Jump to content

Talk:Schengen Agreement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 85.40.4.67 (talk) at 22:17, 24 January 2007 (→Controversies). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:European Union

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?

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))[reply]

Dependencies and Schengen

Why are Hellgoland 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 Denark. Faroe Island also are part of the Nordic passport union, but Greenland never has been apart 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)

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Great! Only problem is that now neither Andorra nor Monaco are mentioned... — File:Austria flag large.png ナイトスタリオン ㇳ–ㇰ — 18:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 havenbeen 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

needed rewording of the microstates/special regions paragraph

  • If the "exceptions" list is correct and full - then Danemark'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://europa.eu.int/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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Voting

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

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

NPOV

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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.

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.

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))[reply]
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)[reply]

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 to 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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Duden derives from "Paraphe": Namenszeichen; [Stempel mit] Namenszug. "Initialled"? JCScaliger 17:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or "approved", as in "stamped"? —Nightstallion (?) 21:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]
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)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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))[reply]
"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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Schengen_Agreement&oldid=103002239"