:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, only just seen this comment. I don't currently have any data to hand, I'm afraid. I'll go and check back to find where I saw this statement in the next few weeks. I agree, though, it is far too vague a sentence. Ukcreation 22:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, I will make it less fact-like. I hope you find a good source soon to clear that issue...

Regarding microstates: As I've just added to the article, Liechtenstein will start its own negotiations regarding entry into the Schengen system in autumn, as evidenced by this article in the Austrian newspaper Der Standard. It seems we'll have to find definite information on Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, and the Vatican City State... I'm afraid I don't really have any idea as to where to start looking, though, since simple google searchs don't do the trick. Nightstallion 23:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We could e-mail their governments. Seriously. When I was looking for info on the Isle of Man's relationship to the EU, I emailed them on an email address I found at www.gov.im. I got a wonderfully detailed and helpful reply. But I'm afraid my french isn't good enough to deal with Andorra and Monaco. And I don't have any Italian at all. Seabhcán 07:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While my Spanish would probably be good enough to deal with Andorra (and my Latin should suffice for the Vatican City ;-)), I've only learned a bit of Italian and no French at all... How about simple English? I'd suppose they understand that, as well... But generally, I like the idea. Nightstallion 12:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've removed mentions of Andorra as they do not impact on Schengen. Hopefully this update clears up this whole thing about microstates. Sorry it's taken so long. Ukcreation 17:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Great! Only problem is that now neither Andorra nor Monaco are mentioned... — ナイトスタリオン _ㇳ–ㇰ — 18:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Switzerland not abolishing border checks after joining Schengen?

See here - [2]. How to understand this: "Customs checks on shoppers and trade will remain."?

It will probably be like Sweden against other countries like Denmark and Germany (but not Norway and Finland, no check there). There is no passport control there, but there is customs control, where travellers are picked on random basis (or skin color basis according to allegations) to be checked. Switzerland is not part of the EU and needs (wants) custums to be paid. /BIL 15:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

On trains into Switzerland all passports are checked ( at least the last time I visited ), but not all cars are stopped. Skin colour is almost a guarantee of getting checked. 217.7.209.108 12:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I traveled from Switzerland to Italy and back in August. There were borer control officers standing around and the car had to slow when approaching the border, but we were waved through. I did not see any car stopped. In 2004, when driving from Switzerland to France, the car was not even required to slow down. --Amcalabrese 15:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

All travellers arriving by train in Geneva (from France) seem to go through formal passport control, but arriving in by train Lausanne (also from France) there don't seem to be any checks at all. The last time I travelled from Switzerland to Italy by train, there were Italian (Schengen) passport checks — the officers appeared at one end of the carriage, checked two or three passports, looked around a bit, and left again), but no checks on the return trip into Switzerland. And travelling north from Zurich into Germany there was no check of any sort the last time I did the trip (a couple of years ago). 4 May 2008

Also, at Lausanne they used to pin up the times of the customs checks on the boats arriving from across the water in Evian, France; if you didn't want to be checked, presumably you didn't travel at those times. (But that was customs, not immigration.) 4 May 2008

Re: Microstates, once more

In the German wikipedia, the four microstates (sans Liechtenstein) are listed as having abolished border checks with Schengen countries, since they had had abolished border checks with their neighbour countries before the Schengen treaty even existed. They do not, however, normally participate in SIS and other advantages that Schengen membership offers. I think we should modify the paragraph as described above. Furthermore, I think we should introduce a third colour in the map for the four microstates which do not have border controls with Schengen countries (and perhaps a fourth for Liechtenstein?). Nightstallion 5 July 2005 16:34 (UTC)

Can someone confirm the info on the .de site? On the .en page is written the opposite about Andorra - "the border remains"... 62.204.151.1 6 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)

Switzerland (Again)

How can they implement the treaty if to my knowledge it is an EU treaty, and Switz. is not in the EU. Did I miss something in the article? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

First of all, the Schengen treaty, as stated in the article, was created independently of the EU structures. Secondly, even if it had been from the beginning embedded in EU structures, what would have been the problem? If Vatican and Monaco can mint Euro coins without being part of the EU, Switzerland can join the Schengen. Norway and Iceland already implements Schengen and they are not an EU member either. Aris Katsaris 01:58, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Suspension of Schengen after London Bombs

I've heard in a number of places that France 'temporarly' reimposed border controls following the bombs in London (the minister idiotically said: “If we don’t reinforce border controls when around 50 people die in London, I don’t know when I would do it.”, great reason!) [3]

Does anyone know the current situation? Did other countries withdraw? If you have a French Schengen Visa, can you still travel to other Schengen countries? Seabhcán 11:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

It was very short term : most of the border posts have long been removed so they couldn't impose full border controls in any case. 217.7.209.108 12:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Gaining Entry

"For citizens of countries not party to the Schengen treaty restrictions exist that govern the length of one's stay within the Schengen area."

This should be clarified. Does it refer to citizen of EU countries who have not signed Schengen (Ireland and UK)? Citizens of EU countries who have signed but not implimented it (10 new countries? To Swiss people, who are not EU, have signed, but not implimented? Non-EU citizens who don't require a visa (US, Canada, Japan, etc)?

I suppose it doesn't refer to people who enter the Schengen area with a visa, as different visas have different rules attached.Seabhcán 10:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

If EEA citizen:

Allowed to stay in the EEA part of Schengen for 90 days. Allowed to stay longer if, and only if, you register as resident in the country you're visiting. The previous sentence doesn't apply to Nordic citizens moving to another Nordic country, because of the Nordic Passport Union. Allowed to take employment etc. without any extra bureaucracy.

Allowed to stay in Switzerland for 90 days. Allowed to stay longer if, and only if, you apply for the appropriate residence permits. Permits required to take employment etc.

If Swiss citizen:

Allowed to stay in the EEA part of Schengen for 90 days. Allowed to stay longer if, and only if, you apply for the appropriate residence permits. Permits required to take employment etc.

Allowed to stay in Switzerland for an unlimited amount of time.

If non-EEA, non-Swiss citizen, entering without a visa:

Allowed to stay within Schengen for 90 days. Allowed to stay longer if, and only if, you apply for the appropriate residence permits, for which you may have to apply prior to entering Schengen. Not allowed to take employment etc. without applying for the appropriate permits, for which you may have to apply prior to entering Schengen.

If entering with a visa:

Length of stay and number of entries depend on the visa. Information on when you have to leave and what you may do is written on the visa and/or various permits.

In some cases it would be impossible to prove that someone has followed the above rules, because entry/exit stamps aren't always given. (Stefan2 18:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC))

documents needed by Schengen member state citizen to travel in another Schengen member state?

For example - Is it sufficient for a German citizen to bring his national ID card when travelling into France, or is it required that the German citizen brings his international passport? (this is interesting, becouse some states do not have ID cards; on the other side - the international passports in the most countries cost additionaly to be issued, etc.)

In many EU countries - France and Germany included - it is required by law to carry ID at all times. This means a national ID or Passport. However there are no border checks withing the Schengen area (which includes France and Germany) and police ID checks within the country are very rare in reality. Many people don't bother to carry id (and many Germans I've talked to say they have never been asked) However - it is probably a different story for minority groups - who likely get asked by police more often. The only states in the EU that don't have ID cards are the UK and Ireland - and they are not in Schengen. People from these countries have to - in theory - carry their passport at all times while on the mainland, because they don't have another form of ID. Seabhcán 12:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

So, If you are a Schengen member state citizen you can go to the other Schengen member states without anything more than an national ID card? OK. I think that this should be mentioned in the article somewhere along the line "no visas, no border checks" - to add "and only national ID requiered to travel - in contrast to traditional case when international passport is needed".

And what about Helgoland islands, extraterritorial posessions (Faroe Islands, Greenland, New Caledonia, etc.) - what is the situation for an Austrian citizen wanting to visit these places in regard to visas, border checks (at sea/air-ports), ID card/passport requierment, etc.? what about Ireland or Czech citizen (EU, but not Schengen)

I think its really two seperate processes. The Schengen treaty removed border checks. But whatever internal ID laws were in each country were left uneffected. I think that even before schengen, EU citizens could travel to other member states with only national id, but they were checked at the border. So the schengen treaty simply removed border checks.

For Irish people, they need to show their passport (which is their only national ID - however, Irish people who live in some other EU coutries are sometimes able to get IDs issued by these nations, without needing to become citizens of these countries. If they have a national ID they may show it) at their first entry point into the schengen area. After this there are no further border checks between Schengen countries (If you drive from France into Germany there is simply a sign at the roadside saying "Welcome to Germany". Also they road layout changes slightly) Any EU citizen entering Ireland need only show their national ID at the port. (Travel between the UK and Ireland is governed by the Common Travel Area.) I don't know about travel to external territories - but I doubt that a passport is required - there is probably just a border ID check.Seabhcán 18:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps Iceland is the only Schengen member that does not issue ID-cards for its citizens, the Icelandic Minstry of Foreign Affairs stresses that Icelanders must still bring their passport with them when traveling within Schengen as the passport is the only legitimate form of ID issued by the state. --Bjarki 13:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting - didn't know that. Thanks. Seabhcán 14:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Mh. So there's no national optional ID card at all in Iceland? Interesting. Driver's licenses do exist, though, don't they? That'd be a substitute for at least some people... ;) —Nightstallion (?) 06:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

In theory a drivers licence is not enough to travel across EU borders - although I know that people often do it and the police usually allow it. Seabhcán 09:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was wrong when I said that Iceland does not issue ID cards. I remembered that I have one that was buried deep in a drawer. It was issued to me when I was 14 (1996) and according to the statistics office website these cards are still issued to children on the year they become 14 years old. It has the English inscription: "Official Identity Card". People are not required by law to carry them though and there is no situation that actually requires this card, if you need to identify yourself (like when voting) it is enough to show a drivers licence or credit card. I actually don't remember having ever used this card for any purpose and I think most people don't even remember that they exist. It is pretty useless for identification purposes anyways as it displays a picture of a 14 year old child that does not look alot like me. :) --Bjarki 12:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The Irish government sends up a 'PPS' card when we turn 16. It doens't have a photo and it isn't exactly an ID card, but you need it about twice in your life - once when you start working for the first time, and second when you apply for a European Health Insurance Card. Seabhcán 12:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think, in reality according to my experience: If you travel by air, you should bring a passport, at least from some countries (like Sweden), because they can stop you from checking in. At least they have asked for it for intra-Schengen travel. They are security-aware and often don't take regulations lightly. If you travel by ground transport the national ID-card will be accepted, sometimes they ask might for the passport but accepts an ID-card. /17:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Iceland's lack of national ID-card: Sweden introduced one in autumn 2005, meaning during almost 5 years Swedes were told to bring a passport anyway. After half a year few people have applied, since it costs 50€ and no advertising was made, only info was through media. The main difference between a passport and a national ID-card is the size. /BIL 17:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Not only does Iceland issue ID cards, even to this day but the law also states that you are required to present ID if asked to by police. N.B. it doesn't have to be that particular card as a driver's license and various other cards are considered valid. -- Sigurbjartur 01:13, 22 June 2006

According to what laws is this?--Bjarki 14:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Law number 90 from 1996 "Police Law", chapter 3, article 15, paragraph 5 states: "Police is authorized to insinst that a person state their name, ID number and address and show an identification document to prove it" - http://www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/1996090.html -- Shelgason 19:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

In the Netherlands an ID card is compulsory and a driving license is not sufficient. As a foreigner living in the Netherlands I was issued with a residence permit which doubles up as an ID card and can be used for travelling within the Schengen countries which I have done often but only by ground travel.ScotDutchy 12:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)ScotDutchy

needed rewording of the microstates/special regions paragraph

• If the "exceptions" list is correct and full - then Denmark's Greenland and Faroe Islands territories are fully covered by Schengen (they are not an exception) - so this should be mentioned.
• The last sentence states that Liechtenstein will begin negotiations in 2005, so the paragraph above should be corrected appropriately (maybe describing the current status and mentioning that it will be changed to full Schengen participation after the finish of the 2005-negotiations)

More on Monaco

The External Relations section of the EU web site has this to say about Monaco:

Through France Monaco is also integrated into the Schengen area. Monegasque resident documents and the harbor and helicopter-port of Monaco were added to the list of French titles and border-crossings (Decision of the Executive Committee of 23 June 1998, SCH/Com-ex (98)19).

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/external_relations/monaco/intro/

The pages on the EU's relations with San Marino and Andora make no mention of Schengen or the relevenet borders, and I couldn't seem to find a page on the EU's relations with the Vatican. Roy Badami 19:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Yet more on microstates

Found the following on Wikitravel:

San Marino http://wikitravel.org/en/San_Marino

You should have no problems driving into San Marino. Border controls do not exist.

Andorra http://wikitravel.org/en/Andorra

Border control officers at both sides are generally fine.

However, these may be customs guards: Andorra is regarded as a non-EU member for agricultural products - CIA factbook. Definite evidence would be nice. Septentrionalis 02:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

When entering Andorra there are customs and passport checks.

Liechtenstein

Liechtenstein maintains a complete customs union with Switzerland and hence does not issue its own visas: if you can enter Switzerland, you can enter Liechtenstein, and there are no border formalities needed for crossing between the two countries.

So it would seem that Monaco and San Marino are de facto Schengen countries, Andorra is not. And Liechtenstein will become a de facto Schengen country when Switzerland implements the agreement.

As for the Vatican, does it have borders? Well, the Vatican is guarded by the Swiss Guard, but they're not exactly a passport control, and there's certainly no Italian passport check when you enter Italy from the Vatican, so I guess the Vatican is de facto in Schengen, too.

Roy Badami 19:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The Vatican is just about to request accession to the Schengen Treaty, Liechtenstein will become Schengen bordercountry and bordercontrols therefor must be implemented! Philipp 9:56, 16.1.2006

Not quite. Liechtenstein and Vatican City will both join the Schengen Agreement (or have at least stated they will apply). Monaco is, AFAIK, treated as if it were part of France as far as Schengen is concerned, and I haven't seen any definite information regarding Andorra and San Marino. —Nightstallion (?) 10:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 08:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move to Schengen Agreement

Schengen treaty → Schengen Agreement – Various inconsistent references to this agreement exist in Wp (Schengen treaty (current locale), Schengen agreement, etc.) without apparent rhyme or reason. I suggest a move/rename to the proposed locale for consistency (initial caps), namely to conform with notations on the English Europa portal and to hark of the most prevalent term online. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support as proponent. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It seems "Schengen Agreement" is the official name. Mushroom 21:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support per google test below (and capitalization fix). After moving, please create redirects for Schengen convention etc. Kusma (討論) 21:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with all of above – MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 22:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support, of course. —Nightstallion (?) 23:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support I believe the proposal is correct. Gryffindor 20:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Doesn't the website EPA mentioned actually mean the article should be at Schengen convention? All three titles are fine with me, though. Kusma (討論) 21:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I noted that (and I'm not against it if a consensus supported that); however:

• the Schengen Convention is described in the Wp article fully as the "Convention applying the Schengen Agreement", so I'd think (to not parse things excessively) that a Schengen Agreement article can properly deal with both the prior agreement and subsequent convention;
• there are no redirects in Wp for Schengen Convention nor Schengen convention (note the redlinks!), so I reckoned that the move should occur to one that already exists;
• lastly: there are 139,000 instances online of "Schengen Agreement", while only around one-third as many for "Schengen Convention" ... and even less for the current article name.

The key in this proposed move is for consistency (e.g., initial caps) given the numerous redirects regarding the agreement/article. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mildly bothered by *Image* renaming.

Nightstallion writes in an edit summary: "The map *should* be named SchengenAgreement though, so we'll replace all instances of the SchengenTreaty image with this one. Please cease obstructing our work."

Okay, I have to say that this may just be vanity on my part, since I was the first to create Image:SchengenTreaty_Map.png... but frankly I find it a bit annoying that we're for all intends and purposes destroying the edit history of an image for the mere reason that we now prefer a new name. There's no problem with renaming an article, because the edit history renames and can be viewed. But until such time as the wiki software allows image renaming, with transfer of edit histories, can we be a bit less eager to delete the edit history of images for the mere purpose of giving the images a name that we like a tiny bit more?

You know, for courtesy's sake?

It's not as if "Schengen Treaty" is an actually *wrong* name. It's still commonplace to refer to the Schengen Agreement as such, with tens of thousands of google finds.

Aris Katsaris 17:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concern, and am sorry if this is a problem for you, but I considered it important that the image should also have the name used in the article. (I know, I'm a pedant.) —Nightstallion (?) 17:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note; I too am a "pedant". I regret if this has caused any difficulty, but the move more stemmed from a desire for verisimilitude. The article has one name; I believed the image should hark of that for consistency. I considered moving the image (and attempted that with the talk page), but as you noted we're unable to do that. And how many images were linked to the former in Wp and the commons? Not many. There exist many duplicates for such images in Wp, and there's no real reason for either so I decided to obviate one.

Regarding the prevalence of Schengen treaty, you'll note that there are far fewer Google hits for it than for alternates (including the current article name), so it wasn't necessarily the right one either. Lastly, I question whether the edit history for the image was truly germane anyway, for which the initial authorship (though I don't dispute your contention) actually appeared to be from a redlinked account.

That being said, credit where it's due, and thanks for your work. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the "redlinked account" comment. My account's name is not redlinked (in the "en" wikipedia, anyway), and the edit history does indicate "Aris Katsaris" as the original maker (you can still see it if you've got admin rights).

When I glanced at the first author of the image – i.e., thw Wikipedian who first uploaded an image with the same name, preceding your upload of another image – it listed a redlinked account name (i.e., defunct, methinks). This doesn't appear to be you. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Other than than it wasn't hard work at all, some simple coloring of a standard map, so in *this* case, I don't have much of an issue. (Not to mention that I had after all released it Public Domain). The issue is however gonna be trickier in the case of more extensive work done by others, and in cases where the work isn't PD but GFDL instead. In such future cases I urge more caution to be used. Aris Katsaris 18:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Great; I understand. I also carried out everything with the PD/GFDL dichotomy in mind. :) Thanks for your commentary and understanding. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I was the admin on commons who deleted the "old" map with a lot of headache now ... The problem with the history is right but I choosed to delete because the map is unter PD-licence. Under GFDL it would not be possible, not so easy. But please think about the argument "The article has one name; I believed the image should hark of that for consistency". This argument is on en:WP valid only, please remember that this argument is for all other WP (theoretically over 100!) not valid if we would like to use the commons. I have no problem with english imagenames because I believe that most of the users understand these. --Raymond de 18:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your notes. Well, the image was otherwise unlinked in the commons and entitled with a similarly English "Schengen treaty" name. PD/GFDL noted/considered above. As well, I'm sensitive to multilingual issues: note this world map of the OECD, which I had a hand in updating. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Clarity

While nice, the [EU and candidates box] at the bottom is visually misleading because we want to impress that EU != Schengen countries, and vice versa. Perhaps it belongs elsewhere.

Agreed, I'll remove it. --Bjarki 10:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!  :)

Cyprus and Malta

someone added a comment that Cyprus and Malta have a different schedule than the other 8 new EU members. Some links, explanations, etc.?

Cyprus and Malta Explanation

Here are a couple of links regarding Cyprus and Malta being on a different schedule to implement the Schengen Agreement.

Netherlands Foreign Investment Agency

EUobserver

Since it may not be free to access, here is an excerpt from the EUobserver article:

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - EU interior ministers are set to hammer out proposals to enlarge the borderless Schengen area to the new member states. If the plans work out as scheduled, the citizens travelling to and from the ten countries will not have to undergo checks at their borders inside the Union. The ministers are expected to give a go-ahead to the Commission's proposals at their meeting in Luxembourg on Thursday and Friday (2-3 June). Under the current plans, the eight new countries could join the Schengen zone in late 2007, with a different timetable expected for Malta and Cyprus.

Cyprus and Malta have more complex problems than the other member states in regards to Schengen. Malta has a serious problem of illegal immigration and Cyprus has the problem of the northern part of the island. The fact that both countries are islands also complicates the issue.

Hopefully this clears things up a little :-)

Yes, thank you! Also, It would be nice to have some hard-dates...

Regarding Malta: at this time (April 2006) one from non-EU country does not need Maltese Visa to travel to Malta, if he or she have valid Schengen multi-Visa. However, one cannot travel to Germany or other Schengen country with Maltese multi-Visa with no German (or issued by other Schengen country) Schengen Visa. Cannot give a citation since this is my own case (I have received this answer from Maltese embassy in Moscow, Russia and successfully travelled to Malta with French multi-Visa). Probably it's a good idea to add this information to the article if somebody can explain this in better English and/or add an appropriate citation source...

The UK and Schengen

This article takes a Eurosceptic POV by claiming there would be "few benefits" to the UK joining Schengen. 3 points:

1. Free movement of citizens is itself a benefit. UK citizens have to endure bottlenecks at borders to other EU nations. (Sorry about the word "endure", but I can't think of a better one!)

2. The rabies problem in continental Europe has been (I believe) greatly reduced over the last 20 years and is (probably) now insignficant.

3. Other countries of the EU which are, like the UK, rabies free have signed up to join Schengen. So they clearly do not see the present (low) level of rabies to be a problem.

I concur; you're welcome to correct the article to be more neutral. ;) —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 10:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer Nights. I'll be changing it when I can gather some facts! User:Lew Loot

I have now made my changes. It's now somebody else's turn! (Lew Loot)

Well done, thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 09:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Live animals

The article states: A further reason that the UK has historically been reluctant to relax border controls is because of its strict rules on bringing live animals into the country:

Now can someone inform me what importing of live animals has to do with Schengen? Iceland has probably some of the toughest restrictions you'll find on bringing live animals into the country because the island has for centuries been free from so many animal diseases that are common on the mainland. Pets can be imported but there is plenty of paperwork and they must be quarantined for 4 weeks upon arrival, importing farm animals is completely forbidden. This did not stop Iceland from becoming a Schengen-member. --Bjarki 01:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Without border checks live animals could easily be brought in. Lew Loot 22:50, 31 May 2006.

The Schengen Agrement formally only concerns passport check. There are for several countries like Sweden, Norway and (I assume) Iceland still Customs check. Since Iceland can only be entered at the international airports and seaports (there are very few) it is easy for the customs office to check such things. It is hard to hide a dog etc through the airport customs. /BIL 19:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

The writing about the UK is ridiculously europhile. 131.111.203.154 19:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

How so? --Bjarki 19:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The whole section is ridiculous (from both pro-EU and EU-sceptic points of view). It has too many statements like "it is believed by some that there would be relatively few benefits to joining the agreement. " who exactly are these some?, or "Others, however, believe that the free unhindered movement of people itself is a great benefit." Who are these others. It needs citations, if none can be found most of it should be deleted. Captainj 20:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I contributed to that, although I didn't write it all by any means. If you see anything that's wrong Captain, delete it. My idea was to have something there to build on. But if you delete all that isn't solidly proven, there'd be little left. I would personally hope that if you know something that no one else who has contributed so far does, to add it or correct the mistake. Lew Loot 23:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to have a go at your writing :-). I've found citations for what I could and deleted what I couldn't find. Hope it works now. Captainj 20:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes Captain. It certainly reads easier than before. My issue was that there's a lot of political controversy in the UK over the EU, and over Schengen in particular. For example, and as you no doubt well know, the UK press are eurosceptic and have a powerful voice over government decisions. I wanted to make mention of these, but perhaps they are better suited in the section on euroscepticism, which is itself a political concept. This section, I suppose, is on the Schengen agreement "as is". Lew Loot 22:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Euro-scepticism (which usually means EU-scepticism) wouldn't necessarily cover Schengen, although in practise it might. I think because of the controversy surrounding euro-scepticism it's even more important to have sources, and good ones, otherwise something can be attacked as POV (looking at the talk page it seems the UK Schengen section was labelled both eurosceptic and pro-euro). Captainj 22:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Obligatory ID-cards

The article states that the Netherlands didn't have obligatory ID-cards before Jan 1, 2005. That's only partly true I think. To make things clear, The Netherlands have ID-cards since a very long time (don't know when they were introduced, but I don't remember the time that they didn't exist). Being able to identify oneself is obliged since Jan 1, 2005 (not being able to identify can result in a fine), but one can identify with either a passport, an ID-card or a driving license.

I don't believe that there were no other countries in the Schengen area where identification is not obliged at the time the Schengen Agreement was introduced. I don't see why The Netherlands have to be mentioned. Maartenvdbent 20:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say, look at List of identity card policies by country. Finland, Sweden and Austria do not have obligatory ID-cards until now. The situation in France is subject to debate. Schengen countries Norway and Denmark don't even issue ID-cards, and I don't think bearing a passport is obligatory there. Maartenvdbent 20:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In the Netherlands a driving license was dropped as a valid ID card in 2007. Only an official ID card ( including a residence permit issued by the Immigration authorities) or a passport is a valid ID card.ScotDutchy 12:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not true, as far I know (I'm Dutch). This website shows what a Dutch driving license can be used for (in dutch). You only can't use it as an ID when you apply for a job or an unemployment benefit or aplly for a number for paying taxes. Maarten 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Customs control

The customs control section mildly bothers me. I've just edited it so it scans better, but i'm still not sure about the bit about Norway and Sweden checking every car, and picking on suspicious people. I'm not arguing that it didn't happen, but surely they had a reason for contravening the terms of the Agreement. If anyone knows anything about this please have a go at editing it. Also, if you fancy editing, the numbered steps in the Gaining entry section seem very wordy. Sorry for not doing this myself, i just don't feel i know enough about that side of things to avoid cutting out important details Ukcreation 22:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The bit about ther being no customs control between an EU Schengen state and an EU non Schengen state (for example France and the UK) is simply incorrect. There are systematic and visible customs checks at points of entry to the UK (on both sides of the border). 82.69.29.81 10:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm this. There is definitely a systematic checking of travelers at the borders between France and the UK. On both sides, both the French and the British do passport checks. Occasionally they also pick travelers (mainly coaches) to go through customs control. This is to the frustration of these coach passengers, as especially the French seem to be only picking them to be checked. To make things worse, travelers might experience additional checking after crossing the channel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.13.83 (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Anglo-Irish relations in relation to Schengen

The article claims that the Irish Republic could not join Schengen without the UK's consent, and this implies some sovereignty over Ireland by the UK Government- In theory, if the UK wished to join, would it require the consent of the Irish government, or not? Liam Plested 14:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not right to say that Ireland needs the UK's consent to join Schengen, doing so would however mean the end of the Common Travel Area between the two. If the nations wish to keep the CTA they must either join Schengen together or stay out of it together. Ireland could ditch the CTA for Schengen but the CTA is far more important for them then Schengen could ever be. If Ireland were to join Schengen without the UK it would for example mean new border posts and passport checks on the border between the republic and Northern Ireland (probably a very unpopular move on both sides). --Bjarki 15:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Northern Ireland is the issue it seems. The London government said they would build a fence around Northern Ireland if the south joined Schengen. It was felt in Ireland that the UK just didn't want to be the only country outside Schengen. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? I don't believe the UK has ever threatened to build a fence around all of Northern Ireland, even at the height of the troubles. It's a VERY long border, for one thing. You could put up border posts on main roads, but actually sealing what is rural open border would be logistically imposible. As North/South links are also a key part of the Good Friday Agreement, I can hardly see London wanting them severed again. You seem to be implying that the UK is acting out of a deliberate desire to keep the Republic out of Schengen. Again, do you have a source for that? Indisciplined (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the point simply that the UK has decided to remain outside the Schengen area? This means that Ireland has a choice: remain outside it too or join it and see the imposition of routine border controls on the Eire—Northern Ireland border. I don't think the UK's position is taken with a view to trying to keep Ireland out of Schengen; I think that is a by-product of the UK's position. Incidentally, Ireland now checks passports on pretty much all incoming flights from the UK (but the UK doesn't check the passports of arrivals from Ireland). 4 May 2008

Romania/Bulgaria

I see a 2012 date for Romania in the article, but it and the link it points to do not clarifiy whether 'admission' refers to ratification or to implementation. Will Romania and Bulgaria sign the agreement as part of EU accession, with Schengen implementation following in a few years (like the 2004 members), or will it take additional time for them even to become signatories? Willhsmit 21:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Once you become EU member, you must have already adopted all the acquis communautaire, including the Schengen Agreement and the Monetary Union (Euro). However, the implementation of these two parts of the acquis does take place later.--Arado 13:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Norway/Sweden border

"At the official crossings, cars have to slow down to 30 km/h but do not have to stop." I recently crossed that border at 100km/h without breaking any laws. Cars only have to slow down during the actual controls. These happen typically a for few hours a few times a week. Otherwise there is just a "red lane" for people with goods to declare.

I spent my winter holiday at Storlien, Åre Municipality, a few times in the past. Storlien is only a few kilometres away from the Norwegian border, and there is a customs office there for people crossing the border. I have never seen any controls there, neither before or after the Schengen Agreement was implemented, and there was just a separate lane for people with goods to declare. Normally there was not even anyone outside the customs office building making any controls; people with goods to declare typically seem to have to go out of their cars and knock on the door to the customs office, asking a customs officer to check the goods that need to be declared. However, it was a few years since I visited Storlien the last time. (58.188.97.134 12:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

I have seen the border crossings at the old Svinesund Bridge, at road 166, at road 61. All have signs saying max 30 km/h permanently in place. At the new Svinesund Bridge I am not sure. I think there are electronic signs that could show 30 or other signs as suitable. -- BIL (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversies

I have re-written this section, added by user 24.82.14.94 on 18 October.

Removed: "customs control is much harder with Schengen." This paragraph was spurious. There is no customs control within the EU. The point of Schengen is that passport control has also been abolished, leaving no controls at borders.

Removed: "Each country has got different immigration laws. If one needs to go from Brazil to Italy via France, the French police will decide whether he can get in or not. However, the French police will apply the French law and that particular person might not be allowed to access Italian territory according to the Italian law". Not true. Schengen has common external entry requirements. Once a Brazilian has got a "Schengen visa", he can go anywhere in the Schengen area. This is explained in the opening paragraph, and in the "Agreement provisions" section. TiffaF 06:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right, but I think that it should be more clear that if you have a work permit for, say Germany, you are not allowed to leave Germany although the borders are not present anymore. I happened to be at Madrid Airport and there were two people from Africa who needed to go to Frankfurt via Amsterdam. The check-in agent did not check them in as their work permit did not allow them to exit Spain. But he added that they could go by land as there were no borders!!! In any case I've met a man that works in the Belgian national police and he said that Schengen DOES allow random passport checks. It actually happened to me a few times by train between Italy and France and the Netherlands and Germany. Furthermore at Amsterdam Airport I was leaving my flight from Paris and the Dutch Gendarmerie had a passport check for all the passengers on the flight. As to regards to customs you're right, there is no customs between EU countries but what I was trying to say is that in some airports, such as Milan Malpensa the Guardia di Finanza (customs), at the beginning of the Schengen treaty in Italy, complained because a lot of people who transit via European hubs will land in the Schengen baggage area but should need to go through customs. It's very hard for them to understand who arrives from eg Paris and who arrives from eg Shanghai via Paris. I think these points should be made more clear.

If you have a work permit for Germany, you are allowed to visit the other Schengen countries without a visa, but not work. There is a clause in the Schengen Agreement to that affect, but Work Permits are the responsibility of individual countries.

This is currently an issue in Switzerland. Because Switzerland has not yet ratified, a Serb or a Turk (for example) living in Switzerland with a Swiss Work Permit/Residence Permit still requires a Schengen Visa to visit the surrounding countries. If the same person were legally living in Germany, he could visit France, Italy etc. without a visa, but would need one for Switzerland.

Schengen does allow temporary or random identity checks (a passport is not necessary to travels in the EU, just an identity card), but does not allow permanent or systematic checks.

I agree the situation at airports is sometimes confusing. Some airports treat Schengen-internal flights as "domestic", no passport, no customs. But some, either because the domestic area does not exist or is too small, route the passengers through the international area. The luggage labels indicate they are flying from an EU country and can therefore bypass customs at the arrival airport, but if you don't understand the system.... In the case of someone who has a single-entry Schengen visa this could mean they have officially "exited" Schengen. TiffaF 13:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I've checked with the Italian authorities who also gave me some domentation that clearly states the following: Art. 6 / 7 : "Il documento di identificazione per stranieri è rilasciato su modello conforme al tipo approvato con decreto del Ministro dell'interno. Esso non è valido per l'espatrio" ("The identification document for foreign is issued on a conformed model approved by the Interior Ministry. It is not valid for exiting the country). I've run into many cases at airport where there were people with the "permesso di soggiorno" (work permit) that wanted to go back to their own country via a European hub and they were not checked in. I think this will be changing soon as the EU are discussing changes to this, but as far as Italy and Spain are concerned, IDs issued for people with a work permit do not permit to go abroad. In fact behind the ID card there is written "Non valido per l'espatrio" (Not valid for going abroad).

I think we are confusing whether third-country nationals resident in an EU country are allowed to travel around the Schengen area without getting a visa first, and what documentation is required. You are correct that a work permit is not adequate documentation to travel. You need to carry your passport and your work permit. The passport to proove who you are; the work permit acts in lieue of a visa, proving you are legally inside Schengen. You need to carry both documents, just the work permit is not enough, which is what the italian law is saying. TiffaF 07:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes but to travel around Schengen countries third country nationals will need their passport and their tourist Schengen visa. At least this is what the following website is saying:

http://www.skillclear.co.uk/schengen.asp

If for example you are from India with a German work permit, you will get a residency card from the German authorities and a schengen visa at the same time.

No, this is not correct. In this case, the German residence permit itself would allow the Indian citizen to travel to other Schengen countries for up to three months. No separate visa is required for this. So to say, the residence permit incorporates the same rights as a Schengen visa does (article 21 of the Schengen II agreement). --DanSchultz (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

4. When your residence permit is issued you also get a schengen visa. Remember this means you can only work in the country for which you have a permit but can visit all other countries on business meetings and as a tourist. You might be able to do a little work in schengen countries but not full time.

The work permit is a different issue. The right to travel conferred to residence title holders according to article 21 of the Schengen II agreement does not include a right to work. Depending on the legislation of the relevant state, a separate work permit might be required (however, all states know exemptions, for example for business visitors, which - in a strict sense - do work, but do not settle to work). --DanSchultz (talk) 11:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

YOU WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF 90 DAYS A YEAR TRAVELLING ROUND THE EU UNDER THE SCHENGEN VISA BUT THEN MUST RETURN TO THE COUNTRY WHERE YOUR PERMIT IS RATHER THAN BACK TO YOUR HOMELAND.

Is the above statement really correct? No one stamps any passports at Schengen border crossings, so it would be impossible to know how much time you spend in a different country. (58.188.97.134 12:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

It could very well be correct, but obviously completely unenforceable. However, not all Schengen visas are 90 days. My wife has a four year visa for Schengen, even though we are resident outside the Schengen area. But if we were to move to a schengen country she would be expected to apply for a residency permit from that country. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 13:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It is very well correct that the 90 days limitation cannot really be enforced in a strict sense - even more this, since there is no reference period, thus, leaving for the country which issued the residence permit for one day and returning to a different Schengen state afterwards could be regarded as a circumvention of the rule, but could not lead to criminal sanctions for an illegal stay, since the rule is not drafted clearly enough to establish the commitment of an offence on this basis. However, the time limit allows a second Schengen state to prevent the holder of a residence permit of a first Schengen state to actually permanently settle in the second state without that second state's permit. Having said this, Spain, for example, could not, on this basis, prevent a Russian having a German residence title from buying a holiday apartment on the Canary Islands and going there, unless the Spanish authorities cannot establish that he is present there for more than three months at a time. However, this is not a problem to the Schengen states. They are interested in (1) illegal employment, and (2) use of social benefits. For (1), a work permit is required, and it can easily be established if it has been issued or not, and for (2) the use of social benefits (other than public health services, for which there is mutual coverage within the EU) depends on the actual residency, which cannot be claimed unless a residence permit of the resepctive state had been obtained. Apart from this, the mere fact if someone who holds a Schengen residence permit is physically present in the one or other Schengen state is not of any interest to the authorities, as the security issue had been resolved when granting the permit, on the basis of the joint SIS database. --DanSchultz (talk) 11:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That is why some countries have put back into place random passport control, to check that the people that travel around are allowed to do so. I insist that the Schegen agreement does not forbid random passport check. Another important aspect of the Schengen agreement that is not clearly mentioned in the article is that all countries that have signed it must check all passports coming in and out of the Schengen area. Not all countries outside Schengen do this. For example the UK Immigration Service only checks passports coming in but rarely checks the ones going out. So if UK was to join in the future they would also need to reorganised their airport infrastructure in terms of passport control and build a passport control for passengers leaving the Schengen zone. USA is another country which checks the passports of incoming passengers but not the passports of leaving passengers.

This is correct. Exit checks are madatory, not only in order to establish whether a person has overstayed, but also for the arrest of wanted persons who want to evade prosecution by leaving to a third country (which does not have access to the SIS database), for the collection of intelligence, and for other purposes. --DanSchultz (talk) 11:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Liechtenstein already "paraphiert"? 2008?

[4]:

Seit Februar wird über den Schengen-Beitritt Liechtensteins verhandelt. Wann kann ich über Feldkirch-Tisis ohne Grenzkontrolle nach Liechtenstein fahren?

Kieber-Beck: Wir haben das schon paraphiert. Wenn die EU ratifiziert, treten wir mit der Schweiz bei. Aber es gibt noch Probleme mit dem Schengen-Informationssystem. Auch wollen wir keine Außengrenze zur Schweiz sein. Ich denke, 2008 wird es soweit sein. Alinor 13:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I know this article, and no, I don't know what paraphiert means. Legalese, that's for sure. —Nightstallion (?) 14:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Duden derives from "Paraphe": Namenszeichen; [Stempel mit] Namenszug. "Initialled"? JCScaliger 17:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Or "approved", as in "stamped"? —Nightstallion (?) 21:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah-hah! Paraphieren means to mark something with a Paraphe, which is some kind of stamp/seal/signature; especially used in the context of proposed treaties. I'd say this means they've de facto agreed on the accession, it's just a matter of formalities now. —Nightstallion (?) 16:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Alinor: Il faut parler - ou meme écrire, bien sûr - en anglais si vous plait. Parce que la plus part des gens ici - eh bien comme moi - ne comprendra pas l'allemande ! Marcus22 22:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Est-ce que les français comprennent l'anglais, par conséquent!? ;) Cela partie de texte est en allemand parce que on recherchait le sens du mot "paraphiert". (Sorry for my bad French). Maartenvdbent 22:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

JCScaliger, above, is correct: the term "paraphiert" means that the parties have initialled the agreement. In other words, they have reached general agreement on the substantive terms while not necessarily having agreed to a final text. See the German-language press release from the Embassy of Liechtenstein in Brussels and compare this speech by the Prime Minister of Liechtenstein saying that Liechtenstein's accession to the Schengen protocol was initialled on 2006-06-21 and the government intended to sign the protocol by the end of 2007. For confirmation, see this EU Council Information Sheet, noting that in 2006, Liechtenstein initialled a protocol on its accession to Switzerland's 2004 Schengen-association agreement. On 2006-12-01, the European Commission made proposals to the European Council that it sign and approve the accession of Liechtenstein. See COM (2006) 752-1, COM (2006) 752-2, COM (2006) 752-3, and COM (2006) 752-4. See also the European Parliament's procedure file CNS/2006/0251. You can also look up the EU Council's list of agreements with Liechtenstein, which does not yet include anything related to Schengen. --Mathew5000 (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Not covered by the agreement

The following territories of the membership countries are not covered by the agreement: All non-European parts of France and the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles)

Kingdom of the Netherlands includes The Netherlands. So is it Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles only? Or The Netherlands included?

If The Netherlands are not included, maybe you should just write Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles, not Kingdom of the Netherlands. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.216.165.150 (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

It means that the agreement doesn't include the non-European parts of the Netherlands. The non-European parts consist of Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles, while the European parts consist of the rest of the Netherlands (Amsterdam, etc.). (58.188.97.134 15:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC))

Exactly, you should read it this way:

The following territories of the membership countries are not covered by the agreement: All non-European parts of France and the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles)

Maartenvdbent 11:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Customs control

"Non-EU members Norway and Iceland are not a part of the EU customs union and therefore enforce the same level of custom control towards any traveler regardless of whether they come from within the Schengen area or not."

Can someone check the validity of this? There is typically no one checking anything if you drive by car between Sweden and Norway, and no one checks anything if you go by train. Some Swedish (and Norwegian?) railway stations have a customs office that you may visit if needed, though. However, I seem to understand that there are quite strict customs controls for people entering Norway from the Russian border. (58.188.97.134 12:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

This is the legal situation, in practice the customs controls at land borders between Sweden and Norway are very lax and have been so since long before Schengen. The customs agency in any country is of course allowed much discretion in focusing on the crossings they deem as being higher risk than others such as the one between Norway and Russia as opposed to the one between Norway and Sweden. --Bjarki 14:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Faroe Islands and Greenland

"Greenland and the Faroe Islands of Denmark, although formally excluded from the Schengen area, are integrated with it. (It was laid down in the association agreement with Denmark that persons travelling between the Faroe Islands and Greenland on the one hand, and the Schengen member states on the other hand, are not subject to a border check. The traditional Free Movement of Persons acquis of the European Community is not applicable to Greenland and to the Faroe Islands.)"

Is this accurate? The Faroe Islands are part of the Nordic Passport Union, so you should not be subject to a passport control if you arrive from a Nordic country (Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Finland). Flights are available between Faroe Islands on the one hand, and Denmark (Nordic Passport Union, so no control), Iceland (Nordic Passport Union, so no control) and the United Kingdom (Shetland etc.; non-Schengen, so passport control) on the other hand, and ferries are available between Faroe Islands on the one hand, and Denmark (Nordic Passport Union, so no control), Iceland (Nordic Passport Union, so no control), Norway (Nordic Passport Union, so no control) and the United Kingdom (non-Shengen, so passport control) on the other hand. However, if you were to arrive directly from a non-Nordic Schengen country (such as France) in a private ship or a private airplane, wouldn't you then be subject to a passport control?

I don't know anything about Greenland, though; it's not part of the Nordic Passport Union. (58.188.97.134 12:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

Border control is not the same as Customs

I have edited the opening paragraph, and two more, to mention first the effect of Schengen on people travelling within Schengen (which is the main purpose), and only secondly the effect on non-Schengen and non-EU citizens.

I have tried to clarify the difference between border controls and customs, which I think was a little confused:

• Border controls = Passport or ID card checks. Schengen abolishes this.
• Customs = checks on goods. The EU has abolished customs checks with the EU.

You therefore have a number of permutations:

• EU + Schengen Country - EU + Schengen - No checks at all (example: France - Germany).
• EU + Schengen Country - EU + non-Schengen - No customs, but still have Passport/ID checks (example: France - UK).
• EU + Schengen Country - non-EU + Schengen - No passport /ID checks, but still have customs checks (example: Norway - Sweden).

A Schengen visa must be obtained from the first Schengen country you intend to visit, you don't have a choice. TiffaF 07:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

So if you are, say, a Russian citizen, and you wish to go to France, but you have to make a transit at an airport in Germany, would you have to get a visa at a German embassy, because the passport control is at the German airport (and you technically enter Schengen when you go past the passport control)? (58.188.97.134 07:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

Correct, it is the country where you intend to enter the Schengen area that must issue the Schengen visa. See the "Gaining entry" section. In your example, the flight from Germany to France would probably be handled as a "domestic" flight with no customs or passport/ID checks. You would go through passport and customs when you got off the flight from Russia. TiffaF 08:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the customs part really correct? About half a year ago, I flew from Japan (KIX) to Sweden (ARN) via the Netherlands (AMS), and there was a passport check at the Dutch airport. There was also a small customs check where they checked my hand luggage. However, they didn't check my checked-in luggage, and they didn't check where I came from (so they couldn't know whether I'd just arrived from a non-EU country such as Japan or from a non-Schengen EU country such as the United Kingdom). At the Swedish airport there was no passport check whatsoever. There was a customs check after I had reclaimed my checked-in luggage, but they didn't check whether I came from a non-EU country, or if I had boarded the flight in Amsterdam. So when are customs checks made? And when are they supposed to be made? (58.188.97.134 11:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

Airports in the EU are supposed to have a separate "blue channel" (see this information page from Shannon Airport in Ireland) where you are supposed to go when arriving from another EU country. This is at least the case in Copenhagen where according to personal experience. You can't however use the blue channel if the flight is coming from another EU country but originated outside the EU. --Bjarki 14:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

And if you come from an EU country your luggage gets a different type of label (green stripes down the side[5]), so they can spot whether you have come from another EU country and are allowed to go through the blue channel, at least as long as you have checked-in luggage. Inter-Schengen flights are sometime handled as domestic, sometimes put in with "International" flights, it depends how the airport is organised.

I have added a secion on Red, Green and Blue Channels in the Customs article.

Please note, the vast majority of people crossing borders in Europe cross land borders (road, rail), not by air. Schengen simplifies crossing land borders, it makes less difference at airports. Readers from outside Europe may not realise this. TiffaF 07:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that at least when travelling into Sweden over the Oresund Bridge or by ferry from south, there is customs control, but only random, not asking everyone questions as before. Still, one often reads in the news that the Swedish customs catches drug and alcohol smugglers, usually at the Oresund Bridge. It seems that other Schengen countries have abloshed all customs control, but not Sweden. According to a news article the Oresund Bridge is the place in Europe having the highest number of discovered drug possesion crimes. [6] -- BIL 12:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

According to French TV documentaries I saw, customs officers can still do controls, but on other things. For instance, on the French-Italian border they often stop people to check if they dont't have counterfeit luxury goods. On inter-Schengen trains, they sometimes check for drugs. Also, there still are export limits for alcohol and cigarettes, so I guess that they are still allowed to check if you are not carrying too much alcohol or cigarettes. Luis rib 01:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"And if you come from an EU country your luggage gets a different type of label (green stripes down the side[7]), so they can spot whether you have come from another EU country and are allowed to go through the blue channel"

Ah, I've never noticed that. But are you required to keep your luggage stripe until after the passport control, or could you throw away both the stripe and your boarding card directly after the luggage reclaim? (Well, I suppose they still could tell where you're from in some cases, looking at exit stamps in passports.)

"Please note, the vast majority of people crossing borders in Europe cross land borders (road, rail), not by air. Schengen simplifies crossing land borders, it makes less difference at airports."

Yes, I know that, and it's been quite useful not to have any passport control when going between Sweden, Denmark and Norway by land. Still, you save some time at the airport, and especially the seaport, if you don't have any luggage to reclaim. (58.188.97.134 08:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

"It seems that other Schengen countries have abolished all customs control" - Customs is nothing to do with Schengen, customs is EU.

"there still are export limits for alcohol and cigarettes" - No country I know has export limits. Within the EU there are no import limits (except for some temporary limits on the new members), so long as it is for your personal comsumption. Of course if you have illegal substances on you the police can stop you anywhere, at the border or in the middle of the country.

"Or you could throw away you striped luggage label" - Yes you could, but then you are asking the customs to stop you when they see you going through the blue channel without the correct label on your luggage.

"Well, I suppose they still could tell where you're from in some cases, looking at exit stamps in passports" - No they couldn't. Because there is no passport control, ergo no stamps. And in Europe they don't stamp the passports of EU citizens even if there is a passport control, because to do that would fill up many people's passports in a few weeks. TiffaF 13:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure there are still import limits for alcohol and cigarettes. Luis rib 21:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"There are no limits on what private persons can buy and take with them when they travel between EU countries" - quote from the official EU customs site[8].

Also on the same page:

"Tobacco and alcohol .... If a private person purchases such products in one Member State and takes them to another Member State, the principle that no excise duty has to be paid in the Member State of destination only applies if the goods are

* for the own use of the traveller or his family and

* transported by himself.".

Apart from some interim measures for the new members.

Sorry to labour a point, but I cross inter-EU borders regularly, and there are no customs or border checks at all. The border post I crossed at last Saturday was boarded up and abandoned (as it has been for years), and the only way you could tell you crossed the border was a sign (like the two pictured in this article), and the fact that the language on road signs changed.

The procedure at airports, including the special Blue Channel, and special luggage labels, is explained here[9].

One of the side effects of not having any customs limits is the Booze cruise. TiffaF 13:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

UK and Ireland

It says:

Membership

• 29 May 2000 - Republic of Ireland, United Kingdom

If the UK and Ireland have signed the treaty, shouldn't the map show them as "Members (not yet implemented)" rather than non-Schengen countries? There is a difference between EU countries (+ Norway/Iceland/Switzerland) (all of which have signed the treaty) and other countries, such as CIS countries. (58.188.97.134 08:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

The UK and Ireland have only signed part of the treaty on data sharing. They are not part of the Schengen Zone or the common visa system. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 20:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a special color for the UK and Ireland to indicate their status. --Bjarki 21:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Poland and other countries aren't part of the Schengen Zone or the common visa system either (well, actually partially: same visa requirements, but with separate visas). However, unlike the UK and Ireland, these countries are trying to implement Schengen fully, and will probably join the Schengen Zone somewhere in the future (possibly in 2008), so maybe there should be three colours:

• Signatory, fully implemented (e.g. Sweden).
• Signatory, not yet implemented (e.g. Poland).
• Signatory of part of the treaty, that part fully implemented (e.g. UK). (58.188.97.134 12:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC))

The UK and Ireland have not signed any part of any 'treaty' related to Schengen, i.e. the 1985 Schengen Agreement or the 1990 Schengen Convention. For clarification, see http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/freetravel/frontiers/fsj_freetravel_schengen_en.htm under 'Which EU Member States are now signed up to the Schengen Convention?' together with footnote 48 (both documents need to be read in context with each other) JorgGeG (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Kaliningrad problem

It may be worth noting that there's considerable worry in Russia's Kaliningrad Oblast about the transport problems that will arise once Lithuania implements the agreement. I'll try to find concrete sources about this, but basically this will mean that the territory will be completely surrounded by countries that do not easily allow its citizens to travel within their borders, even if their trip is (as in most cases) directly into the Russian Federation with no stops. Esn 08:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Map !!!

I don't understand why this map of Europe is used. It is true that in the south of Slovakia something like 500.000 Hungarians live but it is STILL Slovakia, not Hungary. So, on the map the southern part of Slovakia is cut off and added to Hungary. The area of Slovakia is 49.000 km² and the area of Switzerland is 41.000 km² but on the map Slovakia seems to be smaller than Switzerland. Could anyone replace the map, please?

The map does indeed look strange. (Stefan2 14:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC))

web-site using wikipedia content and claiming copyright!

[10] 212.36.8.100 22:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Monaco

I see that the map marks Monaco as "Implementing through partnership with a signatory state". Isn't this also the case with the Faroe Islands and Greenland? (Stefan2 13:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC))

ID checks at hotels and other places

I dispute the claim "all hotels .... must register the name, citizenship and ID number of all foreign citizens". In my experience I am rarely asked to proove my identity. it may be that the Schengen agreement requires hotels to register non-Schengen (or possibly non-EU) citizens, but if so some hotels never bother to ask which country you are a citizen of.

The only reference I could find in The Schengen Acquis was: "The Parties shall seek to harmonise laws and regulations, in particular on: .... the registration of travellers in hotels." (page 15).

Can somebody clarify this? TiffaF 08:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The Schengen Aquis article 45 (page 33) says:

The Contracting Parties undertake to adopt the necessary
measures in order to ensure that:
(a) the managers of establishments providing accommodation
or their agents see to it that aliens accommodated therein,
including nationals of the other Contracting Parties and
those of other Member States of the European
Communities, with the exception of accompanying spouses
or accompanying minors or members of travel groups,
personally complete and sign registration forms and
confirm their identity by producing a valid identity
document;
(b) the completed registration forms will be kept for the
competent authorities or forwarded to them where such
authorities deem this necessary for the prevention of
threats, for criminal investigations or for clarifying the
circumstances of missing persons or accident victims, save
where national law provides otherwise.
2. Paragraph 1 shall apply mutatis mutandis to persons
staying in any commercially rented accommodation, in
particular tents, caravans and boats.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BIL (talk • contribs) 16:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, though in my experience this rule is not always enforced. TiffaF 08:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Passport checks on outgoing travellers

An "IP address" editor keeps adding that passports are checked on exiting travellers. I have reverted this twice now but I do not want to start an edit war.

In my experience in the last few years I have never had my passport checked when exiting the Schengen area. There are no exiting checks on flights from Schengen to the UK, nor on boarding ferries to the UK, nor on the land border to Switzerland. There should be an (ID card or passport) check of incoming travellers, but in practice this is often not done on travellers from the UK or Switzerland. The French are the most lax in this case.

If anybody disagrees with me please discuss here. If not I will remove the claim again. TiffaF 13:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The French are quite lax on this (thankfully) but the Germans do both entry and exit checks. Its probably German law/custom though, rather than a Schengen rule. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 13:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been subject of passport check when leaving Schengen, but it was when flying long-distance. Maybe there is no check usually for flights to UK/Switzerland, but maybe for flights to other continents. -- BIL 17:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There is passport control when leaving Schengen, I've travelled via Amsterdam, Milan, Bruxelles, Paris and Madrid, and non Schengen flights (including UK and Switzerland) have a passport area for exiting travellers as well.--anon

I've never been checked when flying from France to Geneva (although it could be a special case) and I'm frequently not checked entering and exiting France to Ireland. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Anon (195.72.206.6). When you are travelling by air, are you sure it is the government that is looking at your passport, or it is it the airline / airport security checking your identity? As explained in the "air security" section, they do this at airports these days for all flights, including internal ones.

Is there anybody out there who has recent experience of leaving Schengen via the other land borders, e.g. Germany-Poland or Finland-Russia? Do the Germans / Finns check outgoing passports?

BTW yesterday I crossed from Switzerland to France by local train, and later back again. The station was totally unmanned, nobody from either French or Swiss border control, just a warning sign saying if I had anything to declare, or was a foreigner who needed a visa, then I was not allowed to cross the border at this point. This station has been like this for years. TiffaF 07:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

France does passport checks for sea and train travellers coming from Britain. These checks are done in Britain by French police. I've never travelled the other direction so I can't say if this is repeated by British or French guards when returning. I have also noted that the land borders between France and Switzerland are open. Once my wife, who is non-EU, had to search around for a French border guard to stamp her Schengen visa. They half laughed at her ernestness and took their time finding the approapiate stamp in the desk drawer.... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

When I fly leaving Schengen area I am 100% sure that the airline/handling agents do check the passports AS WELL, but the Police check them too as they have a fix passport check for ALL passengers exiting Schengen (so when moving from non Schengen area to Schengen area). A few days ago I flew from Milan to London and there was the police checking passports and a private security company hired from the airline. But the police always have kiosks and computers, so they are easily recognisable. On the window they had "Polizia" written. If you think about it checking passports when leaving Schengen makes sense as if you have a Schengen visa they can make sure that you haven't stayed longer than what the visa allows. If you fly from Paris to Geneva that is considered a French national flight as there is an area of Geneva airport which is located in France, so if you exit the airport in France your passport is not checked while if you actually go to Switzerland your passport is checked by French and Swiss police. For more information: http://www.gva.ch/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-48/

In regards to passport control for EXITING travellers the Schiphol Group (operator of Amsterdam Schiphol airport) says the following:

If you are leaving from Departure hall 2 or 3, you will need to go to a central checkpoint where your passport and ticket will be checked by the Koninklijke Marechaussee (Dutch Gendarmerie).

If you are leaving from Departure hall 1 because you are travelling to one of the Schengen countries, the only thing that will be checked is your ticket. There is no Koninklijke Marechaussee (Dutch Gendarmerie) here to check your passport.

http://www.schiphol.nl/_controles_veiligheid/portlet/veiligheidsmaatregelen_vertrekkende_passagiers.jsp?PORTLET%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673795991&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=1408474395729234&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302573158&VIRTUAL_TEMPLATE%3C%3Evt_id=10134198673786883&bmUID=1178516896517

Here is an original source for exit controls: It is from the Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), which states in Article 7:

3. On entry and exit, third-country nationals shall be subject to thorough checks.

[…]

(b) thorough checks on exit shall comprise:

(i) verification that the third-country national is in possession of a document valid for crossing the border;

(ii) verification of the travel document for signs of falsification or counterfeiting;

(iii) whenever possible, verification that the third-country national is not considered to be a threat to public policy, internal security or the international relations of any of the Member States;

(c) In addition to the checks referred to in point (b) thorough checks on exit may also comprise:

(i) verification that the person is in possession of a valid visa, if required pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 539/2001, except where he or she holds a valid residence permit;

(ii) verification that the person did not exceed the maximum duration of authorised stay in the territory of the Member States;

(iii) consultation of alerts on persons and objects included in the SIS and reports in national data files.

--DanSchultz (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What does "systematic" concretely mean here?

The 1985 Schengen Agreement is an agreement among European states which allows for the abolition of systematic border controls between the participating countries.

What kind of systems are had in mind, I'd like to understand in more detail. Inyuki 06:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Systematic check = (in this context) a check done on everybody at all times. This is not the main meaning on "Systematic" in English, it is a secondary meaning.

Member states are allowed to do checks occasionally ("A country is permitted by the article 2.2 of the agreement to reinstate border controls for a short period if it is deemed in the interest of national security."), but member states cannot stop everybody crossing the border all the time. TiffaF 06:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Occasionally actually means that there can still be fixed controls but they can't be systematic (the border police forces cannot check all travellers anymore). In this link there is a research in Italian done with many people involved in managing/stopping illegal immigration in Bardonecchia (in Italy, on the French border):

http://www.onds.it/ricerche/Bardonecchia.doc

In page 10 the head of the "Polizia di Frontiera" of Bardonecchia (Italian Border Police, part of the State Police) explains how the border management has changed since the Schengen Treaty came into effect:

"Prima di tutto, dall’entrata in vigore del Trattato di Schengen, applicato presso queste frontiere nell’anno 1997, è dipesa la soppressione dei presidi fissi, tramite i quali venivano effettuati controlli sistematici, continuativi, rivolti alla totalità dei viaggiatori transitanti, rimanendo possibile esclusivamente la pratica di controlli saltuari, non continuativi, a pena di violare le disposizioni del citato Trattato".

"First of all, since the start of the Schengen agreement, applied in the Italian borders since 1997, fix posts have been demolished, which were used to do continuous systematic checks, to all the people who transited there. Now it is only possible to do random chacks as otherwise the Schengen rules would not be respected".

"Pertanto, relativamente al fenomeno da analizzare, del rapporto esistente tra immigrazione clandestina e traffico ferroviario, in attuazione della predetta normativa, è attualmente possibile praticare controlli anti - immigrazione sui treni, ma nel rispetto della ratio del Trattato (attività posta in essere saltuariamente su una percentuale variabile di convogli transitanti, principalmente mirata a quelli, attraverso i quali notoriamente si realizza il fenomeno in questione)".

"So in order to analyse the relationship between illegal immigration and railway transport, it is still possible to do anti - immigration checks on the trains, but respecting the Schengen Treaty (activity done randomly on a variable percentage of trains, mostly done on the ones where it is known that illegal immigration takes place)".

Other important points are:

"Relativamente alla gestione dell’immigrazione clandestina, il nostro personale e quello della Polizia Francese di Modane, in applicazione dell’Accordo di Riammissione, siglato dai Governi italiano e francese a Chambery il 3.10.97 (la procedura di riammissione ha sostituito quella di respingimento, praticabile fino all’entrata in vigore del Trattato di Schengen), provvedono reciprocamente a restituire all’altro Stato gli extracomunitari clandestini provenienti da quest’ultimo, intercettati all’atto di oltrepassare la frontiera, sprovvisti dei documenti abilitanti al transito, e, conseguentemente, a verificare le situazioni individuali di ciascun extracomunitario “restituito”, al fine di adottare i provvedimenti di competenza (nel nostro Stato, con l’entrata in vigore della L. 189/02, in alcuni casi si deve procedere all’arresto del clandestino: prima l’immigrazione clandestina non costituiva mai violazione penale)."

"Our staff (Border Police) and the French police staff in Modane work together to send illegal immigrants arriving from each country (in practice if you come from France and the Italian border police stops you, you are given back to the French police, and viceversa). This is mainly done on immigrants that have got work permits in France or Italy but are not allowed to exit these countries. In cases where the illegal immigrant does not have any European work permit/visa and attempts to enter Italy will see that person arrested according to law 198/02".

"In seguito all’adozione dei provvedimenti del caso, gli extracomunitari, ai quali è stato inibito l’ingresso in Francia, ad esempio perché sprovvisti di documentazione al seguito, che, tuttavia, dopo aver verificato le relative situazioni giuridiche, risultano regolari in Italia, vengono accompagnati dal personale della Polizia di Frontiera di Bardonecchia presso la Stazione FFSS, dove vengono direttamente indirizzati sui convogli diretti a Torino, per evitare che possano cominciare a vagare all’interno di questo centro cittadino".

"In case immigrants with work permits for Italy are stopped by the French police in an attempt to enter France, for example because they don't have valid ID (however, the French Police will first make sure that the people are legally resident in Italy), they will be given in the hands of the Italian Border Police (Polizia di Frontiera) of Bardonecchia, where they will be sent on trains to Turin, in order to avoid them staying in Bardonecchia".

It clearly explains that many countries have kept border police forces on Schengen borders as obviously there is also illegal immigration taking place between Schengen countries.

Lack of checks on external Schengen borders

A quick note. In the case of the UK and Ireland (and the Channel Islands, incidentally), little checks are done by the French PAF. However, the control booths are still there and manned, so it would be accurate to say that while there isn't a systematic check, there is still constant monitoring of the border. On the other hand however, the Swiss border is somewhat treated as a Schengen country already - except, curiously, in air and train stations where systematic controls are well known to take place.

It seems that inter-EU Schengen border checks are much more lax than other Schengen border checks. (212.247.11.153 20:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

That might well be but there is a fix border if you fly. In any case the land borders are much harder to operate compared to airport ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.40.4.67 (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be full checks at airports for people flying from Schengen countries to the UK. A Swedish CEO for Unibet was arrested at Amsterdam Airport on a French arrest order when he wanted to fly to the UK. -- BIL 21:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Monitoring of borders

Does anyone know if any Schengen countries actively monitor their road crossings with video cameras? I seem to recall Denmark having installed some cameras, though I can't find a reference for it. Also, a lot of countries seem to have maintained their border structures, even though they aren't manned - any idea why?

3 reasons for the second question:

1) As in case of some big events (such as World Cup, G8 meetings etc) border control can be reinstated. 2) Non systematic checks can still take place. Each country has applied non systematic checks in different ways though, but some have kept some police forces on the borders. 3) Lack of money.

Location of signing

Article has:

The agreement was signed aboard the ship Princesse Marie-Astrid on the Moselle River, near Schengen, a small town in Luxembourg on the border with France and Germany.

I am going to change this to say:

The agreement was signed aboard the ship Princesse Marie-Astrid on the Moselle River, where the borders of Luxembourg, France, and Germany meet, near the small town of Schengen in Luxembourg.

This is speculative, and I do not have a source for it as such, but it is inconceivable that they would be so very close to this significant and highly relevant location, and even take the trouble to be on a ship, without being exactly at it. (See the borders on Google maps for example.) Revert me if you really disagree. Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć 12:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, but I believe that I'll have to remove it, since it doesn't cite sources, and it's been there too long. (as per WP:PROVEIT ----JamesSugrono^U|C 11:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll also be doing something similar at the Schengen in a few seconds. ----JamesSugrono^U|C 11:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

German suspension of Schengen

Article claims that Germany reinstated Schengen border controls during the 2006 FIFA World Cup. I crossed a German Schengen border during June 2006, during the World Cup, five times by car without once going through an immigration or customs check. As far as I could tell, there were no border controls. I removed this inaccuracy. If it can be supported by an article (perhaps it was very selectively enforced), I would have no problem with it being re-added to the article. Ua747sp 01:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe only some of the border crossings were checked? (212.247.11.153 20:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

When I went by car from France I did see some patrols on the border, they were stopping some cars but they did not stop me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.72.206.6 (talk) 08:32, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR No original research, which includes your personal research, I suppose... However, this fact still needs a verifiable source, if you are going to re-add it. WP:PROVEIT ----JamesSugrono^U|C 11:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a source: http://www.bmi.bund.de/cln_012/nn_122688/Internet/Content/Nachrichten/Pressemitteilungen/2006/04/Grenzkontrollen__WM.html an a translation (google) http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bmi.bund.de%2Fcln_012%2Fnn_122688%2FInternet%2FContent%2FNachrichten%2FPressemitteilungen%2F2006%2F04%2FGrenzkontrollen__WM.html&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8 Sincerely, Aragorn05 (in german Wikipedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.62.251.243 (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Membership of Ireland and UK

General

In the Membership, Irealand and UK are listed, but it is many time said that these country are not among the agreement, and it is even said that "The United Kingdom and Ireland are the only two EU members not to sign the Schengen Agreement". How can these towo country be considered inside the membership? Could this be clarified in the article? -- AnyFile 10:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The UK and Ireland are de facto part of Schengen as they signed some parts of it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/340565.stm

However, they did not sign the part concerning the single tourist visa and the open borders.

They did not sign the Schengen Agreement, but the Treaty of Amsterdam which transferred the complete acquis into EU law. Thus, since the United Kingdom and Ireland are EU member states, they would have to apply the Schengen law completely. However, a special provision in the Treaty of Amsterdam allows them to stay out of the zone, but to voluntarily join in. The UK apply the Schengen rules concerning police cooperation. However, they stay out of the free travel arrangements. Other EU member states do not enjoy the freedom of choice whether they want to apply Schengen or not. As soon as they meet the criteria and the EU rules that way, they are in. --DanSchultz (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

DanSchultz: It is inaccurate to state that 'the UK and Ireland are de facto part of Schengen as they signed some parts of it'. The UK and Ireland have never signed the Schengen acquis or any part of it. With regards to the UK, it requested to participate in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (which was agreed by the EU council in May 2000 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0365:EN:HTML), but not on the fundamental ones relating to the abolition of border controls. As the Schengen agreement was originally intended precisely for the abolition of internal EU borders, it is totally inacurate to say that limited participation in police cooperation amounts to being 'de facto part of Schengen'. JorgGeG (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct in stating that it would be incorrect to state that the UK an Ireland are de facto part of Schengen as they signed some parts of it. I have never written this; it was a different user who did not sign his contribution to the discussion, and I had answered to that. The sentence, written by anonymous, you mentioned would be incorrect for some reasons: (1) Language. If the UK and Ireland would be part of Schengen, they would fit into a small town in Luxembourg. It is correct that the UK and Ireland are not parts of Schengen. (2) Law. It is also correct that the United Kingdom and Ireland never signed the Schengen acquis. No state in the world had ever signed the Schengen acquis, since it could never be signed. What could be signed until the date that the Treaty of Amsterdam became effective were the two Schengen Agreements. After the Treaty of Amsterdam became effective, the two Schengen agreements ceased to be treaties under international law, and became part of the EU legislation, which was not effective in the United Kingdom and Ireland. (3) As one can see from the Council decision which you had referred to, the parts of the Schengen acquis which are mentioned in that Council decision (and some subsequent legislation, which clearly states whether it is applicable in the United Kingdom and Ireland), are valid as EU law in the United Kingdom and in Ireland. --DanSchultz (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The following section under 'Status of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland' is misleading and inaccurate: 'The reluctance of the UK government to join the agreement has been criticised by the House of Lords...'. In fact the House of Lords (as per the linked document) doesn't criticise the UK government for not joining Schengen, but for its reluctance to join SIS II, which is quite different. Whoever wrote this should rewrite it accordingly. I would do it personally but haven't figured out yet how to rewrite it properly. JorgGeG (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Legal questions concerning the "acquis"

I realise my mistake about signing the 'Schengen acquis'. My confusion stems from the signatures appearing in the legal document entitled Schengen acquis, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2000/l_239/l_23920000922en00010473.pdf, which in fact amalgamates several documents that form the 'acquis', namely: 1. The 1985 Agreement in which the signatories commit themselves to the gradual abolition of internal borders. 2. The 1990 Convention which in fact gives formal legal basis to what is known as 'Schengen', and 3. The accesion agreements of several EU countries to the 1990 Convention. This, in my opinion, might throw some light on a couple of seemingly obscure issues: 1. The main Schengen article may need a lot of editing, in particular I think it is inaccurate to refer to the Schengen Agreement (of 1985) as the legal instrument giving birth to what is known as the 'Schengen Area'. I think it would be more accurate to refer to the Schengen Convention or the Schengen Acquis, as the 1985 agreement was more like a declaration of intentions or (neologism!) a 'roadmap'. 2. If we read carefuly page 19, 4th paragraph of the Acquis (first page of the 1990 Convention), it would seem that the UK and Ireland opt-outs from Schengen are in fact (technically at least) in contravention of the Single European Act: 'WHEREAS the treaty establishing the European Communities, supplemented by the Single European Act, provides that the internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers.' I have read reliable sources stating that the European Parlament has repeatedly expressed this view. Of course, this seems to have little practical legal significance as the other member states are unable to change the position of the UK (which, in turn, has forced Ireland to opt-out). What seems to me a glaring contradiction is the official position of the British government, declaring itself a FULL member of the EU, but opting out of key policies such as Schengen. In purely legalistic (but unenforceable) terms, it is also astonishingly incoherent to agree to the free movement of goods, capital and workers within the EU - in the name of the 'Single Market' - but not of people, as without people a market would not exist, so for example, if a non-EU citizen legally resident in an EU country would wish to come to the UK for a shopping weekend, say, to take advantage of the Harrods January Sale, it would be unable to do so, it would have to apply for a UK Visa, thereby defeating the purpose of a 'single (and free) market'. And viceversa, of course. Political reality is full of amazing incoherences and absurdities, indeed. JorgGeG (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear JorgGeG, I think there remains some confusion about the term acquis and its meaning. Acquis is "Eurospeak" and refers to the "Schengen law" which already had existed until it became incorporated into the Treaty of Amsterdam. To correctly describe the development:

• • The 1985 Schengen Agreement, indeed, includes a commitment, but also already some weak legal rules, e.g. with respect to the green disc which people could affix to the car windshield, and which declared that all passengers were citizens of "1985 Schengen" states.
  • The 1990 Schengen Convention (correctly: Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement, short CIS) really meant to put the idea into practice. Still, it was an international treaty and had nothing to do with the EU.
  • The subsequent decisions of the Executive Committee" were binding the signatory states, were decided upon on a ministrial level, but were not published. They contained rules as e.g. concerning the visa regime.
  • Later on, some further states signed the 1985 Treaty and the 1990 CIS, thus becoming signatory states.
  • Then, the Treaty of Amsterdam incorporated the Schengen rules (the 1985 Agreement, the CIS, and the decisions of the Executive Committee), into EU law. The same Treaty contained - in an annexed protocol, which also forms a legal document - the opt-outs for the UK and Ireland.
  • Since (1) those "existing Schengen rules as existing on that day" had to be defined - it had to become clear what was EU law from then - and (2) had to be published, as it is a requirement for all binding rules of law - they had to be put together into a single collection. The outcome of that "procedure of definition" was called the Schengen acquis, which was published in the Official Journal later on. The acquis, thus, is a collection of law, and could neither be signed, not can it be cited as such.
  • Since all signatories of the 1985 agreement and of the 1990 CIS agreed that this acquis, including the 1985 Treaty and the 1990 CIS, should become EU law, those (formerly) international treaties ceased to be treaties, and became EU law, as any EU regulation. From this point onward, no state could "sign Schengen", since there was nothing to sign any more (in the same sense as France would not be able to "sign" a UK Act of Parliament).
  • For this reason, it is also possible to repeal provisions of the 1990 CIS by EU legislation, and by majority vote (!) - even if a former signatory state decides to declare by all means (through government, president, king, queen, whomever) not to agree to that, it is bound by such legislation if there are the required majorities for it in the European Parliament and in the Council.
  • The association of non-EU states (where EU law is not binding) was later on managed by letting them sign individual treaties with the EU, which - not literally, but in effect - stated that "EU law which is Schengen law is applicable in the associated state".

The Single European Act, which you had mentioned, did not concern border controls. In fact, one could develop the idea, using your arguments, that the establishment of internal border controls is harmful to the common market, and that it could be regarded as a "measure having equivalent effect", as it would be illegal for one EU state to demand imported goods from another EU state to be brought to a specific office or harbour for inspection (which would be clearly illegal). However, since the EC Treaty now clearly contains a basis for specific rules for internal borders (the relevant secondary legislation is the Schengen Borders Code) and undoubtfully an opt-out clause for the UK and Ireland, there is no legal problem with border controls at the UK borders. Maintaining such border controls might be politically inconsequent, but is alright from a legal perspective. --DanSchultz (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

DanSchulz: I have no authority or knowledge to categorically state whether there is a 'legal' problem with the UK/Eire opt out or not. The fact remains that the European Parliament has repeatedly expressed this view, according to a British MEP source. I think this merits further investigation and inclussion in the article accordingly. I will try my best to follow this up, but any help would be appreciated. JorgGeG (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Council decision of 29 May 2000 [11] does not say anything about the Republic of Ireland participating in any parts of the Schengen acquis. That Council decision is concerned only with the UK, not the Republic of Ireland. Has there been a subsequent development enabling the Republic of Ireland to participate in the police cooperation provisions of the Schengen acquis? If there is, it is not mentioned in this EU Council Information Sheet dated 8 November 2007. Note page 3 of that document: it says, "The United Kingdom has participated in only a part of the acquis (police and judicial cooperation)." Then three paragraphs down, it says, "Ireland will be able to participate in Schengen on the same terms as the United Kingdom whenever it wishes."—Mathew5000 (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Following up, I did find a subsequent development, a Council decision of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland's participation in the Schengen acquis. —Mathew5000 (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"repatriation for sanitary reasons"

...in the section "Gaining entry". What on earth does "repatriation for sanitary reasons" mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.225.126 (talk) 06:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a machine-translation into English from some other language. I would assume that it intended to say "repatriation for medical reasons". --Mathew5000 (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Mount Athos

This article from 1997 suggests that there was a question over whether Mount Athos in Greece would have to allow women to enter if it became part of Schengen. I've read elsewhere that women are still banned. Anyone know the solution? 192.122.222.212 21:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Accrding to Special member state territories and the European Union the Mount Athos have a special exception to the Schengen rules. This allows boats and planes (if they have an airport?) from other countries to go to Athos with only checks done by the Athos monk authority. When moving from Greece to Athos only greek rules apply. -- BIL (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Land borders with Ireland?

At the end of the "Outer borders" section it says:

The land border controls against Switzerland, the UK and Ireland are more relaxed. On the UK side of the border at sea ports and the Channel Tunnel the border controls are less relaxed.

So the border controls at the land border between the Schengen Area and the Republic of Ireland is more relaxed than some other land borders. Where, exactly, is that land border between the Schengen Area and the Republic of Ireland locatad?

Is it supposed to mean that it's less relaxed at the UK side of the Channel Tunnel, or at both sides of the tunnel? Because if it's the latter, then the second sentence contradicts the first sentence, where it says that border controls at the land border with the UK (= the Channel Tunnel) are more relaxed (as opposed to less relaxed). (Stefan2 20:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC))

"Land borders" is probably supposed to mean land and sea port borders, in opposite to airport borders. -- BIL (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Differences between FTD and FRTD

What is/are the difference(s) between FTD and FRTD visas? mdkarazim (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

One is valid for road transit, the other one is suitable for rail transit. --DanSchultz (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Switzerland on the map

Shouldn´t Switzerland be coloured green on the main map of this article? it is a country that is going to implement the the treaty, just as Romania, Bulgaria, and Cyprus, it was ratified by referendum and planned to ratify on late 2008, thats even before the countries I mentioned before, so please if Im not missunderstanding, please fix the map cause I dont know how, and if I am, please somebody explain me why it shouldn´t be green coloured: Thanks --Philip200291 (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should. I have no idea why it wasn't included in the "updated map". Maarten (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Image has been updated.

Ah, I think I know what's going on. It is a cache problem. The image that is used in the template has already been updated (Switzerland is green), but the template needs to be purged I guess to use the updated version of the image. Link to the template. Maarten (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

One more minute and this will be accurate! 81.105.56.115 (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Schengen Area

I would really find helpfull if the total area (km2) and population be listed somewhere on the article, i find this pretty important, so if somebody has the source, please go ahead. Thank you--Philip200291 (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Suitability of the map

While I understand the sentiment behind the design of the map (it conveys well a 'Europe without [internal] borders'), I think it would be more useful to the reader to not have one monolithic block of colour indicating the Schengen Zone. More informative would be a map that colour codes each country depending on whether its an EU member in Schengen, an EU member outside of Schengen, or a non-EU member inside of Schengen, plus the 'joining' and 'interested' colours we already have. It's useful to have a visual representation of the the participation of countries like Norway and Iceland, and the non-participation of two EU member states, and this map doesn't do that. We could have feint borders inside the Schengen Zone to emphasise that systematic controls don't exist, but I think a useful map would have each country labelled and more colour-coding to display the different categories of state we're dealing with. Also helpful would be a map with light to dark shades of a single colour indicating the exapansion of the Schengen Zone over the years. 79.68.202.189 (talk) 06:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

But the article is about Schengen and Schengen is not necessarily anything to do with the EU. The EU is about travel for work, work permits and no visas. It's not about no customs and complete freedom of travel. --81.105.243.17 (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

How Many member states?

I count 25 on the implemented list, but the article states 24. Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.78.22 (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

With Monaco they are 25. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.53.8 (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is Kosovo separated from Serbia?

Negotiations about future status of Kosovo are still going on - before its end, Kosovo is in Serbia. Internationalnal borders must be respected, and I expect this picture to be revised.

I concur with the previous comment and demand an explanation also.

Revise or delete Schengen map. There is no an interational border between Kosovo and Serbia.

--77.105.49.232 (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the first two sources I looked at,[12][13] there appears to be a very visible physical border between Kosovo and Serbia, patrolled by troops, crossed with difficulty by smugglers and terrorists, and with the intentional destruction of roads crossing it to make future travel more difficult.

The beauty of the current map's design is that it shows visually that there are no borders between Holland, France, Germany, etc. That doesn't mean that they're all one country now, just that if you walk up to that border there isn't anybody standing there with a gun asking pointless questions It is a statement about what is actually physically visible to the naked eye, not what "should be" or is "legally" true. The current map should stand as is, with my compliments. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. Then draw borders between Greek and Turkish part of Cyprus and between Transnistria and Moldova. Those borders are also very visible. Revise or delete that map! Map is deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.252.70 (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You probably have a valid point about Cyprus (though I don't know the details there - the situation is in flux, apparently; see United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus for details) and presumably the other border as well. However, if you want a map fixed, either you should fix it, or you should request somebody else to. Deleting the map entirely from the article and telling everyone else that they have to try to figure out exactly what you want and make it just so before you'll graciously allow them to include it is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. I'm running into way too many deletionists here nowadays who have the same "their way or the highway, you work for them, you should be thankful they let you put in anything at all" attitude and I am getting thoroughly exasperated with it. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

D-Day anniversary, etc.

Under the heading "National security" it says that in special cases such as the D-Day Anniversary (France) or World Cup (Germany), countries have reinstated border controls for a short period. How is that even possible, if all the border posts were torn down? Maybe in airports, but even there it would create logistical problems. There is no reference given in the article -- if this really did happen, surely it would have been reported in the news media. --Mathew5000 (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There are some good questions here, but it's not made up.[14] 70.15.116.59 (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that link; it should be added to the article. It led me to this English-language press release from Germany's Ministry of the Interior. I would imagine that they reinstituted border posts very selectively, at land borders on routes that World Cup fans would likely be taking into Germany. But it would be interesting to know for certain. Another thing I am wondering about, most news reports on this issue say that it will now be "possible to travel 2,500 miles from Estonia to Portugal without having to show a passport" (CNN for example). But wouldn't it be more impressive to talk about driving from Northern Scandinavia to Portugal? That distance must be much more than 2,500 miles (crossing from Sweden to Denmark on the Oresund Bridge). --Mathew5000 (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of these recent articles that talk about Estonia and Portugal are emphasising the new passportless trip you can make as a result of the adoption of Schengen by the Eastern states, so will tend to highlight that distance even if it is shorter than from Northern Scandinavia. 79.68.202.189 (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"Reinstituting border controls" usually means that the state reserves the right to make random spot checks on passangers without any other basis than border control, that is: without specific police or security intelligence. This basically means that the border control personnel can stop suspicious persons without a reasonable basis to doubt a crime. Instituting all-round, waterproof border controls even for a short time is not feasible without a grave reason for most EU countries. (E.g. a virulent epidemic or such) --MPorciusCato (talk) 08:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The map is wrong

Poland and 8 other countries are listed as fully implemented on the map. That's not true: they've only partially implemented the treaty. Border checks are still conducted at airports. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC))

I agree, I came here to say exactly the same thing, the new states have only partly implemented the agreement so they should be coloured dark grey like the UK and Ireland on the current map. A new colour could be added to show that they have no land or sea border controls, but as you say they still have border controls at airports, I believe for the next 3 months at least.(--BigTurnip (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

UK and Ireland are not at all in the agreement. So there is no comparison between them and the 8 new countries. I think we can just add in the caption of the map "As of March 2008" and nothing more -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is very dangerous to start stating future possibilities as fact. The UK and Ireland reached agreement with the EU to participate in some areas of the agreement such as police co-operation, so to say they are not at all in the agreement is incorrect, to say they haven't signed the agreement in full would be more accurate, just like the 9 new countries for the next 3 months.(--BigTurnip (talk) 12:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

The UK and Ireland have signed a portion of the agreement, and fully implemented that portion. The 9 new countries have signed the whole treaty, and implemented a portion of it. So it's not the same thing. Maybe the UK and Ireland should be marked in a separate colour because of their special state. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

The nine new member states never signed the Schengen Agreement. The Schengen Agreement is part of the EU law (since the Amsterdam treaty), and, thus, it applies to every member state except where exceptions were stated in either the Amsterdam treaty (this was the case with the UK and Ireland) or the accession treaty. The accession treaty only provided for a temporary and partial exemption - the new member states did not have a right of choice if they wanted Schengen at all, but were bound to enhance the control at external borders and to fully apply the Schengen rules as soon as the EU decided that they were applicable there. The fact that they actually wanted Schengen did not change this legal position. --DanSchultz (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

How many countries have implemented the agreement?

The opening paragraph states 24, the table listing countries who have implemented the agreement shows 25. However as stated in the above point it should only be 15 until the 9 new countries fully implement it at the end of March 2008. I think the anomaly is Monaco and the table is correct, so the opening paragraph should read 16 or 25 after full implementation of the 9 new countries.(--BigTurnip (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

I fixed it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Monaco is not an official signatory, see Schengen_Agreement#Non-signatories_of_note. Maarten (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Cyprus ref

The reference given for Cyprus next to 2009 does not state that 2009 will be the year Cyprus would join, only that Cyprus wasn't yet ready to do so. What is the source of the 2009 figure? Is there one, given that it would need to be agreed by the Council first - which has not yet happened.- J Logan ^t: 18:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Cypriot newspaper, Cyprus will approve it in 2009: http://www.haravgi.com.cy/22_12_2007/index.html "Στην Κύπρο, που επίσης έγινε μέλος της ΕΕ το 2004, δεν επεκτάθηκε το κεκτημένο Σένγκεν, και θα διατηρηθεί ο έλεγχος στα τελωνεία για άλλο ένα έτος." (trans: In Cyprus, which became member of the EU in 2004, the Schengen Agreement didn't expand yet, the passport control will remain for one more year). "Haravgi, 22/12/2007, newspaper of AKEL). - Magioladitis (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

But read this EU document. It says "The exact timing cannot be predicted at this stage" (concerning when Cyprus, Bulgaria & Romania will join). It also says, "Cyprus has also informed the Council that it would only be prepared to determine the dates of its readiness in other areas of Schengen cooperation once the Schengen Information System II is ready at the end of 2008." --Mathew5000 (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am just stating the facts. Here is an article of Makarios Drousiotis, journalist of POLITIS, another Cypriot newspaper writes "η Κύπρος βρίσκεται σε διαδικασία εναρμόνισης, που αναμένεται να ολοκληρωθεί το 2009" (transl: Cyprus is in coordination phase, which is excepted to be completed in 2009". The journalist states as the reason for this delay the green line which Cyprus tries to make Schengen's outside border. I have any problem if you write 2009 or not. :P -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That article is a year old, isn't it? The date at the bottom is 14/12/2006. --Mathew5000 (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I haven't noticed that. In any case since the EU report is the only official document we have I agree that we have to stick to that. I just wanted to point out that in Cyprus they believe that they will enter the agreement in 2009 as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Liechtenstein

"A total of 30 states, including all European Union states and three non-EU members (Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland), have signed the agreement..."

Should this be 4 non-EU states including Leichtenstein? AndrewRT(Talk) 22:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not found any source saying that Liechtenstein has already signed the accession protocols. I did come across this document, dated July 2007, saying "negotiations with Liechtenstein have been completed and the signing of the accession protocols to the Swiss association agreements is expected to follow within the next months." But I suspect that the signing has not occurred yet because I can't find any press release saying it has. Some other relevant sources: [15] [16] [17] [18]. --Mathew5000 (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Malta not mentioned on map

According to the BBC article on this Malta is also part of the latest expansion, but it isn't mentioned on the map (something similar to lichtenstein, with appropriately coloured background) -- Me.

Malta is not mentioned because it is already implementing. The map only mentions countries that are not already implementing (Cyprus, Bulgaria, Romania, Liechtenstein, Switzerland). It would be rather impossible to mention all the EU countries that are implementing as there are no borders in the map. Maarten (talk) 13:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of this? and illegal immigration

Maybe I've missed something, but surely this will be hell for western European countries who already have illegal immigration problems?[19] Surely people from Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia are absoutely going to flood the west. It doesn't mention in the article how this is benificial or what its purpose is. Maybe the western countries will soon withdraw? - What is the Deal (talk) 08:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are not quite well informed. Since the accession of Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia to the European Union on 1 May 2004, citizens of those countries did not require any permission to travel to the west. A passport or identity card was sufficient. They also had the right to stay and reside in any EU state from that date onwards without any permission (the formal requirement of a residence permit which was required in some EU states for citizens of other states has been abolished EU-wide). Until 2009, citizens of some new member states still require work permits in some other member states, but they do not need them before entry. As you can see, illgal migration cannot relate to people from Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, since they simply cannot migrate to western Europe illegally - they are always legal there. Thus, abolishing border controls cannot lead to any flood, as border controls did not prevent any citizen of Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia from entering western European countries.

OK, I admit, this point might be too complicated to some. --DanSchultz (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Legal sources / correctness

The article appears to be wrong in some respects:

• The term pasport free is misleading. A passport had not been required for travel within the EU / former EEC, a national identity card was sufficient - except for Britons, as their country did not issue ID cards. Furthermore, even with the border checks being abolished, it is still legally required to carry identification when crossing internal borders. So, in that sense, it is not passport free, but check free.
• The 1985 Schengen agreement (Schengen I) was not the basis for the abolition of border controls. That agreement rather provided for a simplfied procedure at internal borders. Only the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement (Schengen II) of 1993 provided for the abolition of border controls.
• The article talks about signatories of the Schengen agreement. This is wrong. Poland, for example, never signed any of the two Schengen agreements. It signed up to accession to the EU. Since the Schengen rules are part of EU law since the Amsterdam treaty, and Poland became member state of the EU, the Schengen rules apply to Poland.
• The Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement - that is Schengen II - has been repealed as with respect to the abolition of border controls. Those questions are now regulated in the Schengen Borders Code. In that code (Articles 20 to 21), it is clearly stated what the abolition of border controls means:

Article 20

Crossing internal borders

Internal borders may be crossed at any point without a border check on persons, irrespective of their nationality, being carried out.

Article 21

Checks within the territory

The abolition of border control at internal borders shall not affect:

(a) the exercise of police powers by the competent authorities of the Member States under national law, insofar as the exercise of those powers does not have an effect equivalent to border checks; that shall also apply in border areas. Within the meaning of the first sentence, the exercise of police powers may not, in particular, be considered equivalent to the exercise of border checks when the police measures:

(i) do not have border control as an objective,

(ii) are based on general police information and experience regarding possible threats to public security and aim, in particular, to combat cross-border crime,

(iii) are devised and executed in a manner clearly distinct from systematic checks on persons at the external borders,

(iv) are carried out on the basis of spot-checks;

(b) security checks on persons carried out at ports and airports by the competent authorities under the law of each Member State, by port or airport officials or carriers, provided that such checks are also carried out on persons travelling within a Member State;

(c) the possibility for a Member State to provide by law for an obligation to hold or carry papers and documents;

(d) the obligation on third-country nationals to report their presence on the territory of any Member State pursuant to the provisions of Article 22 of the Schengen Convention.

--DanSchultz (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• One more point: In the graphics, the United Kingdom is marked as not applying Schengen. This is wrong. In the United Kingdom the Schengen acquis is applied, but with an exception to the travel-related provisions. However, the rules concerning police cooperation (e. g. use of the Schengen Information System, hot pursuit, cross-border surveillance, etc.) are well applied. Furthermore, the uniform Schengen visa format is applied by the United Kingdom for visa of classes A to C, although a different format is in use for national visa. However, UK visa of types A to C are not Schengen visa, as they do not entitle to travel within the Schengen zone. --DanSchultz (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I corrected the points mentioned above. --DanSchultz (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! This article has improved a lot thanks to you. Maarten (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Any hope for the US?

I was curious - is there any hope that the U.S. could join this zone? 70.15.116.59 (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

None at all. No political will on the US side, neither on the European side. Inside the Schengen zone, the emigration/immigration from country to country is free, so joining the European Economic Area is a prerequisite. And the US cannot do that, first of all because it is not a European nation. Even if it were one, it would not pass the human rights criteria for the membership. (E.g. abolition of the capital punishment is a must for EEA membership.) --MPorciusCato (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The US want to keep its own checks on its borders. Even more strict than the UK who don't want to join the Schengen union. There are also border checks against Canada, but more relaxed than against Mexico and other countries (at airports). Is there an article about US passport checks ? -- BIL (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be Borders of the United States and Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. --BIL (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that a country doesn't have to join the EEA in order to join the Schengen area. Switzerland is set to implement the treaty without being part of the EEA. Additionally, is there really any geographical requirement for EEA entry? I seem to understand that Cyprus is part of the EEA, despite being located outside of Europe. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC))

Inside Europe is in principle a requirement for membership of the Schengen area. Note that areas like Guadeloupe, French Guiana etc are not inside the Schengen area, but inside the EU. Cyprus is a member of the European Union, thanks to Greece, who are friends of Cyprus, and negotiated to define Cyprus to be inside Europe. -- BIL (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Legally, there are no rules which state any geographical or political requirements which a state has to meet in order to join the Schengen area (there are such criteria for joining the EU, but this is a different matter). The only possibility to join the Schengen zone would be to enter into a treaty with the EU, which includes a clause that Schengen-related EU law would be applicable in the associated non-EU state. The associated state would only have the right to be consulted. Thus, the U.S. would have to accept each and every majority (!) decision taken in Brussels whether citizens of this or that country would need a visa for entry into the area or not. And the U.S. would have to accept that every third-country national holding a residence title of a Schengen state could enter the U.S. without even being checked. To BIL: Guadeloupe and French Guiana are not inside the Schengen area because this would e.g. require France to equip the complete rain forest border between French Guiana and Suriname, Brasil etc. with high-tech infrared sensors which would detect every monkey (remark added: this was meant to refer to monkeys in the literal sense of the word --DanSchultz (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)) which is crossing the border - just in order to avoid ID checks on flights between there and Europe. I can understand why they do not invest any money into this. --DanSchultz (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Akrotiri and Dhekelia

Does anyone have data on Akrotiri and Dhekelia, if I remember correctly their alignment with Cyprus includes open borders, which will be maintained with Schengen and Akrotiri and Dhekelia's borders being administered as an EU/Schengen external border. Anyone know the details and have refs?- J Logan ^t: 16:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

In EU law I believe they are referred to as "Sovereign base areas" (or individually, "eastern sovereign base area" and "western sovereign base area"). So you can look through the official documents from 2003 on enlargement but I think the most relevant parts are in the protocols, particularly Protocol No 3 beginning on page 940 of that document. Article 5 of Protocol 3 refers to Part Four of the Annex, which is on page 943. However, it does not specifically refer to Schengen. --Mathew5000 (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

See the articles on the two UK administered areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia ie the Sovereign Base Areas which are Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom. Why two seperate articles, who knows? Hugo999 (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

New Map

I would like to say that I dont like the new map that was added into the article, the very first one, i think its so abrupt, so rude,I dont know how to explain it, I liked much better the old one that was smaller and light blue, I dont know if somebody agreed with me i think this new map messes up the text and the article itself. Thank you.--Philip200291 (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree it was a tad too big, maybe if it was centred as a chart but as an insert at the top it was a bit too much - though I think the current one pushes it a bit to much for the intro. However perhaps we could carry over the inclusion of UK&IRL note?- J Logan ^t: 18:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to combine the best of the two worlds and created something new based on what was there. --DanSchultz (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

but can it plz be rezised its over the text now :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.7.17.100 (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Norway

It says that Svalbard and Jan Mayen are excluded from Norway's Schengen membership. Svalbard isn't part of Schengen, but as far as I know, Jan Mayen is part of Schengen. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

I have checked this using Google, and I have changed the article. -- BIL (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The table is confusing

> State: Cyprus. Implemented: not yet implemented. Except: Northern Cyprus.

I read this as "Cyprus has not yet implemented the treaty, except for Northern Cyprus, which has implemented it". But obviously this isn't the case.

> Country: United Kingdom. > Except: Implementing police and judicial cooperation rules only > Guernsey > Isle of Man > Jersey > - & all territories outside of Europe

This suggests one of the following:

• The UK has implemented the treaty fully, except for Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Jersey and all non-European territories, which only implement the police and jucicial cooperation rules.
• The UK only implements the police and juducial cooperation rules, except for Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Jersey and all non-European territories, which implement the treaty fully.

But obvioiusly neither is the case.

Can someone think of a better way of expressing the Cyprus and UK situations? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC))

You are right. It is always the same: People who are very familiar with the topic automatically use the correct interpretation for ambigious content and, thus, do not recognize that amiguity at all. Once I find some time, I will consider how to fix the table (unless someone else is quicker ;-) ). Thanks a lot for your remark. --DanSchultz (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I clarified the table so that it is clear enough now. --DanSchultz (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothern Cyprus

Should Nothern Cyprus be presented in exempted territories as in Cyprus Schengen Agreement is not implemented yet?--Dima1 (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in my opinion, it should: Once the Schengen agreement will be implemented, the border controls to the northen part will nevertheless be present, and the authorities of the northern part will probably not allow a third-country national to enter the northern part simply because he holds a Schengen visa. In addition, Turkish nationals do not require a visa to enter Northern Cyprus, but they do need a visa to cross an external Schengen border. Thus, the application of the Schengen will, in practice, not extend to the north. If both parts of the island should become reunited before October, it would still be possible to delete the Northern Cyprus exemption entry. --DanSchultz (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1