Talk:Schengen Area/Archive 1

Archive 1

Greenland's Status

Is Greenland still included in the Schengen Area after the recent change in autonomy? --Tterrag (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It was specifically excluded along with the Faeroe Islands even before wasnt it?

83.104.138.141 (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Air security

The article currently states that "when travelling by air between Schengen countries, or within a single Schengen country, identification (usually passport or national ID card) is requested at the airport check-in counters." This is not true in general; at least on some Swedish SAS routes passengers can travel without being identified. A passenger with checked in their luggage, must however prove that he or she also boards the plan by providing a matching fingerprint scan at check-in and boarding.

The article further states: "Also, the nationals who need a visa for Schengen countries are asked to present it together with a valid passport. Although immigration control is generally not applied at points of departure or arrival (essentially, the flight is classed as 'domestic'), this lower form of border control is performed at airport check-in counters." Here, a reference supporting this claim would be most welcome.

Filur (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I believe the article is wrong in this section. ID card checking is done by many airlines at check-in and/or boarding. However, I don't think that this is any form of border control, but rather revenue protection of the airlines (so that airline tickets cannot be traded). One airline that does not usually check for ID at all for intra-Schengen travel is Lufthansa; neither at check-in (which could be done online or at a check-in machine anyway) nor at boarding (where most other airlines check ID). I will try to change the article. --SmilingBoy (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

And I changed it again to say that this is not a general requirement. If someone does not agree, please discuss here. --SmilingBoy (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, there is the sentence "There are air security rules requiring this for passengers with check-in luggage." - can this be confirmed by any references? I have often checked bags without being checked for ID - I will therefore remove this for now. --SmilingBoy (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

My experience in Sweden is that they always ask for id (I have only flown internationally inside Schengen, the last few years). Anyway, all recommendations say bring a passport or national id, even if it is not always checked, or other identity documents might work. Since most Swedes and all Norwegians do not posess a national id card, the concept of passportless Schengen travel does not work for them, since a passport should be brought anyway. --BIL (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

ID is required as a general requirement (including by Lufthansa) for intra-Schengen travel from (but not to) GReece). As I understand it, the normal rules of ID proof are abolished for countries that, at a particular time, are considered to be a route for smuggling and asylum-seeking. Temporary abandonment of the free movement provision is anyway permitted, but this is a more minor derogation than that. I presume it is permitted in the Border Code. Xenos2008 (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No visa required for Moroccans of the Tétouan and Nador regions to enter Ceuta and Melilla?

According to this website Moroccans from Tétouan and Nador are able to enter Ceuta and Melilla without a visa. They nevertheless are not able to travel to any other Spanish or Schengen territory. How is this compatible with Schengen rules? If this is a true story, I think it should be included in the article.

Quote:

Ressortissants marocains de Tétouan ou de Nador

Les ressortissants marocains, qui résident dans les provinces de Tétouan ou de Nador et qui désirent entrer exclusivement sur le territoire des villes de Ceuta et Melilla (les deux enclaves espagnoles en territoire marocain) sont exemptés de visa. Toutefois, l'Espagne maintient des contrôles d'identité et de documents sur les liaisons maritimes et aériennes en provenance de Ceuta et Melilla qui ont pour destination une autre partie du territoire espagnol ou un autre État Schengen.

Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Schengen Aquis, page 107. Halx (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Has the Schengen exemption for 1st batch of Caribbean countries kicked in?

There was talk that some of the CARIFORUM (Caribbean Community + Dominican Republic) countries that signed on to the Economic Partnership Agreement with the E.U... would be granted Visa free travel to the E.U. area? The last sources I saw said said it should have been approved by the end of March 2009. [1], [2]. Anyone know if this has entered into force as stated? CaribDigita (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I work for the Seychelles Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I believe the Agreements were signed on thursday 28th May 2009. Seychelles was included along with a few carribean countries. once the legal and practical formalities have been sorted, it should be aright by the end of June. For countries which has done all of these , then it should take effect 1st June.Hansel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.137.155 (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the response. The Caribbean press picked up the story as well. Short-stay visa waiver agreements signed between EU and four Caribbean countries, Caribbean Net News - Published on Friday, May 29, 2009

IRISH STATUS on Schengen Map is incorrect - Rep. of Ireland is not a member of the Schengen in any way, the Irish State claims

Hello,

This map illustrating Schengen_Area#Membership is inaccurate. Schengen_Agreement_map.svg

Please refer to letter from the Irish State's Department of Justice, Equality & Law-Reform 2009-02-25

SUBJECT : Schengen acquis not in place in Irish Jurisdiction

2009-02-28+Dhr Henry Mitchell, Dept. Justice, Equality & Law-Reform-IRISH REPUBLIC Ref.: LOG 133-9-49 ADOBE PDF

Reference: OFFICIAL DOCUMENT IRISH AUTHORITY IN DUBLIN 2009-02-28+Dhr Henry Mitchell,Dept. Justice Equality+Law-Reform-

IMAGE INACCURATE MAP: location (url) [3]

Barentsz (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I've altered the table too. Nobody knows whether Ireland will join. Grouping it with Liechtenstein, Romania, Bulgaria and Cyprus, which are actually putting the scheme in place, makes no sense. --86.25.238.241 (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Faroese and Greenlandic visas

It says in this article that the Faroe Islands and Greenland are de facto members of the Schengen Area because of the lack of passport control. But I would say that they only are partially de facto members, because of different immigration rules.

• If you're a non-Nordic citizen not needing a visa for the Faroe Islands or Greenland, you must leave the areas within 90 days of arrival unless you get a residence permit.
• If you're a non-EEA, non-Swiss citizen not needing a visa for visiting a Schengen country, you must leave the Schengen area within 90 days of arrival unless you get a residence permit.
• If you're an EEA citizen visiting a Schengen country, you must leave the Schengen country within 90 days of arrival unless you have some kind of financiation and a place where to live. Exceptions: Nordic citizens may stay in other Nordic countries regardless of whether they have some kind of financiation or a place where to live. In the case of Switzerland, some kind of permit is needed for staying longer.

I seem to understand that the 90-day periods for Schengen, the Faroe Islands and Greenland are separate from each other, whereas there is a common 90-day period for all Schengen countries for non-EEA, non-Swiss citizens. So you may stay in Schengen for 90 days, and directly after that you may stay in Greenland for another 90 days.

• A visa for the Schengen Area doesn't give access to the Faroe Islands or Greenland. A visa for the Faroe Islands doesn't give access to the Schengen Area (uncertain if it gives access to Greenland).[4] A visa for Greenland doesn't give access to the Schengen Area (uncertain if it gives access to the Faroe Islands).[5]

So there are some differences, and they may cause some trouble to some people, especially if a visa is needed. This doesn't seem to be clearly explained in the article. (130.237.223.128 (talk) 09:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC))

You're partially confusing the Schengen Area with Freedom of Movement. Schengen only means no border controls. It doesn't mean that people have the right to stay in any particular country once they're there. I take your point on visas. Are you sure that going to the Faroe islands is really treated as leaving the Schengen Area, given that such an exit would be unlikely to be marked on a passport? Are there any group of people who wouldn't need a visa to go to a Schengen country, but who would need one to go to the Faroe islands? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have a residence permit in either area, but you wish to go to the other area, you need a visa. If you are resident outside of Schengen/FO and plan on visiting both, you seem to need two separate visas. So FO doesn't participate in the Schengen common visa stuff. Visas are required for the same groups of people, though. As far as exiting an area, well, look at the Nordic Passport Union and the Common Travel Area, for example. No border control, but still it counts as if you leave a country (and need another visa). (212.247.11.156 (talk) 07:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC))

Liechtenstein

The article states that Liechtenstein will join the Schengen Area by november 2009, but this is not true. The Swedish Social Democratic Party (the biggest opposition party) blocked the Swedish ratification of the agreement between EU and Liechtenstein already in May 2009. Therefore Liechtenstein won't be able to join the Schengen Area until the country cooperate fully with the European Union in economic issues. Source (in Swedish). --Glentamara (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And support from the Social Democratic Party is needed because a 2/3 majority is needed (according to the article). (212.247.11.156 (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC))

Currently a date of "2011" is put in the article with no source and sources in the Liechtenstein section (from 2009) point for "Swedish/German block because of lack of tax-evasion cooperation" (or similar). So, we should either have some more recent source about "Sweden/Germany approve Liechtenstein Schengen membership, to happen in 2011" - or we should put one dash "-" for date with a link to the Liechtenstein section where the "Swedish/German block" is explained. Alinor (talk) 06:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Confusing section

In the table I find this confusing comment for Ireland:

not implemented nor put into effect by Decision of the European Council[1][2][4] unlike for the UK, which is implemented and put into effect.[1]

This suggests that the UK has implemented the whole treaty and that it has been put into effect. Nowhere close to the comment does it say that only a subset applies to the UK. But how can this be made more clear?

police and judicial cooperation rules not implemented nor put into effect by Decision of the European Council[1][2][4] unlike for the UK, which is implemented and put into effect.[1]

But then it implies that the other parts of Schengen have been implemented in Ireland. Hm...

not implemented nor put into effect by Decision of the European Council[1][2][4] unlike for the UK, where parts of Schengen are implemented and put into effect.[1]

Would this avoid confusion? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC))

I would suggest:

police and judicial cooperation rules not implemented nor put into effect by Decision of the European Council[1][2][4] unlike for the UK, where these parts of Schengen are implemented and put into effect.[1]

Alinor (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Prüm Convention

List of current Prum signatories (the article currently list only the original signatories)? Also the link Prüm Convention redirects to Schengen Treaty, but the Prum treaty is actualy described in more detail here (Schengen Area) and not there. Alinor (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Status of Ireland

I made a grammatical change to the following:

"Ireland made a carbon-copy request to that submitted by the United Kingdom which was approved by the Council of the European Union on 28 February 2002.[21] However, this has been put into effect,[3] with the result that there is no legal obligation on any other EU member state to cooperate with the Irish police force on matters of Police and Judicial Cooperation.[22]"

As you can see, I added "not yet" to the phrase "However, this has been put into effect," as it seemed to me that the references pointed to Ireland having approval to implement these rules, but the country has not done so yet. Furthermore, the use of the word "However" suggests that a negative phrase was expected here, not a positive.
In any case, I welcome the insight of anyone else who has been working this page and subject longer than 'moi'...
William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd previously deleted the words "not yet" on the basis that it assumes that Ireland will eventually put these measures into effect, when we don't have any sources that say that will happen. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I agree that "yet" implies to some extent that there is an assumption that Ireland will eventually put these measures into place, but I question (from a long distance) that there are no sources that it will ever happen. Please see the source referenced in this article at [6]:

"Ireland’s application to participate in these specified articles of the agreement was approved by Council decision in 2002. In accordance with this decision, these provisions will come into effect only after a range of technical and legislative measures have been put in place and successfully evaluated by the Council. The measures which will enable Ireland to meet its Schengen requirements are currently being progressed."

Here, Dermot Ahern (Minister, Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform) states that these requirements "are currently being progressed." Are we talking about two different things here? Or would you prefer just the word "not" as opposed to "not yet"?

William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

crown dependencies

crown dependencies are not part of the UK and as such don't need to be listed as exempt territiories 94.197.141.177 (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)twitik 17th feb 2010

You are technically correct that Guernsey, the Isle of Man, and Jersey are not part of the U.K. However, given that they are Crown Dependencies, that the UK provides for their defense, that they are located in very close proximity to the Schengen Area, and that most Wikipedia readers would have no idea of this subtlety and so would assume that they are part of the UK, leaving their names here is probably a good idea. I'll add to the footnote to clarify this.

William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I had a look a the table you are discussing here. It uses different background colors for some rows. There is no legend for this coloring scheme, and it is also not clear to me how such a legend would look like. If no clear definitions can be given, I would remove the colors. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if any great description for the colors need to be given: the white background is clearly for countries that have fully implemented it, the beige/tan background is for the country that has partially implemented it, and the grey backgrounds are for countries that have not (yet) implemented it.

To me, this is obvious from a quick look at the table, and further clarification isn't needed.

William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Obvious? The table has four colors, not just three. That is, I can't even decipher which of the four colors your three explanations refer to. Conclusion: it's not obvious at all.

In general, it is a bad idea to use a color code without definition. It might be obvious to some (especially when not looking critically), but it might also appear be arbitrary to others. Most importantly, it is not verifiable. Tomeasy _{T C} 07:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see that there is a pale tan, which I didn't notice at first (blame my monitor, which doesn't reproduce it well, so it looks a lot like white when you're scrolling through the table)...and I agree that the purpose of that color is not as clear - they are full implementations but have footnotes.

You are correct that it is poor style to communicate content solely through color - because the visually impaired might not be able to read the color properly. But the colors here clearly were only meant to augment the textual content, not provide independent content.

In this case, for me, the various colored backgrounds really serve more to help read across the line, rather than convey any information...you know, the way that "green bar" computer paper would alternate between green and white lines so that it would be easier for the eye to read to the right a long distance across the page.

So, I invite you to do one of three things: (1) create a color legend (as soon as you figure out what the pale tan is for), (2) delete all the colors all together, or (3) delete these colors and just have each row be a white background alternating with a very pale grey background, for ease of reading in a long table...

William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Done (option 2). Tomeasy _{T C} 19:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

@JLogan. I see that you have reintroduced the colors, but unfortunately your legend does not work - at least not on my sytem. Tomeasy _{T C} 01:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

@Logan. I endorse your recent changes to split the table up in two: Members and future members. Somewhat critical I find the listing of the UK and especially Ireland in the table for members. I mean, Ireland explicitly opts out of Schengen.

The other thing I do not like is your edition to the map in this section. Basically, we have now the map from the infobox repeated here with a very bad formatting (e.g., Ireland written in blue on green background). The style of the previous map was much better, I find. it cleanly showed the Schengen area as one zone. I also do not understand why the map needs to have clickable labels for all countries. I want to go back to the old map, and correct its errors. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, okay sorry for not writing on here sooner. First thing, Ireland in blue? It is defiantly in green and I've no clue why it would show up differently. What browser are you using? Tried refreshing? Second issue. It wasn't su much clickable I was going more, more labeled. Having a massive blue zone isn't helpful for saying who the member are - some people won't know countries well by names and seeing them helps understanding. The old map only really told you what countries weren't in. As for duplication, I'm going to change the infobox map for the old one. - _J.Logan`^t: 19:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This again (solving the duplication issue), I found a very good idea. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh and I agree on UK and IReland being moved out. I'll do that.- _J.Logan`^t: 19:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Please try to understand: "Ireland written in blue on green background" That is, the map uses a blue font on green background. This is just very badly implemented. See also the purple font for Germany on blue background or Poland written in light blue on blue background. This is almost not readable and looks more than awful, and why is Poland treated differently than Germany in this context here anyway. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh right, now that is odd. The font code is meant to over-write the natural link colour. Could you just refresh, I did some clean up a few minutes ago on that code, is it still like that right now? And again, what browser are you using?- _J.Logan`^t: 20:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, much better now, since all labels use white font. Have you tried using black font? In that case you might be able to avoid the awkward backgrounds?

I am using Firefox. I checked the results on IE and that should really concern you: The map does not show up at all! Tomeasy _{T C} 23:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Black doesn't look so good on those colours and backgrounds are best as going over the borders and different colours can make it look unreadable in areas. Best to be consistent.

Bloody IE! Okay I haven't a clue about that, I'm going to have to ask SSJ if he knows what I've done wrong.- _J.Logan`^t: 10:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

SSJ doesn't have a problem on his IE. That must be a local problem.- _J.Logan`^t: 17:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"Due to" versus "Owing to"

There was a time when some people thought that "owing to" and "due to" should be used in different occasions. However, I would warrant that the vast majority of people today - including scholars and dictionaries - would say that these two phrases are, and may be, used interchangeably. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv56.shtml http://www.dailywritingtips.com/owing-to-vs-due-to/ Also see http://elc.polyu.edu.hk/CILL/eap/contrastclauses.htm where it shows that "due to" is actually used much more often than "owing to", which, frankly, often sounds stilted to the North American ear. Finally, see http://thestar.com.my/english/story.asp?file=/2007/1/3/lifefocus/16325657&sec=lifefocus where the following is quoted:

"However, according to the 20-volume Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition, 1989), this use of “due to” as a compound preposition “is now widely current” in spite of H.W. Fowler’s objection to it in his 1926 book, Modern English Usage, that “due to” was “often used by the illiterate as though it had passed like ‘owing to’ into a mere compound preposition”. "

and

" The online American Heritage Dictionary (2000) and Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary express a similar opinion, with the latter saying: “‘Due to’ is as grammatically sound as owing to, which is frequently recommended in its place. It has been and is used by reputable writers and has been recognised as standard for decades. There is no solid reason to avoid ‘due to’.” "

So, rather than start an edit war, can we just acknowledge that going through Wikipedia article by article changing "due to" to "owing to" is not really a productive exercise, when there are so many other far worse issues to address? William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely! I would even say that the effort you spent was large in comparison to what this is about ;-) Tomeasy _{T C} 19:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

More on Liechtenstein

Further to the discussion above about how Sweden blocked the ratification of the accession of Liechtenstein to the Switzerland treaty, I've been trying to find more recent information but it is difficult. What I infer is that under the Treaty of Lisbon (in force December 2009), unanimous consent of EU members is no longer necessary for treaties of this sort, and therefore Sweden's parliament will no longer be able to prevent Liechtenstein from joining the Schengen Area. Is that correct? It looks like on April 26, 2010, the Council of the European Union released two draft decisions on this matter and sent them to the European Parliament for its consent.[7][8] However, from those pdfs (the second is a corrigendum) it is hard to tell whether they are draft decisions or true decisions. —Mathew5000 (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

French Overseas Departments and Territories

It states on the table that these are not part of Schengen, however, nothing is mentioned in the article about this. Additionally, they are not specially coloured/mentioned in the schengen visa map, something that surely should apply if they are not part of Schengen. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstood the colours:

• Blue: the country/territory is part of the European Union, so a person holding citizenship in this country/territory doesn't need entry/exit stamps when entering/exiting the Schengen Area. Blue is used for all EU countries, including Schengen non-members such as the UK. People from many of these locations may use a national ID instead of a passport to enter/exit Schengen from/to certain other locations.
• Light blue: the country/territory is not part of the European Union, but a person holding citizenship in this country/territory still doesn't need entry/exit stamps when entering/exiting the Schengen Area. This colour is used for both Schengen Area locations (e.g. Switzerland) and for other locations (e.g. Liechtenstein). People from many of these locations may use a national ID instead of a passport to enter/exit Schengen from/to certain other locations.
• Green: not part of EU, no visa needed to enter the European Union, but the person will get entry and exit stamps. Apart from the Croatian exception mentioned in this article, entry requires a passport (national ID doesn't work).
• Red: not part of EU, entry requires a visa.

Additionally, "blue" and "light blue" passport holders may use the priority queue available at some border crossings, whereas the "green" and "red" passports holders have to use the slower "all passports" variant. (213.100.156.114 (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC))

I do not see in how far the IPs response addresses the issue raised by Davis. I agree that the article does not answer questions related to these territories, e.g., as a holder of a Schengen visa, can you enter? Tomeasy _{T C} 16:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

renaming/change content of European Union visa lists

A discussion is running here for a name and possible content change of the European Union visa lists. If you have any ideas, feel free to join in.... L.tak (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ireland and the Map

As it abundantly clear from the legend on this article the red-ish coloured states are states which cooperate with the Schengen rules by implementing certain part of the Schengen acquis. The UK does this and Ireland doesn't, so the UK should be coloured red and Ireland should be coloured grey. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you add a couple of sources to this statement please? I find it hard to believe that the UK and Ireland would implement different schengen stuff, they being themselves a smaller version of schengen. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This article already contain all the sources that might be needed. This table kinda says it all. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Checking the note for ireland, it appears that Ireland has applied for the same cooperation as the UK, mainly police and judicial. I recommend adding a clarification to the pictures subtitle than changing the map. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I have read the discussions page, and I'm not the only one on there who disagrees with it. Cooperating with Schengen doesn'tmean the same as full engagement, nor does it require ratification of the treaty. UK and Ireland are in Common Travel Area which agrees with Schengen. You are the one who is wrong. Fry1989 (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Pure assertion. Please find a source. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If it is relevant, Ireland participates in the 'transfer of prisoners' element of Schengen - see http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2005/2805.pdf --Red King (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

And in the European arrest warrant. The Gárdai have access to the 'Schengen alert' that supports it also have access to the Schengen Information System - see http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2003/a4503.pdf --Red King (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Could this be the source that Blue Haired Lawyer wanted? CRIMINAL JUSTICE (MUTUAL ASSISTANCE) ACT 2008 --Red King (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, good job. Add that to the text if it isn't there yet and you have time! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Minister's statement (12/2009) says that Ireland hadn't yet completed all the prerequisites fo acceptance into the system: In accordance with this decision, these provisions will come into effect only after a range of technical and legislative measures have been put in place and successfully evaluated by the Council. The measures which will enable Ireland to meet its Schengen requirements are currently being progressed., so BHL may still have a point. --Red King (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, he may have a point. I do think though that they are obviously doing their best to help schengen, and being part of the common travel area with the UK, they must be already at least partially fulfilling their role in a de facto if not official sense. The problem here is that it is a map, which usually presents things in black and white. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As there are different levels of cooperation perhaps it would be best just to colour the UK+ROI as "not members" or "opted out of Schengen zone" BritishWatcher (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ireland is an EU member and consequently participates in lots of programmes which concern criminal and civil law. These are fairly wide ranging and include stuff like prisoner transfer, the European arrest warrant, choice of law in contract law, tort and family law, rules on the processing of asylum and subsidiary protection applications. However these areas do not form part of the Schengen acquis. They formed part of the EU's former third pillar which can be traced back to the Maastricht Treaty before Schengen was integrated into the EU.

Parts of the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008 were enacted facilitate Ireland's participation in the Schengen acquis but I can't see how these can be functioning when the decision on Ireland's participate in the Schengen acquis has not yet been brought into force. This seems reasonably apparent from the Act itself:

'14 (3) The following provisions of this Act give effect to Council Decision (2002/192/EC) of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland's request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis, in so far as those provisions relate to mutual assistance in criminal matters:

(a) paragraph (c) of the definition of "criminal proceedings" in subsection (1);

(b) subsections (1) and (2) of sections 74 and 75;

(c) section 82(1)(b).'

The Common Travel Area is not what Fry appears to think it is. There are no common rules. It does not exist as an entity separate from the UK and Ireland. I'm not even sure if he realises that there are systematic border controls between the Schengen Area and the Common Travel Area.

"Cooperating states" as a map label is vague and unhelpful. What we have sources for is that the UK participates in the police and judicial cooperation aspects of Schengen, while Ireland doesn't.

I think I'm leaning toward BritishWatcher's thinking here. Cooperation or not, neither Ireland nor the UK are part of the Schengen Area, nor are they likely to be any time soon. Having them coloured in is more likely to mislead than to inform. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe change the label to opt-out? That way the map shows the expansions limits, as it already shows the future members (in green). I don't think there are any other EU states with optouts? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Just noting here at the end for anyone new that the map has been replaced by one which doesn't mention the UK or Ireland. They could possibly be included later, when the complicated bureaucracy of ireland allows it! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually what I've done was to have one map (the one in the info box) just showing the Schengen Area (and countries joining in the near future). And another more detailed and clickable map which Ireland and the UK shown as non-Schengen EU members. I don't propose to change this even if Ireland implements police and judicial cooperation.

Colouring in Ireland and the UK on the main map may have given some users the misleading impression that those countries participate in the Schengen Area or had open borders with it. In reality, police and judicial cooperation is not hugely significant and not all Schengen members participate in it.

I am still at a loss to explain why Fry1989 wouldn't let me show that while Britain had implemented police and judicial cooperation, Ireland hadn't. But the current set-up appears to be acceptable anyway. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Schengen Wall

posted wrongly instead of here. Alinor (talk) 05:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"Date of first implementation"

The "date of first implementation" header in one of the tables isn't accurate. Many countries joined Schengen in three steps:

• Schengen visa whitelist and blacklist implemented
• Schengen visas issued & border controls removed from land borders
• Border controls removed from air borders

The countries joining the EU in 2004 and 2007 implemented the first step immediately upon joining (so that was the "first implementation") and later implemented the other things ("second implementation" and "third implementation"). However, the table shows the dates of the "second implementation" for these countries. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC))

Ireland PJC implementation

A somewhat confusing notes were added to the UK/Ireland PJC implementation table:

Ireland: "Signed by President 17 Oct, 2009. Legal effect: 01 Dec, 2009.[24]; Upon the entering into legal Force of the Treaty of Lisbon (initially known as the Reform Treaty) amending the treaties of the European Union &c., being the same one the Irish Republic voted on twice, as a "Nation" (once again?)"

What is this supposed to mean? Some discussion about the two ToLisbon referendums, "once again" question marks, etc.???

Anyway, I am not sure that ToL ratification has anything to do with PJC implementation. The link supplied gives the following relevant info: "Ireland’s application to participate in these specified articles of the agreement was approved by Council decision in 2002. In accordance with this decision, these provisions will come into effect only after a range of technical and legislative measures have been put in place and successfully evaluated by the Council. The measures which will enable Ireland to meet its Schengen requirements are currently being progressed." So, it applied in 2002, adopted requirements, the Council is currently evaluating the adoption - and eventually will take a decision for PJC implementation with Ireland.

A link to the 2002 Council decision would be welcome. Alinor (talk) 09:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC) - it is up in the text. Alinor (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I will remove the mumbo-jumbo from the table as there is no Council final decision for the implementation (in contrast to the UK). Anyway here is some material added simoultanously with the table changes, that was subsequently removed:

"Unfortunately, the name used by the Irish Republican government for the 'Schengen Implementing Convention on Police & Security' is not the same name as that which every other member-state of the Union refers to it. Namely, the Irish government cites this entry to the law register as: “ Article 3 of the fourth Protocol set out in the Treaty of Amsterdam ”. This had the effect that the Irish government neglected to communicate the passing in the House of Legislature of this request (for the evaluation of a de-facto operating participation). Nine months following the laying of the document requesting the necessary evaluation according to the Law, attorneys for the European Commission who deal specifically with this area of the law and with the Irish Republic in this specific matter were still no made aware the request being made the previous April, in the Irish Houses of Parliament. " Alinor (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

To avoid confusion due to incorrect terminology, readers may need to know that the Irish Republic legally ceased to exist when the Irish Parliament ratified the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1922. So when Alinor refers to "Irish Republic" or "Irish Republican government", he means "Ireland" and "the Irish Government". --Red King (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The Western Balkan states

I think this section should be updated. Today (8 November) the EU interior ministers decided to lift visa requirements for the citizens of Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina. [9] Piasoft (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The second sentence of the linked-to article reads: "The rules will come into force in mid-December." — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 19:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Why is there basically no border between Gibraltar and Spain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.152.252.15 (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a border between Gibraltar and Spain. The border guards should check your passport (or ID Card for EU nationals).

Gibraltar Border

Ciprian.Enache (talk) 07:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

There's actually 3 border posts going from Spain to Gibraltar: first you meet Guardia Civil (Spanish military police/gendarmerie) that can check goods and passports, then Policia Nacional that checks passports and finally UK Border Agency for entry into Gibraltar. Going Gibraltar to Spain you have Policia Nacional checking passports and Guardia Civil checking passports and goods.

Accession of Liechtenstein — sourcing

The current version of the article is citing a 2009 Forbes article for the statement "In 2010 Liechtenstein has begun revealing information about assets of EU citizens." It goes on to make the unsourced statement "This should speed up the Schengen process."

In fact, the accession of Liechtenstein is now before a committee of the European Parliament. On December 1, 2010, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs issued a draft recommendation, recommending that the European Parliament consent to the conclusion of the protocol. The document number is PE452.761 and you can access it through this link. Mathew5000 (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It is now a member. Member--Smart30 (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Liechtenstein is a member of the Schengen Area, yet. According to this official source the procotol on the accession of Liechtenstein to the Schengen Area has yet to enter into force. It will enter into force on 7 April 2011.Glentamara (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That contradicts this reputable source. But if that source you posted is up-to-date then it has not yet joined.--Smart30 (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, europolitics is not an official source and you cannot trust everything they write. The approval of the accession and the accession are not the same thing! --Glentamara (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The website of the Council of the European Union is updated daily, so it is not outdated.--Glentamara (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

1985??????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cakebread (talk • contribs) 01:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The Liechtenstein protocol was ratified on the 7th of March 2011 by the EU Council of Ministers on behalf of the European Community and the EU itself (press release: [10]). Apparently the protocol will enter into force on the 7th of April 2011, as mentioned in this link (which Glentamara provided above), which agrees with this Liechtenstein govt press release ("die Protokolle werden voraussichtlich am 7. April 2011 in Kraft treten") (alternate source for press release: [11]). However, Liechtenstein won't become part of the Schengen Area until completion of an evaluation process in the areas of data protection, police cooperation, and SIS/SIRENE. The government anticipates this in the second half of 2011. —Mathew5000 (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Official maps and statistics

The European Commission (Directorate-General for Home Affairs) published a new "maps and statistics" page this week: http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/borders/borders_maps_en.htm. Also the FAQ is marked as having been updated, as well as documentation pages: [12] [13] —Mathew5000 (talk) 11:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Occasionally, regular border controls are used between Schengen countries.

This means that Schengen is a nonsense. Nations can still control their borders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Distinguish from freedom of movement

Schengen needs to be distinguished from freedom of movement. – Kaihsu (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

San Marino, Vatican State and Monaco heliports

What's the rules on helicopters going from outside Schengen to San Marino, Vatican State and Monaco ? My guess is that for San Marino and Vatican State, they have to land in a international airport (that is not in San Marino and Vatican State) and do passports checks there. Because air planes, helicopters and boats are generally required to report to a border control if the arrive into the Schengen area, and I assume San Marino and Vatican State can't do this. For Monaco I assume the rules for the seaport are valid, that is helicopters can land in Monaco and be checked there. What are the rules ? --BIL (talk) 09:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I doubt San Marino and the Vatican have that many options for international travellers to go directly to them. Monaco is treated just like any other city in Schengen, with normal border checks etc., although they're carried out by the French authorities rather than the Monegasque ones. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

National Identity Cards - how necessary within Schengen area?

It's always better to travel with ID but I'd like to see a list in this article with the Schengen area member countries that actually rquire foreigners from within S.A. to bring their IDs with them. i'd also like to know what are the consequences of not having ID card while random control. Can a persn be sent back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.10.96.155 (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There are no border controls so a person could not be refused at the border and "sent back" for not having any identification with them. Member States (for example Belgium) sometimes have national laws which require everyone to carry identification with them at all times; however, this is a domestic requirement that applies to everyone, not just foreign nationals. (Connolly15 (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC))

yes, there are no controls on the borders but they can still happen anywhere on the EU territory. I read that in Slovakia Poles had to pay fine for not taking their IDs with them even though the two countries had already been in Schengen area and Slovakia doesn't require to carry ID all the time like Belgium. The other source also says taking ID is compulsory. BTW what happens when a foreigner in Belgium is stopped by a police without ID? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.7.154.203 (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

In most countries, any foreigner needs a passport or national id card, even if not needed for residents. The police can fine them, and also possibly ask for the identity and check it with the police in the visitor's home country, which means being locked up in the police station for hours.--BIL (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Liechtenstein

Liechtenstein is now a member of the Schengen Area. Border controls will be formally lifted on 19 December. (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/homepage/showfocus?lang=en&focusID=78856) (Connolly15 (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC))

I have amended the article to show Liechtenstein as a member, but need help on changing the maps. (Connolly15 (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC))

Liechtenstein is a member, just as Romania, Bulgaria and Cyprus, that doesn't mean it should have the same colour as Switzerland on the map (yet). The difference is implementation, not membership.

Yes, agree. Sorry I made the change too quickly. Implementation is tomorrow (19) though... (Connolly15 (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC))

Liechtenstein in the Map

The map under "History" is wrong. Liechtenstein hasn't implemented Schengen yet officially, yet, it is marked with the purple colour assigned to Schengen members outside the EU. It will do so on December 19th. Why do people have the urge to change maps before accession? It already had the dubious but true tag of "outside, but set to join (non-EU)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyhoser (talk • contribs) 17:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

According to the Council ... it is being implemented tomorrow (19 December). Sorry if I jumped the gun. It will be accurate tomorrow. (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/homepage/showfocus?lang=en&focusID=78856)(213.189.169.186 (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC))

Labelled map

Why is the UK listed as "outside (EU)" on the map?

Odd, I thought the UK was a member, but of course not part of Schengen. Bolegash (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The map does not say anything about the EU, only inside Schengen Area, and future Schengen members. --BIL (talk) 06:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

"outside (EU)" is meant to be short for in the EU but outside Schengen, but it's obviously fairly confusing. The older image label was "EU member states outside Schengen". I'll revert. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 13:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it was confusing, and now that Liechtenstein has joined, the number of label types could be decreased. Anyway, I increased the sizes of the explanatory labels at the bottom again, and did some other fiddling with the labels. Actually, I'll just copy my edit summary here: increased size of explanatory labels; changed text colour of "Set to implement later" label to black; improved positioning of some country labels; abbreviated "Switzerland" and "Liechtenstein" labels; added explanation of latter to explanatory labels. Teemu Leisti (talk) 07:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I honestly fail to see what was wrong with a line break in "Switz- erland", "Liech." as an abbreviation for Liechtenstein, or which an image legend with the same font size as the labels. What's so wrong with the now reverted version of the template that needs changing? — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 12:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It'd be nice to have Switzerland and Liechtenstein consistent. "Switz." and "Liech." or "Switz-br-erland" and "Liech-br-enstein". I'd opt for the former. It's a clickable template, after all. CMD (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

What was wrong was that the name labels were huge in comparison to the area of country as represented on the map. Perhaps you would also like to change "Lux." to "Luxembourg" on the map? For my part, I fail to see what was wrong with making the text of the explanatory labels bigger for improved legibility. I also fail to see what was wrong with adjusting some of the label positions on the map, so as to unhide countries where possible, as in the cases of Slovenia and Cyprus. Instead of reverting all the edits someone else has made because you dislike one or two of the changes, it might be more productive to undo those specific changes you disagree with? You might at least have preserved my change of making the text colour of the "Set to implement later" label black, for (a) better legibility, and (b) to match the text colour of the labels on the map. Teemu Leisti (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see that you brought back a couple of the changes I did. I made the "Set to implement later" label's text black. Perhaps this is a compromise we can all live with? Teemu Leisti (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Candidate or Future member or Legally bound to join

Blue haired lawyer I opened a new chapter for you regarding the name of Ro and Bg. I am also against calling Romania and Bulgaria as "future candidates". Everyone is kindly invited to share his/her opinion at the subject. --Camoka4 (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think candidate doesn't do, as it "failing/not joining" (a possibility for a candidate) is not allowed because of the Acquis requirements. What about: "Future enlargement"? Other ideas are welcome! L.tak (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

How about “Pending members”? —Volgar (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Candidate countries shown on both maps?

Originally titled "Future Members" and "Funny future members"

map of the EU article - no candidates

map of the NATO article - no candidates

Referring to Romania and Bulgaria, we don't know what future brings, you mean candidate? according to the EU, there is no candidate status in Schengen membership. They just give decisions in EU meetings to let them in or not. As far as I remember, France blocked Romania entrance last year, so it's an error to conclude that they are really future members. Even if they become a member, why do we show them on the main map of Schengen Area? .. For instance, on the article of EU, they don't show candidate countries on the main map. Wikipedia only shows the members of NATO on NATO article, EU members on EU article. Another thing is, Cyprus doesn't even have any intention to join Schengen. Croatia does. But Croatia is grey and Cyprus is green. Can anyone explain this? I propose to change the main map to existant Schengen members only ----Camoka4 (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, the entry into Schengen is part of their accession agreement to the European Union (the Schengen acquis). The moment this is factually realized is however not the moment of entry into the EU, but some later moment. They (Ro, Bg, Cy) do therefore have a status which is legally closer to the area than other countries and showing them on the map makes sense. I am open however to other indications instead of "candidate".... L.tak (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, they aren't just candidate countries, their EU accession treaties legally oblige them to join the Schengen Zone. Croatia's accession treaty hasn't been ratified yet, but once it has a legally binding agreement to join Schengen we can colour it green as well. I agree that it would be better to label these states as "Legally obliged to join" or something else better than "Future members". TDL (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ro, Bg and Cyprus should be kept out of the first map completely (like NATO, EU and ASEAN article examples), in the second map you can give details about them "legally obliged to join in the future" or something. The first map should be smooth and clean about the current members. UK was kicked out of the first map too.--Camoka4 (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Camoka4's wrong when it comes to comparing the Schengen Area to the EU, NATO or ASEAN. Bulgaria and Romania are not candidate countries for Schengen. They have legally signed up to it, they're just awaiting technical approval and operate the Schengen visa list. This notwithstanding, I've no problem with removing both countries from the first map. They are, in any event, shown in the second map. It makes a certain amount of sense to just to show the Schengen Area and this is the reason we removed the colouring from Ireland and the UK. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 17:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

TDL, in any case, it doesn't make any sense to show them in the first map, since we have the second map to explain this all. It was the reason why UK and Ireland were removed from the first map. I'm excluding Romania Bulgaria and Cyprus from the first map until they effectively join Schengen Area. If they show candidate countries in the first map, why do we have the second map for? Camoka4 (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that they can be dispensed off in view of the second image. Still prefer the one with the "prospective" members though in view of the legal requirement. I will not undue the change therefore, but please be a bit more patient when introducing changes; there was no clear consensus yet when you did! L.tak (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi L.tak, I think everyone here agrees that the main map should only include current full members. Thank you for helping to solve this issue. --Camoka4 (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Everyone who?! You want to remove them. I'm ambivalent. L.tak and TDL are against. That not consensus. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 14:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

now reverted in view of the clear lack of consensus and because the change as it was implemented (by changing the image) affected over 10 language versions...). L.tak (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Other languages have already been changed regarding the topic. Schengen Area main map will be implemented as NATO and EU. --Camoka4 (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Please don't make it sound like a fact, but obtain consensus. I operate according to the Bold, revert, discuss cycle (that is: you are bold, which is good, I revert, which is good as well, and then we discuss, which is great). While that is happening, please do not re-add your change, your changes but see if there is consensus. I think Blue Haired Lawyer was quite clear here that it wasn't there! !!!! (my link to WP:BRD) L.tak (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you know/understand English? THE FIRST MAP is Schengen members only (example I posted NATO map, EU map). THE SECOND MAP ALREADY includes the EU outside Schengen countries, Schengen countries outside EU, pending members, etc, the things you want. It has been doing fine over a few days, so it's nothing new anymore. Regarding other languages, (btw I see you are trying to change the subject) , they have already adjusted to this change. Please stop acting like a lunatic, and behave. Thank you. --Camoka4 (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Camoka4, please re-read the discussion above. There is no consensus to make the changes you are pushing for. I suggest reading WP:BRD for an explanation of how the editing process works here on Wikipedia. Until you get a consensus on the talk page to make the changes, L.tak is following the proper editing procedures in reverting your edits. Also, please read WP:NPA. Your personal attacks are not helpful to the discussion. TDL (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi TDL, I tried to talk with L.tak to understand his concerns, but he seems to be non-responsive although I know he has read my messages. What should I do now?--Camoka4 (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You should self-revert to the consensus version before your changes were made and continue the discussion here. Barring that you are likely to be blocked for edit warring. TDL (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I would self-revert if L.tak would respond to my messages on his talk page. He reads but doesn't answer, (same for TDL) which means he doesn't have a good faith. Regarding your last comment, you are more focused about other user's ban (obviously very happy about it too) but can't bring any argument against the change, the question arises: What can you do when the other side keeps vandalizing and keeps silent on talk page. This has been the longest talk topic of this article ever, no argument has been brought about why we should not make the edits I proposed. I am interested to understand the concerns, I am here to listen. But there is no-one writing any argument, except the user TDL writes complaint letters and gets happy about possible banning mechanisms. There is definetely an attitude problem here.--Camoka4 (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"Which means he doesn't have good faith"? See WP:AAGF. Also, you've made the edit seven times today, and it's been reverted each time by multiple editors; L.tak isn't the only one that's disagreeing with the edit, which means that L.tak isn't the only one to discuss this with. L.tak's points above are sound, and although I'm sure you believe that you refuted these points, the consensus seems to be that this is not the case (a consensus which I agree with). Ask for your question about vandalizing: see WP:NOTVAND. I don't see a single instance of vandalism here, a disagreement over content is not vandalism. - SudoGhost 23:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, L.tak is the user that disagrees with the edit, because there was no problem for a few days first. The other users started to jump in when they saw the edit war. The problem is L.tak doesn't give any argument and he doesn't seem to respond my messages on his talk page, although he reads them. The thing is there is no argument against the change.How do you explain that? I Think there are more things going on behind the scenes. --Camoka4 (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't give any argument? Read this discussion again then. Not acknowledging a comment doesn't mean it isn't there, and it's very, very obvious that L.tak isn't the only user that disagrees with the edit. - SudoGhost 23:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is a qoute from Blue-Haired Lawyer ....This notwithstanding, I've no problem with removing both countries from the first map. They are, in any event, shown in the second map. It makes a certain amount of sense to just to show the Schengen Area and this is the reason we removed the colouring from Ireland and the UK. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 17:10, Sudo, do you know english? I know he disagrees the edit, I said I don't know where is he when I invited him to solve his concerns? he READS my comments but doesn't reply. Maybe I could find a solution with him if he had replied indeed. Did he hire you to debate on talk page? Where is he? --Camoka4 (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If all you have is personal attacks, we're done here. From what I can see, your edit has been rejected by consensus. - SudoGhost 00:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If you read all the debate and say all you see is personal attacks, you must go to a doctor.--Camoka4 (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack sounds a bit strong, but the definition is wide here (please read Wikipedia:NPA#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F). What is meant with this are arguments ad hominem (and they never help . ad hominem 1: "do you read English?", ad hominem 2: suggestion that Sudo was "hired" to edit here and didn't edit due to his own standpoint, ad hominem 3: the addition "then you should go to a doctor"; ad hominem 4: suggesting someone would be happy if you are banned). Please stick to the arguments, not the the persons, and if the consensus is not on your side, Drop the stick and pursue something else... L.tak (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Macedonia or FYROM

There is another edit war for Macedonia and FYROM, I wonder which one should be used in the article.--Camoka4 (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If it's obvious we're discussing countries, we simply use "Macedonia". CMD (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Border checks resumed.

According to news sources, borders check between Schengen countries are resumed. Should we add something to this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.99.251.57 (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus removal (cleaner first map)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Comments on editors, and whether or not they're buddies in arms, go to WP:AN/I. This page is for article discussion. CMD (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

---

There is a group who constantly chat eachother on third party platforms and whenever one member of the group is against something, the rest of the groups comes like out of beehive to attack and manipulate the discussion.--Camoka4 (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
The comment above was added at 14 june around 12:00 UTC. The original comment (to which of the users reacted) at 13 June 23:46 was: Hello, I am removing Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus from the first map. I KNOW they are obliged to join legally some time later, BUT we should add them to the first map only AFTER they really join, until then we should only show CURRENT members in the first map. We have the second map for them already if someone wants to know all the "future members", and the countries that are in the EU but not in Schengen (Ireland, UK).

Unfortunately you have no consensus for that removal and if you continue to do it on Commons without one you may be blocked. If you do not like the green, please get consensus. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There's already a discussion about this, and the consensus is against this edit. I don't see additional reasoning that wasn't present before, unless there's some additional reasoning, or some sudden change in consensus, I don't think there's any reason for this change. - SudoGhost 01:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. There have been no convincing arguments presented for the removal of Ro, Bg and Cy from the map. I still oppose their removal. TDL (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with the edit suggestion for the reasons stated above. I like to see them in the first map due to their significance after signing up for the Schengen Acquis. L.tak (talk) 06:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding, Sudoghost, Fry, and TDL: They are close buddies who are in touch with eachother. Even the timing is 1:04 and 1:05 respectively. It's obvious they are chatting on an external chat messenger to manipulate wikipedia discussions. This situation must be investigated.--Camoka4 (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty serious allegation. Unless you're willing to provide some evidence, I strongly recommend that you strike it out. bobrayner (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Bobrayner, I haven't seen you before here, suddenly you jump in to the discussion to defend them. Tell your friends to keep their recommendations for themselves. You guys are manipulators and organized vandal groups. I will not comment further in this biased talk page. --Camoka4 (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I can say with quite firm affirmation that I have never encountered any of these other users before today. Camoka4, that is indeed a very strong allegation and I would suggest you retract it. You asked me on my talk page to remove the green, I explained to you why it is there and why I would not remove it. If you keep removing it on Commons, or replace this article's map with a new one without the green without consensus, I will seek your block on the appropriate project. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Fry1989 How do you explain users like Bobrayner suddenly jump into the discussion into their defense? Keep silent. Everyone knows the truth. --Camoka4 (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Colloquial name

A.K.A. the Schinken Area. :-) --E4024 (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Near Future

Can this article be of help to improve this page? --E4024 (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Members?

Does the Schengen Treaty establish an international union or organisation? Why do we talk about "members"? It should be "states parties" or simply "parties". RfC. --E4024 (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it does not establish any international union or organisation. The Schengen acquis is part of the Union law since 1999, when the Treaty of Amsterdam entered into force. Nevertheless, you can talk about members of the Schengen area, i.e. Member States which apply all parts of the Schengen acquis. --Glentamara (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

In my view it is best not to use the term "member" referring to the Schengen Area. It would be better to say that countries are "included" in the Schengen Area (and "members of" or "parties to" the Schengen Agreement). Also the article seems inconsistent about the status of Bulgaria, Romania, and Cyprus. The lede presently states: "The area includes all but two EU member states, the excepted states being Ireland and the United Kingdom." But elsewhere, the three EU member states Bulgaria, Romania, and Cyprus are referred to as "future members" or "prospective members" of Schengen. In any event, they are presently not part of the Schengen Area, contrary to what the lede says. Mathew5000 (talk) 06:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

They are "probable" parties, like Ireland and UK, or Croatia if you wish, as Schengen Agreement is open to any country in this region; however, there is no other status than being a "party". This article needs editing. --E4024 (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to identify countries as "future" members if they have treaty obligations that oblige them to join, they want to join, the EC is pushing for them to be signed up ASAP, &c. Secondary sources should have the final say; what do the secondary sources say? bobrayner (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, it may be unhelpful to argue that Schengen doesn't establish any organisation, considering the existence of SIS, SIS II, Frontex &c. (The UK government wanted to join the EC 2007/2004 party but the doorman said "sorry mate, if your name's not on the schengenland list, you're not coming in"). bobrayner (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

That point I don't get completely... It's not said there is no organization; just that there is not dedicated organization for this but that it is part of the EU... L.tak (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been reading the acquis provisions (partly); and those speak about (EU) member states, and indicate UK/Ireland do not take part in the acquis; as well as that Bulgaria/Croatia/Hungary do not fully implement it, and that the Area comprises Iceland and part of Norway. So indeed: officially no "schengen members". We could use Schengen Countries (as that is the designation on visa and can be defined as those places where the full acquis is implemented) however, but I feel indeed less enthusiastic about using the term "members"... L.tak (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Both primary sources (ie. Euroland institutions) and secondary sources (ie. newspapers, books) are happy to talk in terms of states being schengen members, so I'm not comfortable with the stance that "officially" there's no such thing. bobrayner (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Bobrayner, please identify sources that use the terminology "Schengen members". Mathew5000 (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at the European Commission's page on the Schengen Area: [14]. (a) It does not use the word "member" at all, but refers to "Schengen States". (b) Unlike our Wikipedia article, the official page on the Schengen Area does not say that Cyprus is a future part of the Schengen Area. Mathew5000 (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

On the word "member", how about the EU or the EC or Frontex or SIS or the ECJ or the European Council or various national governments... plenty more secondary sources, of course.

On Cyprus, I'm not convinced that "future" is the best label, although Cyprus certainly signed on the dotted line - is there a better label we could use? bobrayner (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"Remote future" perhaps? --E4024 (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Back to the Future

Legally bound to enter with an indefinite date (but Netherland keeps vetoing them) means future member? We have some fortunetellers here. Even EU official website doesn't call them "future member". --Free ottoman (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

i am open to an alternative term! Any suggestions? What about Legally bound to join? L.tak (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

no idea. but future member doesn't fit in here.--Free ottoman (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

btw: are you user:camoka4? In view of editing this articke and the browserselection articles, just as he was doing on commons? --L.tak (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

What is that? I'm only a user.--Free ottoman (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Good to hear. I'll assume good faith here and hope the SPI will back up what you are saying...

On topic: I have implemented my proposal; feel free to revert per WP:BRD or to adjust… L.tak (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Serbia

The country I live, Serbia, is a member state since December 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.223.71.206 (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You may have become eligible for visa-free entrance, but your country is not part of the schengen area. See here or our wikipedia pages… L.tak (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Croatia

I agree with this edit, but it might be a good idea to explore why/how/when Croatia is obliged to join Schengenland. I think that a bit more content along those lines would be really helpful. bobrayner (talk) 06:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This map is incorrect. Croatia isn't in the Shengen area. Should be of the same color as UK, Ireland, Romania and Bulgaria. 87.252.154.237 (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Andorra

Isn't Andorra on a par with San Marino, Monaco and Vatican City/Holy See? I refer to the article Andorra-European_Union_relations#Schengen.--Bornsommer (talk) 09:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

As it is written in that article: "Andorra has stayed outside the Schengen Agreement and maintains border controls with the EU."   San Marino, Monaco and Vatican City have no border controls. --BIL (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

landlocked

it says under the part about Liechtenstein that a ship cannot go directly from it to Vatican or San marino. who wrote that, they are landlocked countries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.65.155.62 (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It is written that "Helicopters are not permitted to go from outside Schengen or a ship directly to San Marino or the Vatican City."

Hotels and ID

It is written: Enforcement of these rules varies by country.

You can say that again. In fact, perhaps you ought to say 'varies very widely'. In Germany, for instance, there is no attempt whatever to enforce the production of ID in commercial accommodation, and in practice ID is never required, nor is any form of registration usually carried out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.199.36 (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

In most countries this is required only for foreign citizens, and that means that local citizens won't notice the routine. It is written in the Schengen Convention [15] article 45 that such registering and checks shall take place. In any case, this is much stricter enforced in Southern Europe/France than in Germany.--BIL (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This article focuses on the laws, not so much on their practical enforcement. German law does provide for filling a registration form at hotels etc., and for the production of IDs from non-German citizens. At current, the details are regulated in laws passed by the German Länder (states), and a federal framework regulation can be found here (in German): § 16 Melderechtsrahmengesetz (German). The rule in § 16 subsection 2 of the Registration Act of the State of Berlin (German) might serve as an example. From May 2015 onwards, the Federal Registration Act ('Bundesmeldegesetz') will replace the Länder regulations by uniform federal laws; with regard to the registration at hotels etc., the rules will stay the same (cf. § 29 subsections 2 and 3 Bundesmeldegesetz (German). --DanSchultz (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

France

It says in the data box that the area of France is "excluding overseas departments and territories", but in that case Metropolitan France should be only 551,695 km². As far as I can see now the number of 674,843 km² is exactly including overseas departments. -89.66.180.105 (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed.--BIL (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Zürich airport

An IP editor recently removed information about Zurich airport having automated border controls. The edit summary claimed that the editor lived in Zurich and recently visited the airport. The editor does not mention having travelled to or from the airport from a non-Schengen airport, and a visit to the airport is not by itself sufficient to establish whether automated border controls are in effect. The original citation referred only to an older pilot test, but a press release from Secunet dated December 2014 indicates the presence of automated border controls. Does anyone have more information and/or a better source? --Boson (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Lichtenstein ?

Isn't Liechtenstein like San Marino, Monaco and the Vatican "a microstate with open borders" ? (Please note it's a question, not a statement) Boeing720 (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

No, Lichtenstein has ratified a treaty with the EU to formally apply the Schengen Agreement to it's territory,[16] just as the other non-EU states (Norway/Switzerland/Iceland) have. These are Schengen associated states. San Marino and the Vatican City do not formally have an agreement to apply Schengen Agreement. They just have open borders. (Monaco's status is a bit more complicated.) TDL (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Andorra

"De facto, the Schengen Area also includes three European micro-states, Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican City, that maintain open or semi-open borders with other Schengen member countries"

Is Andorra also de facto member? Does it have a treaty (I dont find it in the list) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.67.230.24 (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

No it is not a de facto member. Read Andorra–European Union relations. --BIL (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Only on Wikipedia do border/passport controls between Andorra and the Schengen Area exist. In reality there are no controls.

(Same goes for Greenland by the way.) 46.115.8.182 (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, apparently at the European Commission: "As Andorra is not part of the Schengen area, border controls are carried out at its borders with the neighbouring Schengen states, France and Spain." TDL (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

That commission paper also says that "Andorra coordinates its visa requirements with the Schengen area". Andorra's foreign ministry says that "Andorra does not require any type of visa".[17] Andorra doesn't have a visa system, so there is nothing to "coordinate". 46.115.14.255 (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It coordinates its visa requirements with the Schengen area such that anyone with a Schengen visa is granted visa free access. As a consequence of this coordination, they do not need to issue any visas since it is impossible to get into Andorra without entering the Schengen Area. What's the confusion? Note that many states do not require visas for entry by Schengen states (ie Romania and Serbia), but that does not make them de-facto part of the Schengen Area. TDL (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Having an open border with the Schengen Area makes Andorra a de facto member.176.4.3.5 (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Except that according to authoritative sources it doesn't actually have an open border ("border controls are carried out at its borders with the neighbouring Schengen states") so the premise of your argument is flawed. TDL (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is the border control on the Spanish side: google streetview (images from 2011) and here on the Andorra side: google streetview (images from 2014).

Posting the very same document a second time doesn't make it any less flawed.

The "border controls" you may face are customs controls (upon entering France or Spain). But customs controls are also frequently carried out within the Schengen area. (Ever been on a train from the Netherlands to Germany, e.g. ?)

Neither on the Andorran side nor on the Schengen side does anyone give a damn about your travel documents. Nobody will check them. Nobody will stamp them.

It's all about the goods in your boot. 176.2.1.88 (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but we prefer information with reliable sources. We can't write in the article that IP number 176.2.1.88 is an expert on the subject.--BIL (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

And posting the very same dismissal of the official documentation without any evidence or WP:reliables sources to back up said dismissal doesn't make your argument any less flawed. If you don't like that source, how about this from the Andorra la Vella tourist website "a valid passport or identity card is required."

At the moment, the entire premise of your argument is that "The European Commission is wrong and I am right because I say so." Hopefully you can understand why we can't use anecdotal observations of an anonymous IP which contradicts official sources in article space. TDL (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"a valid passport or identity card is required"

1. The same applies even to EU citizens travelling within the EU - whether or not the country you enter is part of Schengen.

"Union citizens with a valid identity card or passport [...] have the right to leave the territory of a Member State to travel to another Member State" (Directive 2004/38/EC).

2. Schengen states are free "to provide [...] for an obligation to hold or carry papers and documents" (Regulation 2006/562/EC).

In some states you are required to always have your passport/ID-card with you. Where does that tourism website's leaflet state you have to produce your passport when entering/leaving Andorra?

3. Define "reliable sources". I guess if you asked just any search engine you'd get plenty of results - some saying there are passport controls, others saying there are no passport controls. As Andorra is merely a de facto member, there are no laws, regulations, directives etc., - thus no perfectly reliable sources - neither Andorran nor European.176.0.127.170 (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The main difference to me is (as shown here) that a multiple entry visa is needed. Thus you really leave schengen, according to schengen, which makes Andorra less of a "de facto member" than e.g. Vatican. On the other hand, "de facto member" is an open term, that we fill to the best of our abilities. We could use a definition that includes Andorra, or one that doesn't. , as long as we make clear that going to Andorra counts towards a leave of the Schengen area in visa terms, whereas this is not the case for SMarino or Vatican...

Entering San Marino means leaving the Schengen Area. The EU does not officially allow you to re-enter Schengen on one and the same single-entry visa. If it did so, San Marino's Schengen status wouldn't be de facto only.

San Marino forms a single travel area with Italy - not with the Schengen Area. If you want to travel to San Marino you have to meet Italy's, not Schengen's, entry requirements - in theory. In practice - as Italy happens to be a Schengen member, San Marino is de facto Schengen.

Monaco isn't a contracting party either. Yet its Schengen status goes beyond "de facto", as legislation on Schengen makes explicit reference to Monaco's visas, residence permits, borders - thus makes Monaco's status official somehow.

San Marino is not in that position. Regarding visas, external border etc. San Marino's status is almost the same as Andorra's. Pretty much everything is de facto.

The difference between Andorra and San Marino is: France and Spain carry out customs controls - Italy doesn't. Don't mistake customs controls for passport/immigration controls. As said, customs controls are even carried out within Schengen. (And have de facto become a new form of immigration controls - but that's another topic to discuss.)176.4.116.176 (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Still it is written on San Marino State Board of Tourism site that: "There are no border formalities. Anyone visiting Italy with a visa can enter San Marino." --BIL (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Greece has in effect left the Schengen Area?

According to e-mail I got from some airlines which have flights between Greece and Sweden, Greek airport staff do checks of the right to stay or travel in the Schengen area, including checking if a visa is needed and if the visa is valid. I asked those airlines (Aegean, Apollo/Novair and Ving/Thomas Cook Airlines) if people who have a passport but no visa even if they need one, can travel with them. The answer was no. Since Greece has no land border to other Schengen countries, and airlines do strict passport checks, there seems not to be much usefuleness in the Schengen Area membership for Greece. Can someone confirm if there are laws on passport check for air travel from Greece to other Schengen countries? And should we mention this in this article? --BIL (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

First of all, the Schengen codex does not prevent airlines from conducting id controls for e.g. security reasons (see article 21 in Regulation 2006/562/EC). I think such id controls also exist in other countries (it also depends on which company you travel with). It is important to note that there are no checks of people arriving to Greece from other Schengen countries. That wouldn't have been the case if Greece hadn't been a member of the Schengen area. So, in other words, I think there is no reason to doubt the Greek participation in the Schengen area. --Glentamara (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 18 external links on Schengen Area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100110021548/http://www.amblondon.um.dk:80/en/menu/ConsularServices/Visas/ShortTermVisas to http://www.amblondon.um.dk/en/menu/consularservices/visas/shorttermvisas
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100706030116/http://www.consulfrance-newyork.org/spip.php?article368 to http://www.consulfrance-newyork.org/spip.php?article368
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110826204433/http://www.consulfrance-atlanta.org:80/IMG/html/visas_for_france.htm to http://www.consulfrance-atlanta.org/IMG/html/visas_for_france.htm#tomUS
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110723003904/http://www.sysselmannen.no/hovedEnkel.aspx?m=45270 to http://www.sysselmannen.no/hovedEnkel.aspx?m=45270
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110723003904/http://www.sysselmannen.no/hovedEnkel.aspx?m=45270 to http://www.sysselmannen.no/hovedEnkel.aspx?m=45270
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090207091157/http://www.greenland.com:80/content/english/tourist/travel_info/passport_and_visa_regulations to http://www.greenland.com/content/english/tourist/travel_info/passport_and_visa_regulations
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110607100817/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0450/D.0450.199503140014.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0450/D.0450.199503140014.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130511015613/http://www.secunet.com/en/the-company/press/press-in-detail/news/easygo-tschechische-grenzpolizei-nimmt-erstes-egate-in-betrieb/ to http://www.secunet.com/en/the-company/press/press-in-detail/news/easygo-tschechische-grenzpolizei-nimmt-erstes-egate-in-betrieb/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121018132624/http://cwtjet.com:80/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Automated_Border_Control_Gates.17161248.pdf to http://cwtjet.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Automated_Border_Control_Gates.17161248.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130215055150/http://www.osl.no/en/osl/aboutus/_press/_newsarchive?SELF-SERVICE_PASSPORT_CONTROL_AT_OSLO_AIRPORT_&id=181-153013 to http://www.osl.no/en/osl/aboutus/_press/_newsarchive?SELF-SERVICE_PASSPORT_CONTROL_AT_OSLO_AIRPORT_&id=181-153013
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071222171653/http://bundesrecht.juris.de:80/aufenthv/__17.html to http://bundesrecht.juris.de/aufenthv/__17.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130126151919/http://vosdroits.service-public.fr:80/F16162.xhtml to http://vosdroits.service-public.fr/F16162.xhtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130929010623/http://www.safetravel.govt.nz:80/destinations/europetips.shtml to http://www.safetravel.govt.nz/destinations/europetips.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111002131024/http://www.europolitics.info/europolitics/cross-border-travel-to-become-easier-in-kaliningrad-area-art310843-46.html to http://www.europolitics.info/europolitics/cross-border-travel-to-become-easier-in-kaliningrad-area-art310843-46.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140422024104/http://eapmigrationpanel.org/page40541.html to http://eapmigrationpanel.org/page40541.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100928075653/http://www.sikunews.com:80/News/International/Traffic-flows-from-Murmansk-to-Kirkenes-8033 to http://www.sikunews.com/News/International/Traffic-flows-from-Murmansk-to-Kirkenes-8033
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110609043150/http://english.ruvr.ru:80/2011/06/03/51241897.html to http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/06/03/51241897.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100324144736/http://eur-lex.europa.eu:80/en/treaties/dat/11997D/htm/11997D.html to http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/11997D/htm/11997D.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Schengen Area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110517004621/http://www.consulfrance-lecap.org:80/spip.php?article342 to http://www.consulfrance-lecap.org/spip.php?article342#Visas-for-the-French-Overseas
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130603110742/http://www.lexvisa.co.uk/schengen.html to http://www.lexvisa.co.uk/schengen.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091203073930/http://www.b92.net:80/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2009&mm=11&dd=30&nav_id=63395 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2009&mm=11&dd=30&nav_id=63395

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Add Menu-Link to the german site

Can someone please add the link in the menu to the german site. Thanks a lot. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen-Raum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.6.58.138 (talk) 11:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Image coloring

The first image in the article seems to imply that Switzerland and Liechtenstein are legally required to participate in the Schengen Area. This would at least need a citation since it's hard to believe Switzerland would find itself in a position of being legally required to do something other countries prescribe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AA13:7101:1780:F4D6:480B:E750:CCBD (talk) 08:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI, Switzerland and Liechtenstein are already in the Schengen Area (since 2008 and 2011).1 Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Updated map

Given Austria, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Poland and Sweden have all temporarily imposed border controls as a result of the European migrant crisis and the French state of emergency means they have also, it would be good to show this on the map in the infobox. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure if we need that on the main map... Schengen is much more than just stopping internal boarder controls, but also a common entry policy and visa (including visa policy). Someone coming into Schengen legally can still travel around in all countries without formalities. But it may be wise to add an image in the new and temporary internal borders somewhere in teh article... L.tak (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, Sweden has in reality partly removed its border control, only doing them on random basis, less than half of the travellers are checked. The important check for practical purposes is the Carrier's responsibility, meaning that train, bus and ferry operators have to check the id documents of every passenger before boarding. But that is not a border control, de jure (legal basis). Carrier's responsibility is performed on selected air routes since years back inside Schengen, especially from Greece, and has forced refugees to leave the Schengen area when travelling from Greece to Germany or Sweden. Air traffic identity checks are (if done) de jure done for air safety reasons, knowing that the passenger list is correct, especially important from Greece. --BIL (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Gray blobs in Sweden

In the map under the "Membership" section, there are two grey blobs in Sweden. These appear to correspond to bodies of water. These probably should either be colored dark blue like the rest of Sweden (likely preferred, if they're internal waters of Sweden), or turned white like the ocean (if they're international waters). ... Unless, of course, it really is the situation that they're truly an enclave of non-Schengen zone inside of Sweden. -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The two lakes are internal waters and can only be reached through canals or land transport, and have no border controls at their shores, so they should be coloured blue. The actual map is on this link.--BIL (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the lakes. --Glentamara (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The vatican city DOES NOT have open borders.

You need a permit and a passport to enter the Vatican Gardens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.162.217.196 (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The VATICAN CITY DOES NOT HAVE OPEN BORDERS

You need a permit and a Passport to enter the Vatican Gardens.

The fact that you can enter St Pauls cathedral without a passport is comparable to standing in the US-Mexico border bridge on the US side. The passport control is passing the bridge, 500 feet into the land — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.162.217.196 (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

EFTA countries (Note 9)

I'm rather sceptical about the «Note 9» stating that «EFTA state, which is outside the EU, that is associated with the Schengen activities of the EU and where the Schengen rules apply.».

This is uncorrect.

Nevertheless, the note itself has another source citing an EEA/EU legal text about Norway and Iceland. In fact, this situation doesn't reflect the exact facts in the matter of the Schengen Area and two EFTA members states that are Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

On the other hand, one can find a better and more precise explanation on the EFTA website (http://www.efta.int/faq under the point «What is not covered by the EEA Agreement?») which clearly contradicts the explanation given under Note 9: «Schengen is not a part of the EEA Agreement. However, all of the four EFTA States participate in Schengen and Dublin through bilateral agreements and they all apply the provisions of the relevant Acquis.» Therefore, I'd rather correct «Note 9» writing something like «participate in Schengen and Dublin through bilateral agreements». It seems more correct and relevant to me. What do you think? :) Ngagnebin (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

How is the current note not correct? It doesn't say specifically how they participate (ie separate multilateral agreements, note that they aren't bilateral), but don't see how that makes it incorrect. TDL (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Maps of the countries

Where are there three different maps of the European countries and there different relation to the agreement? --Per W (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

Following the migration crisis, as of July 2018, Austria, Denmark, Germany, Norway, and Sweden temporary imposed the

It is June 2018. Mtaylor848 (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

All internal borders?

In the table under 'temporary border controls', for many countries we have the strange phrase 'All internal borders'. What does this mean? Borders between counties? lander? provinces? oblasts? --Red King (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Internal borders are the common borders between Schengen states. --Glentamara (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Then surely it should read 'inter-state'? The normal use of 'internal' means 'within the state'. --Red King (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Not in this context. Internal borders is the term used for the borders within the Schengen area between the member states. In contrast to external borders. --Glentamara (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Red King, I don't understand the new terminology here. Inter-state border is nothing I've heard before in this context, sounds quite strange. --Glentamara (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Intra-state: within a state; inter-state:between states. Would 'Intra-Schengen: within the Schengen area' be better? But 'internal borders' is just wrong: think of Germany with semi-autonomous Lander - for Germany to close its internal borders would mean closing the crossings between Lander, which would be unprecedented apart from the Iron Curtain. But Italy has tried to do it (closing movement out of Lombardia and Veneto). [Model is USA, where California restricts inter-state movement of some fruits). --Red King (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Internal borders is the official/legal term for the borders between the Schengen states. It is defined in article 2(1) in the Schengen borders code, see [18]. I understand what you mean by "inter-state border", but it sounds very strange in this context, sounds more like something in the US. Internal borders is the term used in media and by, e.g., the European Commission, see [19]. --Glentamara (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, 'Schengen internal' is a good compromise. Per WP:worldwide view, the original unqualified 'internal' needed to be changed. It would at best confuse and quite probably mislead people around the world, who typically would understand 'internal' to mean 'within a country's own territory'. --Red King (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, you definitely had a good point! --Glentamara (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

add 'member states not part of EU' color code to map

add 'member states not part of EU' color code to map >Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.94.176.36 (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

No. Why distinguishing? Schengen Area member states consists of states that are part of Schengen Agreement. EU doesn't matter here at all. All Schengen Area member states are equal no matter what other unions they are part of. --Dima1 (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not true. Schengen acquis is since Amsterdam Treaty part of the Union law. Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland are only associate members of the Schengen area through their international agreements. They don't apply the Schengen acquis as Union law. So yes, the EU matters and there is a legal difference between the EU member states and the non-EU member states of the Schengen area. --Glentamara (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Glentamara as the Schengen agreement is part of the European Union framework. So there should be three different blue colours, from dark (EU members) to pale (de facto) passing by some middle hue (outside EU with agreements). Per W (talk) 08:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC) The box says clearly Policy of the European Union. Per W (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The difference between EU an non-EU Schengen members is clear indeed and is worth mentioning. HOwever, we do this in the figure that indicates the different countries below. The infobox picture shows the area as a whole (that's also why individual countries are not distinguishable). I therefore wouldn't change the infobox image: it clearly shows the main information, and more detailed info is visible in other images... L.tak (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I don't think we should change the map. I just wanted to point out that the claims above (1) that there is no difference between the EU and non-EU Schengen members and (2) that Schengen has nothing to do with EU are both entirely wrong. --Glentamara (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

UK-Spain agreement on Gibraltar

Statement from British Foreign Secretary: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statement-from-the-foreign-secretary-uk-gibraltar-spain-agreement

Article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55497084

Rob984 (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Entry conditions for family members of EU, EEA, Swiss and British citizens

UK citizens no longer have freedom of movement with the EEA and Switzerland. Should this section of the article not be updated to reflect this? Steven a91 (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Steven a91 (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Gibraltar again (BRD discussion)

DealOrNo believes that Gib is already a de facto member of Schengen. There are two simple tests: (1) Covid precautions aside, there are no frontier controls between participants. Not only is that not true at the Gib/ES frontier, they became more (not less) strict on 1 January. (2) There are Frontex accredited border guards at the port and airport of the participant: again, not true. The fact that both ES and Gib are trying to make the border "as fluid as possible" until the ES/UK agreement is formalised and ratified as an EU/UK treaty.

I have (again) reverted their change per WP:STATUSQUO pending a WP:BRD discussion and consensus. The discussion is now open.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

There has been some pretty sloppy reporting of this in the UK media which may initially have given the impression that Gibraltar was joining Schengen on 1 January. We can see from GBC that this was not the case: [20] [21]. If any editor has specific information from reliable sources that there is a de facto application of Schengen rules, let's see it here please! Tammbeck^talk 13:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, this agreement and its implementation is taking some time, and not happening through a few press statements.. L.tak (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

DealOrNo declines to respond to this WP:BRD discussion but has moved the revert war to Gibraltar, where they continue to misreport the sources [I drew their attention to the article in The Guardian, which gives clearly the very different contexts for "fluidity of movement" and "freedom of movement" phrases that those making them were careful to make clear]. I can see this going to wp:ANI (3RR, NPA and more) so may I ask others to intervene since I am now unambguously WP:INVOLVED. I have given them two {{uw-disruptive}} cautions and a {{uw-ew}} (edit warring) notice – see history of their talk page, they have deleted. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Ireland

The article currently states that the decision on Ireland's participation in parts of the Schengen acquis did not take effect until 1 January 2021. Indeed, the 2002 decision states that the relevant provisions only apply after all necessary measures have been implemented by Ireland and the Schengen states and a decision has been taken by the Council on this. However, I am wondering about whether the 2002 decision had any effects on legal acts adopted after the decision entered into force on 1 April 2002. For instance Council directive 2004/82/EC states that Ireland is taking part in the directive and that it is binding upon Ireland. Does this not mean that the 2002 decision had some effect already before 1 January 2021? --Glentamara (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Without going back to the source or reading Irish news sources so I could be way off beam here but as I understood it, Ireland (and the UK) opted out of the open borders aspect of Schengen but opted in to the criminal intelligence aspect. It just took 20 years to get around to it, they had other things on their mind, I suspect.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Mount Athos

The cited document reads

5. Joint Declaration concerning Mount Athos
Recognising that the special status granted to Mount Athos, as guaranteed by Article 105 of the Hellenic Constitution and the Charter of Mount Athos, is justified exclusively on grounds of a spiritual and religious nature, the Contracting Parties will ensure that this status is taken into account in the application and subsequent preparation of the provisions of the 1985 Agreement and the 1990 Convention.

— The Schengen acquis - Agreement on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 [...] and the Hellenic Republic acceded by the Agreements signed at Bonn on 25 June 1991.

I suppose since it is mentioned in the Agreement of Accession, it merits mention in the article but it would be wp:undue to give it more than half a dozen words. The Agreement gives every citizen the right of access to any and all public spaces but not obviously to private premises. The derogation seems really just to allow all of Athos be treated as a private space in this context. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

First, it's a non-binding declaration. It's rather a clarification that the Schengen acquis does not infringe on the special status that Athos has in the Greek legal order. At the time of the Greek accession to the Schengen area, many monks were (mistakenly) worrying that the Schengen accession would bring an end to the special status of Athos. But nothing in the Schengen acquis really contravenes the special status of Athos.

Second, on what basis do you claim that the Schengen acquis gives every citizen "the right of access to any and all public spaces"? The Schengen acquis primarily concerns border controls. Yes, it does indeed also concern the requirements that third-country citizens have to fulfill to enter and, concerning shorter stays, to stay in the area. But does it really state that every citizen has the right of access to any and all public spaces? Please provide a reference for that statement. Perhaps you mix it up with the provisions in Directive 2004/38/EC, which is an entirely different piece of legislation. --Glentamara (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Athos: indeed. The text just says that "it should be taken into account". It is just a non-binding "letter of comfort" and political smoke screen for the domestic audience.

No evidence whatever except the general principle that the Acquis gives (say) an Icelander or a Finn the same rights of perambulation in Greece as a Greek does (or, in the case of women, don't). I don't understand what point you are making? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

My first point is that the declaration on Mount Athos has no practical meaning at all. Claiming that there are special provisions in the Schengen acquis for Mount Athos, as the article currently states, is deceptive.

My second point is that the Schengen aquis does not concern the free movement of people within a member state's territory. This is instead subject to other parts of the EU law, primarily directive 2004/38/EC. There it would make more sense to have an exception for Mount Athos... But I guess since the discrimination is the same no matter nationality, the special rules for Mount Athos do not contravene that directive either. --Glentamara (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree completely that it has no practical meaning. But it does exist. So the only question for Wikipedia is does it pass wp:UNDUE and WP:TRIVIA. IMO at best it merits a footnote, no more.

I consciously used the word 'perambulation' to avoid using 'free movement' given the latter's particular legal meaning. I don't think that 2004/38/EC gives our hypothetical Finn the right to demand to buy a deceptively spacious monastic cell on Athos, any more (or less) than does an Athenian. But if a male Athenian can go there on a coach tour, so should a male Finn. Of course I am now in "stands to reason" mode rather than being able to point to any specific regulation. But since I think we agree that the item is of marginal interest, I doubt that the accurate detail is worth the effort of track down. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I fully agree with both your paragraphs. Regarding the free movement directive, it states that the ″Member States may impose territorial restrictions on the right of residence and the right of permanent residence only where the same restrictions apply to their-own nationals.″ (article 22). But I fully agree, that this neither contravenes the special status of Mount Athos.

For my part, it is totally fine to mention the declaration on Mount Athos, but it should not be stated in a way that gives the impression that "special provisions" apply to that territory, unless a reliable secondary source supports such a claim. --Glentamara (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

We should write what kind of special Schengen related privileges Mouth Athos has, with sources. It is written here that they have the privilege to ban women from visiting. But as long as Athos does not have any external Schengen border or airport, that should not affect Schengen regulations. It is a private area where they can regulate visits. In Monastic Republic of Mount Athos it's written "... offer sanctuary to people from Orthodox countries such as Russia. Such monks do nowadays need a Greek visa and permission to stay, even if that is given generously by the Greek ministry, based on requests from Athos.". But this should not require a special Schengen rule. It would also be of interest to mention what the Greek constitution writes about Athos which the Schengen Aquis refers to. Note that Special member state territories and the European Union has a 100 word text about this.--BIL (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Fully agree. --Glentamara (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

As do I. So I wonder if we could resolve the issue by just referring readers off to the Special Territories article. I can't see any middle way between a very stub treatment or a full fork of the SMST article. A stub makes more sense given it is such a marginal issue. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I just took the liberty of rewriting the previous comment in the article. What do you think? --Glentamara (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought it fine until you got to However, the declaration is legally non-binding and Mount Athos forms part of the Schengen area, with no legal exceptions. which immediately demands a cn tag or even a synth challenge. I would just drop that sentence and leave it vague like the accession treaty itself. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I removed that sentence, but added "legally non-binding" to "declaration" to clarify the meaning of a declaration in this context. --Glentamara (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I added a mention of the Greek constitution and a reference link to (an English translation of) it. The accession agreement refers to the Greek constitution. And I removed the text about males only, since that is not mentioned in the accession agreement nor the Greek constitution. It is still unclear what the privilege is. It looks from the Greek constitution that the main privilege relates to allowing foreign monks, not about banning women from visits.--BIL (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Büsingen

A user has added Büsingen as a territory with special status under the section "Current members". However, the references do not support this statement. They talk about the historical situation. I have tried to find any references to the territory of Büsingen in the Schengen acquis, but I have found nothing. On the contrary, since the Schengen acquis was integrated into the Union law by the Treaty of Amsterdam, it is applicable to the whole territory of the member states that belongs to the European Union. Some exceptions do indeed exist, such as the outermost regions of France, but there seems to be no references at all to a special status of Büsingen. The territory has simply no special status in the Schengen acquis. If somebody claims the opposite, please provide a reference to the legal act where it is stated. Until then, we should not list it as a territory with special status as there is not enough support for such a claim. --Glentamara (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually the information was already there. You removed it. I added sources which confirm the open border - the point which you are clearly missing. If the border between Büsingen and Switzerland is open and not checked (something that predates Schengen entirely - by decades in fact) it's pretty obvious what happens. Third-country nationals who ordinarily required a (Schengen) visa for Germany did not require one to go to Büsingen before Switzerland joined Schengen, notwithstanding the fact that Büsingen was part of Germany. Nobody is claiming that Büsingen's historical non-participation was official - it is a consequence as an enclave with open borders with the country surrounding it. The fact remains that should Switzerland leave Schengen and Germany remain in, Busingen would no longer be in the Schengen area due to the open borders. Personally I feel the information is useful to be on the page for reference and historical reasons. There was no real need for you to remove it. Büsingen did not participate in Schengen until Switzerland did - and that is a fact you can't change - especially not by removing the information from the page just because you wanted to. SlippyLina (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

If there is no formal provisions on Büsingen's status, then the territory is part of the Schengen area as a German territory. That's what the Union law states. Full stop. --Glentamara (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Wrong! Again! The Schengen Agreement did not apply / was not applied to Büsingen as a territory until Switzerland joined. The border between Büsingen and Switzerland is open and not checked and this is regardless of whether either country is in Schengen or not. The treaty between the two countries predates Schengen and continues to apply, as do the provisions outlined therein and as such even though both countries are currently in the Schengen area, the border between the enclave and Switzerland is not even an internal Schengen border as outlined in the S. Agreement. SlippyLina (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

See! Now you mentioned the actual reference that should be inserted, namely article 16 in the Treaty of 23 November 1964 between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Swiss Confederation. That solves everything. The current references, on the other hand, do not support the claims made, one of them is just talking about the length of the German border and the other ones about the historical situation. Thanks, --Glentamara (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Iceland

According to Schengen Visa Info, Iceland has today (June 15th) announced that the current border restrictions will apply until July 1st, but will then be scrapped for vaccinated arrivals, as the Digital Covid Certificate goes live. Culloty82 (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Political propaganda

The statement "Countries outside of the Schengen Area also benefit" is pure political propaganda (Wikipeda? Political propaganda??? No!!!!! Impossible!!!!!). At the very least, it should say 'Some argue that ...'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.153.6 (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Schengen Area/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 11:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   • Please fix the disambiguation link for Null. Done
   • Please fix the dead link "Stories from Schengen: Smuggling cigarettes in Schengen Slovakia". The link for "Right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the Union, Guide on how to get the best out of Directive 2004/38/EC" no longer appears to connect to the correct page and also needs to be updated.  Done – – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 09:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
   • There are sections where lists are used and prose would be preferable. For example, the "The Schengen Agreement and the Schengen Convention" section, the "European Union Regulations" section and the "Legal basis of the Schengen rules" could be rewritten as prose. Done
   • Similarly, the frequent use of sub-headings impedes the readability of the article by presenting the information in a choppy fashion. I'd recommend reducing or entirely removing subheadings in the Territories of Schengen states outside the Schengen Area, Status of the European microstates, Regulation of internal borders, and Police and judicial co-operation sections.  Done but I can't sign myself here, because I did not do it.
   • The table showing current Schengen area countries could be revised to remove the largely unpopulated "exempted territories" column, shifting that information to the footer section. The information in those footers might look better in a separate Notes section at the bottom of the article.  Done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 20:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   • Please remove the spaces before and after em-dashes (—).  Done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 09:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
   • Make sure there is consistency in the space between the p. and the number when citing page numbers.  Done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 15:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

   For example, sometimes you put "p.3" (no space) and sometimes "p. 3" (space). Choose one and be consistent. Lemurbaby (talk) 09:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

   Ok, done that. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 15:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   • The article is not adequately cited. I'd recommend a reference at the end of each paragraph at minimum (and this only when that reference supports all the preceding information in the paragraph up to the previous ref provided).  Done all the tags. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 15:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

• I will be reviewing this article over the next several days. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am the nominator.

And I am leaving some comments too!

• As far as I know, there are 6 criteria, not 5. Pass/Fail should be listed as 7. Please see WP:WIAGA.  Done

• The formatting seems to have been disrupted in the list above, but all required criteria are there. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Removing the spaces after m dashes, that is a personal preference. Please see WP:What the Good article criteria are not#(1) Well-written Mistakes to avoid, point Number 1.  Done

• Please consult the more relevant section of the Manual of Style. There are no spaces around the em dash, but there are spaces around the en dash. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• From WP:WIAGA: (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

WP:What the Good article criteria are not#(1) Well-written Mistakes to avoid, Second point: Demanding compliance with your favorite MoS pages. Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 09:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• It would have taken you less time to just improve the article by removing the spaces and bringing it into compliance with the MOS than by arguing with me. Do you care more about the quality of the article or having a little GA symbol at the top of it? Nobody said I'm going to fail the article if you don't comply with my suggestions, but frankly when you argue back with me about every little suggestion it makes me not want to bother volunteering my time to review them. Please understand that the review process is voluntary for the nominator and reviewer alike, and is meant to strengthen the quality of the content on Wikipedia. Most nominators are eager to make improvements to the article under review regardless of whether it's GA or FA. Your cooperation when the requests are not unreasonable helps to keep this voluntary system operating to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia. Lemurbaby (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• From WP:WIAGA: 6: Illustrated, if possible, by images.  Done

Your version: "Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?"

Please see WP:What the Good article criteria are not#(6) Appropriately illustrated First sentence of it.

• Please don't get hung up on the phrasing of that point in this template (which another very experienced reviewer created and which is frequently copied and used by myself and others on this site). I'm an experienced reviewer and editor here and know that a lack of images is no reason to fail an article when no relevant images are available. And you have images, anyway, so you don't need to be concerned about that. But I may tweak the wording in this template to avoid arousing concerns in the future. Thank you for bringing your observation to my attention. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• You said to fix the dead link. Please see: WP:Link rot#Keeping dead links  Done

• What you need to do is let me know whether the page is truly dead, in which case the link can be kept. However, in the case where the url has merely changed, it simply needs to be updated and archived. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• You said that the page is in a choppy fashion. Would you like it if all the page were one long, boring page without sub-headings?

Please see WP:What the Good article criteria are not#(1) Well-written Mistakes to avoid, last point.

• I'm telling you that at times it's not easy to read as written because the text is broken up quite a lot. A lot of work has clearly gone into this article, but the purpose of a peer review is to get an outside opinion on whether the article meets the standards of GA. I'm providing you that feedback here so that the article can communicate the information as effectively as possible to a wide audience, which I'm sure you want. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• You want more citations. Please see WP:What the Good article criteria are not#(2) Factually accurate and verifiable Mistakes to avoid, Second point.

• Here I can agree with you. I was incorrect to ask for references to back up all the content of the article, although doing so would enable your readers to educate themselves more completely about this topic you are clearly so interested in. But for GA, Wikipedia has set a low minimum standard for citations, which you certainly have the right to meet and not exceed at this stage. I'm sure you'll do it well if/when you decide to take this article to FA. All that being said, the article is still inadequately referenced per the GA criteria. I've provided indications where a citation is needed. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• How come inadequately referenced per WP:WIAGA? From WP:What the Good article criteria are not#(2) Factually accurate and verifiable Mistakes to avoid, second point in the brackets.:

Inline citations are not decorative elements, and GA does not have any "one citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rules. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 09:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Because all statistics need to be cited, even per GA's minimum standards. I indicated where there was a statistic that needed to be cited using the tag. Lemurbaby (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, then we got that cleared up... – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 14:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, what would be helpful is if you could tell me how you approached the citations in this article. And did you provide most/all of them, or were many added by other reviewers? There's a certain lack of consistency and if that wasn't your intention we could look at it together. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• I actually didn't do any significant work on this article, just a spelling mistake from time to time; all the work was done by other reviewers, I just nominated it. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 09:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• That explains a lot. Normally the primary contributor nominates the article. You'll want to identify that person and leave him or her a note on his/her talk page to notify that the article is under review. Lemurbaby (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• And don't say that this is not official. This was in WP:WIAGA#See also.
• And last, but not least... From the intro of WP:WIAGA:

A good article is a satisfactory article that has met the good article criteria but may not have met the criteria for featured articles. The good article criteria measure decent articles; they are not as demanding as the featured article criteria, which determine our best articles.

This is to be a Good article, not a Featured article.

I hope that this will help you and change your comments.

See also

• WP:Good article criteria
• WP:What the Good article criteria are not

– Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 20:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, and also, please use the GA review cheat sheet for easier reading and leave ANY comments in the comments section. Remember that you leave your comments after my ones. User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet for the GA review cheat sheet.

Also, this cheat sheet help info is not official. I personally use the cheat sheet, but not the helping info in it.

Remember: Always keep the officials (WP:WIAGA, WP:What the Good article criteria are not and Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles

Thanks, – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 20:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Now, since we got most of the stuff cleared up, I have to ask, is everything on this page REALLY neutral? – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 15:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Second opinion

Well, since the neutrality of this review is being questioned and there appears to be an element of "barrack room lawyering", I will review it in full. I will leave sentencing to the primary reviewer. Pyrotec (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm doing this section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last.

Ok, that is fine, it will leave us, (me and primary contributor) less work to do at a time... – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• History -

• The first paragraph is vague. It states at the start: "The Schengen Area came in existence on 26 March 1995 when the Schengen Agreement along with its implementing convention was implemented by the five original signatories ..." "along with Portugal and Spain who signed subsequently" and then "Italy and Austria joined during 1997". So when did Portugal and Spain sign?  Done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• The final paragraph of the first sentence is unnecessarily vague. The statement "With the Treaty of Amsterdam, the agreement became part of the acquis communautaire of the EU in 1999." is followed by "After the accession of Greece in 2000, the countries comprising the Nordic Passport Union...followed in 2001.". This appears to suggest that: (1) the Nordic Passport Union followed Greece into the EU, (2) Greece joined the acquis communautaire in 2000 and The Nordic Passport Union followed in 2001, (3) Greece joined the Schengen Area in 2000 and The Nordic Passport Union followed in 2001. Who did what, when and let's have a reference for the claims?

But, where is that? It is not in Schengen Area#History. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I seem to have reviewed the version that existed on 13 September 2011. This [diff] shows the changes that have occurred since then. I tend to review corrective actions using Firefox (Windows works as well, but I don't use it) with at least three tabs open: the version of the article that I reviewed, the /GA1 page, the current version of the article and often the reference open (if its a web page). Reviewing is not particularly easy if it is done in any depth, but that is not a valid reason for not reviewing. Pyrotec (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Membership -  Done

• This first paragraph seems to be a repeat of the History section. All twenty five counties are listed, all the stuff about The Nordic Passport Union is repeated (and wikilinked) - why its WP:OVERLINKING, on my screen there is about 3.5 cm between the two Nordic Passport Union.  Done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• There is a comment in the first paragraph: "De facto, the Schengen Area also includes several microstates that maintain open or semi-open borders with Schengen countries.". This needs an explanation and, as its not obvious, a citation is needed. - Note this is covered later in the article so perhaps a note to that effect might be sufficient. Pyrotec (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)  Done Cited and all, so no problems with that one – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• The second paragraph is unreferenced.  Done – One sentence paragraph, so one reference needed. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Current -  Done

• Looks OK.

• • Prospective -

• This subsection has an outdated box dated September 2011.
• Ref 9, used twice, states that Cyprus will not join before 2010. Well we are now three quarters the way through 2011. Did they join and if not, what's the situation?

• This issue has now been fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Territories of Schengen states outside the Schengen Area -  Done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Since the title of the article is Schengen Area, the phrase "Schengen Area" should not be used in the section title.  Done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• There is an abbreviation, non-EEA nations, that is undefined. Presumably there is an EEA, it should be defined?  Done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• A citation is needed for the claim: "France also has several territories which are neither part of the EU nor the Schengen Area.".  Done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• The third paragraph about Dutch territories needs a citation or citations.  Done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Regulation of internal borders -

• I don't believe that the final paragraph fully reflects the complexity of "VAT". Europe does not appear to have imposed standardised rates of VAT, so for instance there are limits within the EU for the quantities of alcohol and tobacco (cigarettes, cigars, etc) that can be brought across the boarders of some internal countries. Any person bringing significantly more than the "so-called limit for personal consumption" into the UK (from Europe and/or from outside Europe) would be likely to face criminal charges for smuggling and evasion of tax. A company moving these items for commercial/retail sale would need the correct documentation, as would transfers between Europe and EFTA countries. Pyrotec (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• I agree this issue should be addressed by a knowledgeable contributor. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• I do not think that this issue belongs into the article, as it does not have anything to do with Schengen internal or external borders. This does not have too much to do with borders and border control, but rather with taxation, which is not regulated by Schengen rules (although by EU law). It is correct that different VAT rates may be imposed by the EU Member States, albeit the general VAT rules are harmonized. For intra-EU movements, the rule of thumb is that commercial purchases are Value Added Taxed in the state of the recipient, while private purchases (with the notable exemption of new cars) are taxed in the state of purchase. The same applies to other taxes, as on spirits, beer, or tobacco products. In case of a commercial purchase, the supplier has to know the VAT ID of the recipient, has to report the transaction with that ID to his own state's tax agency, and the commercial purchaser has to declare the purchase and pay VAT in his own state. The transaction reports are regularly exchanged between the EU Member States through a central data exchange maintained by the EU, while private purchases remain anonymous. Nothing at all will be handled at the border. The only purpose of the "limit for personal consumption" is to separate the two sets of cases and procedures by shifting the burden of proof. To take your example - if a UK consumer can provide proof that he takes a huge amount - beyond the limit for private consumption - of beer and wine from France to the UK for personal purposes, e.g. to host 3,000 guests in his home at a garden party, he would still only have to pay French and not UK taxes. Nevertheless, there are no instituted taxation procedures established at any EU internal border. At manned borders, as at the Channel Tunnel, security and other officials, of course, are not obliged to turn a blind eye on suspicious movements of goods, and may well file reports to taxation authorities, or even seize goods if the have reason to believe that taxes are being evaded. From a practical perspective, it would be advisable for the said UK citizen to notifiy the taxation authorities of the planned import in advance of the actual movement of goods, to convince them that the import will be private, and to carry some official letter in order to convince security staff at the border that the movement is not carried out in a clandestine manner, and that some competent authority is dealing with it, whatever would be the outcome. However, any search, control, and seizure of goods at an internal EU border is no ordinary procedure connected with crossing a border, but a procedure which any constable would have to initiate on the same suspicion in the heart of London, as well. --DanSchultz (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• • Controversies -
    • Danish customs controls -

• Ref 49 is not fully cited. The publisher and the author are unnamed.
• Ref 51. Blogs are not usually regarded as reliable sources, however this is a blog by a Commissioner of the EEC on an EEC web site. As such it is not properly cited: only the date and title is given. The author and publisher are missing.
• Same comments apply to refs 52 & 53.

These points cannot be fulfilled it the author/publisher/date are not listed on the page. Just noting. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 20:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please bear in mind the date of my review: work has been done on the article so the ref numbers have changed. Ref 49 is now 55, 51 is now 58, etc (see my comment above in History). The "missing" information is provided on the four web sites, it's just that the editor(s) who added the references did not correctly reference the four citations.

Ref 62 is not fully cited. The publisher and the author are unnamed. Pyrotec (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• The issues identified by Pyrotec above have not been resolved. The editor(s) will need to fix the citations here before the article can be awarded GA. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Regulation of external borders -

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)  Not done – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 20:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Entry conditions for third-country nationals -

• Here it states: "Border guards are required to stamp the travel documents of third-country nationals ..... , aircraft crew members or seamen are exempt from this requirement and their travel documents should not be stamped.[71]. What the reference actually states: (Not to stamp) pilot's licences or the certificates of aircraft crew members, travel documents of seamen who are present in the territory of a member state only when the ship calls in and in the area of the port of call, to the travel documents of crew and passengers of cruise ships who are not subject to boarder checks in those cases provided for in Point 2, Section IV." This is Not a particularly accurate summary, i.e. what is claimed in the article is not fully supported by the citation.

• This issue needs to be resolved before the article can be awarded GA. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Stays in excess of three months -

• The first paragraph is unreferenced and is therefore not verifiable.
• Ref 74, 75 and 76 are not fully cited: no publisher is given; at least two are dated, but no publication dates are given.

• These issues need to be resolved. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Police and judicial co-operation -

• Most of this section, five subsection out of seven, is unreferenced and is therefore unverifiable.

• I agree that additional citations would strengthen the article and particularly to enable readers and reviewers to verify the contents. Much of the content of this article lies outside the realm of "common sense" and so could be considered debatable content requiring additional referencing. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Legal basis of the Schengen rules -  Done

• The text looks OK, however since the title of the article is Schengen Area, the phrase "Schengen Area" should not be used in the section title.

I oppose to this one, as it is Schengen, not the full phrase 'Schengen Area' – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I will clarify/re-phrase my comment: words used in the article's title should not be used in the section titles unless (there is a get out clause: it's clearer) (See WP:HEAD. "Schengen" appears in the article's title so it should not appear in the section titles (unless it's clearer). The section could be titled "Legal basis", "Legal basis of rules". You can object if you like but "it is Schengen, not the full phrase 'Schengen Area' –" is not a valid basis for objecting. The only valid objection is that the section title is clear when Schengen appears in the section title. Decision for lead reviewer, to take. Pyrotec (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine, it is fixed. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 18:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• WP:Lead -

• This is intended to both introduce the topic of the article and summarise the main points. Arguably, it does both. Its possibly a bit "thin" as a summary but not sufficiency so to raise a corrective action.

• The article would be strengthened by expanding the lead, but I agree it isn't necessary to attain GA. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Images -  Done

• Suitably labelled and with copyright statements.

Pyrotec (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you, Pyrotec. I'm in the process of moving overseas in the next few days and things have been a little hectic. Your detailed comments will be a great help in improving this article and moving the review toward completion. I'll check back in a day or so to see whether the nominator has addressed these points. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Lemurbaby, I hope the move overseas goes well. I'm in Europe with no computer access, rather the the UK, for much of what is left of September so I'm trying to close off in the next few days two GANs reviews that I'm placed On Hold. That's why I was intending to leave the decision on pass/fail/hold to you as lead reviewer (it's your call anyway), but I will be back on wikipedia in October. Pyrotec (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• The edits to the prose have created some new problems in terms of style, clarity and grammar. I'd like to see this article undergo a copy edit by a neutral third party. I'd also like to see the nominator address the remaining points Pyrotec raised above, particularly in regards to the sections where no citations are provided. Since this information does not fall into the "common sense" category and could be contested by a reader, providing a source to allow readers to verify will contribute to the quality of the article. I will put the article on hold until the copy edit and remaining revisions above can be completed. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• • In light of the non-action of editors in line with the suggestions identified above over the past two weeks, I cannot award GA at this time. Much hard work has been done in this review process and I thank you both, Pyrotec and Plarem, for your contributions to improving the article. I hope it will be renominated once it's gone through a copy edit, ideally a peer review as well, and the issues identified above have been addressed. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Green/yellow map and the new Western Balkans/Ukrainian-Moldovan/North African superstates?

This map (below), half way down the page with green and yellow borders, has some significant issues with the non-EU states, such as the new existence of strange North African/Ukrainian-Moldovan/Western Balkans superstates :) Would someone able to edit maps be able to fix it, possibly by basing it off another template? Also perhaps worth mentioning that the temporary border controls in certain Member States don't apply to all their borders - for example the current SE temporary controls are only towards DK and ferries, not NO or FI. Schengen Area#/media/File:Border controls at internal and external Schengen borders.svg Hentheden (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The map is only showing internal and external borders, not other state borders so I don't see the problem? And yes, the Swedish temporary border controls, in principle, includes all internal borders, that's why, for instance, the border between Sweden and Norway as well as between Sweden and Finland are yellow. The data is based on the notifications sent by the national governments to the Council of the European Union. --Nablicus (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Croatia Accession ?Final decision?

"the Justice and Home affairs council of the EU will make a final decision on Croatia’s entry to the bloc on 9 December 2022. Ultimately, the final decision is made by the EU Council, consisting of the EU's 27 government leaders, acting unanimously." Are you saying the Dec. 9 decision is final? If not, when will the final one be? Arrecife (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

If the Council adopts the decision at its meeting on 8–9 December 2022, it will be the final one. --Nablicus (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Arrecife (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

But for Wikipedia purposes, it will be when wp:RSs report that it what it means; we can't infer.

Not realistic, I suppose but IMO we should really wait until it is put into effect. Strange as it may seem , I doubt that it means that the borders come down within the hour. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The decision will be final, but it will be effective from 1 January 2023 (if the proposal from the Commission is adopted without changes). There are plenty of sources to support this, nothing unclear in that regard. --Nablicus (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

This is indeed the procedure and we have that in sources. However, it is still not certain it will happen. Although it seems more likely than before, it is more than just a formality. The Dutch are historically reluctant for example, and I have not seen sources stating their intended vote.... L.tak (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Per various media reports, for example here, Croatia has joined the Schengen zone and has adopted the euro per January 1, 2023. So, this article and accompanying map need to be updated accordingly. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done — the map will be done in a month's time! Intrisit (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

How many micro states?

By changing "three" to "four" and including Andorra, I made it more accurate. Reverted because I didn't provide a citation. OK, I'll look for one (rather than cite "personal experience"). But note that the citation previously given said "several," not "three" and did not name them. (And that source is now a 404.) 伟思礼 (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Bad citation replaced and additional information added. 伟思礼 (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The citation for "practical impossibility of travelling to or from them without transiting through at least one Schengen member country" is a 404 that redirects to another 404, so I don't know what it says.  But the "practical impossibility" is also true of Andorra. 伟思礼 (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Romania and Bulgaria joined Schengen in October 2023!

Romania and Bulgaria joined Schengen in October 2023! New Welaeonska (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

It's unlikely they join this year. A 2 days old source:^[22]--BIL (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, Romania and Bulgaria can join into the Schengen on October 2023! HOORAY! I AM EXCITED! 2A02:2F04:A312:3F00:DDFF:CF26:6599:E6AD (talk) 10:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Look at the date. Your source is from 2011. Dima1 (talk) 10:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi!

România and Bulgaria has already joined in Schengen today! Thanks! 213.233.108.202 (talk) 07:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Not so. You can see in the European Council page that the Justice and Home Affairs Council did not include the admission of Romania and Bulgaria in their 4-5 December 2023 meeting. Gorpik (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)