SWEDEN AND NORWAY ANSWER SCHENGEN QUESTIONNAIRE
It has become one of the rituals of Schengen that states applying for membership are supposed to give proof of their commitment to the common accord and the long-term objectives of Schengen cooperation by answering a questionnaire consisting of didactic statements followed by an impressive catechism of specific questions. The Swedish and Norwegian replies to this entrance examination suggest that the two Nordic states are determined to become the star pupils in the Schengen classroom.
The questionnaire is divided into the following 11 chapters, each introduced by a statement of common principles and goals: 1. Abolition of controls at internal borders; 2. Controls at external borders and border surveillance; 3. Airports; 4. Electronic police databases and data protection legislation; 5. Narcotics; 6. Visas; 7. Readmission agreements; 9. Immigration; 10. Mutual legal assistance; 11. Police cooperation.
As an example, the introduction to chapter 9 (on immigration) says: "The opening of borders in Europe has resulted in an increased migratory pressure on Western European countries. The Schengen states have provided themselves with legal instruments enabling them to fight against illegal immigration, which has become a central problem". This is followed by a number of questions: Does Swedish/Norwegian (S/N) legislation provide for penal sanctions against illegal immigrants and their employers? If not, is such legislation being prepared? Do carrier sanctions exist against companies that carry passengers lacking necessary travel documents? Does the breaching of borders outside official crossing-points entail penal or administrative sanctions? "As for the rest, the Schengen states request that S/N provide information on such [illegal] migration as established on S/N territory and how it has developed in the three last years". Does S/N maintain statistics illustrating illegal immigration at its external borders in 1991/92/93? Number of persons denied entry? At which border? The five countries whose nationals are turned away most frequently? How do the smugglers operate? Which nationalities make most frequent use of forged documents? What kind of documents are most often forged? Which are the methods of forgery most resorted to? Which regulations apply to the stay and the expulsion of foreigners? What is the number of expelled foreigners?
The introduction to chapter 8 (on asylum) says that the Schengen regulations shall be implemented by the aid of "practical instruments drawn up by the 12 (now 15 states) [of the EU] with a view to implementing the Dublin Convention". Regarding the latter, the Schengen states "assume that S/N is able and willing to implement the corresponding provisions in the [Schengen] Implementing Agreement".
Nordic Passport Union a precursor of Schengen
Both the Swedish and the Norwegian replies implicitly suggest that Schengen cooperation is actually a Nordic invention. Indeed, many "Schengen" concepts were realized within the Nordic countries long before Schengen was even conceived. As early as 1958, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland and Iceland concluded the Nordic Passport Control Agreement (NPCA). Among other things, it introduced the distinction between internal and external borders and provided both for the abolition of passport checks at internal borders and increased control at external borders. Inter-Nordic cooperation further resulted in close Justice and Police cooperation. In 1982, Nordic Police, Customs and Drugs cooperation was initiated. According to the Norwegian replies, cooperation is "excellent both on the operational and strategic level" and includes domains such as Nordic police intelligence projects, mutual information and common operations involving, for instance, "controlled deliveries" of drugs. All Nordic countries have also exchanged police and Customs liaison officers, and in a number of third countries they are represented by one common liaison officer. Mutual judicial assistance provides for the direct communication of requests between executive authorities, without a need to involve ministries. There is also a common structure of information exchange in the field of expulsions. The Swedish authorities are in charge of drawing up a common monthly list on all foreigners subject to an expulsion measure in one Nordic state. The NPCA comprises rules establishing the Nordic state responsible for taking back a person who has entered another member state illegally via its territory.
Abolition of internal border controls
Both candidate states are prepared to abolish their internal border controls. Sweden, however, specifies that all member states "fully and effectively" implement the SIA's (Schengen Implementing Agreement) provisions on external border controls, as well as other compensatory measures and that the latter "meet Swedish requirements of control and security", including police cooperation, and "reconnaissance and surveillance in zones close the borders".
External border control
Both candidates are prepared to meet Schengen requirements. Norway emphasises that its 54 police districts and the Coast Guard are already ensuring effective surveillance. The planned adoption of a new law in 1996 provides for additional boats and limited specific police and Customs powers for the Coast Guard, which is placed under the Defense Department. A new coordinated information and communication system, currently being tested, will further improve the flow of information concerning vessel movement on Norwegian sea territory. Control and checks are particularly intense at Norway's 198 km border with Russia and already meet Schengen standards.
Airports
Both candidates are able to meet Schengen requirements after a short period of transition.
Police databases and data protection
Both countries are ready to comply with Schengen requirements and point to the wide use of electronic data processing in border control and policing. Sweden names nine such registers. No figures are given, but it is stressed that the amount of information stored is "very large for most of the databases". Police and Customs access to the registers is ensured by a very developed network of entry points, including all Police and Customs units.
Norway names eight registers with access for all of the country's 430 police stations. The police have a total of 3000 terminals.
Both countries have set up electronic fingerprint registers. The Norwegian reply specifies that this register includes a special section on foreigners, according to the following categories: undocumented, suspected false identity; asylum or other application under the foreigners law; expulsion measure or suspected unlawful stay. Fingerprints can be communicated throughout the country by aid of the FIT system (Fingerprint Image Transmission).
Narcotics
Both candidates stress their repressive attitudes towards drugs. Sweden stresses the need for the "special surveillance of places known for drugs trafficking". It also names a number of bilateral agreements on police cooperation concluded with France (fight against terrorism, illegal drug trafficking and organised crime), Spain (terrorism), and Russia (fight against crime).
Visa
Both candidates approve Schengen's common list of countries whose nationals need a visa. Sweden and Norway are currently testing an electronic communication system which will link their foreign representations to the relevant foreigners registers.
Readmission
Both candidates accept Schengen policies on readmission. Norway further confirms its willingness to sign a parallel convention to the Dublin Convention (as a non-member of the EU, Norway cannot join the Dublin Convention itself), as soon as the latter is in force.
Both Norway and Sweden point out that they have also concluded readmission agreements with non-Nordic countries. Sweden has concluded such treaties with Germany, France and Romania. A similar agreement is due to be signed shortly with Poland and further agreements are planned with Estonia, Lithuania and Russia. Regarding the agreement with Poland, the Swedish statement points out that it was drawn up in compliance both with the Schengen states' agreement with Poland and the EU's framework text for readmission agreements. Sweden claims that its agreement with Poland "better serves the aimed-at objective of a smooth handling of readmission cases than the Schengen-Poland agreement". Sweden is however "prepared to implement the Schengen-Poland agreement vis-à-vis the Schengen states".
Asylum
Both candidates produce comprehensive statistics showing a decline in asylum applications between 1992 and 1995 (S: 92: 84,018; 95 (first six months): 4,777; N: 92: 5,238; 95 (first nine months): 1,099).
Immigration
The replies of both candidates suggest an increase of illegal immigration but are unable to provide overall figures.
The Swedish replies notes that "the item is complicated because of the lack of a legal definition of 'illegal immigrant'". In 1994, 18,774 foreigners were deported from Sweden. Persons turned away immediately at the border are not included in this figure.
Sweden lacks legislation enabling to fine carriers that transport insufficiently documented passengers. In Norway, such a regulation will enter into force this year. The countries whose nationals are denied entry to Norway most frequently are Poland (1992); Russia (1993, with UK-citizens in the fourth place!); Poland (1994), and Bosnia & Hercegovina (1995). Most of them travelled to Norway via a Western European country. The Norwegian reply points out that half of the asylum seekers were undocumented in 1995.
Mutual judicial assistance
Both candidates are willing to comply with Schengen requirements. Together with the other EU member states, Sweden signed the Convention on simplified extradition procedures in March 1995 and is in favour of "further simplifying extradition procedures" in the EU-framework of Justice and Home Affairs cooperation.
Police cooperation
The candidates have no objections against the Schengen rules on police cooperation, and namely its regulations on cross-border pursuit and observation. Norway, however, mentions a little problem consisting in the fact that Norwegian police are normally unarmed, while this is not the case for their colleagues in the other Nordic countries. "This is the situation, Norwegian and, the Swedish and Finnish authorities will have to tackle together", the Norwegian statement concludes.
Sources: The Norwegian Replies to the Schengen Questionnaire, 7.12.95; The Swedish Answers to the Schengen Questionnaire, 10.10.95.