159 Bilten Slovenske vojske 
SCHENGEN, EVOLUCIJA, ŠIRITEV  
IN VSTOP SLOVENIJE  
NA SKUPNO SCHENGENSKO OBMOČJE
SCHENGEN, EVOLUTION, ENLARGEMENT 
AND SLOVENIA’S ENTRY INTO THE COMMON 
SCHENGEN AREA
Anton Travner Strokovni članek
Professional article
Kljub temu da je besedica »šengen« že kar domača, le malokdo ve, kaj pravza-
prav pomeni. V geografskem smislu je Schengen ime vasice v Luksemburgu, sicer 
pa se z besedo schengen označuje pravni red, ki pomeni ukinitev mejnega nadzora 
na notranjih mejah (mejah med državami članicami schengenskega pravnega reda), 
ukrepe čezmejnega policijskega sodelovanja in ukrepe na zunanjih mejah. Celoten 
sistem, ki je zelo zapleten in v svetu pomeni svojevrsten unikum, se je razvil 
predvsem zaradi gospodarskih potreb. V zgodovini Evrope je to velika prelomnica. 
Nastajal je postopno, od prvega, sorazmerno preprostega sporazuma je prek kon-
vencije in vrste sklepov izvršnega odbora nastal sistem, ki ga poznamo pod imenom 
Schengen Acquis. Zaradi svoje učinkovitosti in močne politične volje držav članic 
Evropske unije je bil leta 1999, torej 14 let po podpisu prvega sporazuma, vključen 
v pravni red EU. 
Vključitev schengenskega pravnega reda v pravni red EU pomeni bistveno spre-
menjene okoliščine, tako za stare države (spremenjen sistem odločanja) kot tudi za 
nove. Za nove države članice oziroma za države kandidatke integracija schengenske-
ga pravnega reda v pravni red EU pomeni dodatno obveznost. Ni namreč mogoče, da 
bi se posamezna država odločila za vstop v EU, pri tem pa ne bi izpolnila obveznosti 
za vstop v schengenski prostor. Kljub temu pa ostaja obratna možnost. Še vedno se 
lahko posamezna država odloči za vstop v schengenski prostor, ne da bi se pridružila 
članstvu v EU. 
Vstop v družbo elitnega kluba držav, torej v schengenski prostor, pa ni brezpogojen. 
Država, ki se odloči za članstvo v EU ali samo za članstvo v schengenski družbi, 
mora izpolnjevati vrsto izjemno visoko postavljenih pogojev. Pripravljenost držav 
se po posebnem postopku podrobno preveri in šele po pozitivnih poročilih posebnih 
skupin se vrata lahko odprejo – ukine se mejna kontrola na notranjih mejah, torej 
na mejah med državami članicami schengenskega prostora. Širitev tega prostora v 
Povzetek
 160 Bilten Slovenske vojske  161 Bilten Slovenske vojske 
letih 2007 in 2008 je bila povezana tudi z drugimi problemi, predvsem s težavami, ki 
jih je povzročil velik zaostanek pri razvoju schengenskega informacijskega sistema 
druge generacije. Kljub temu da je bilo sprva načrtovano, da bo ta sistem končan 
pred letom 2005, se to še ni zgodilo. 
Republika Slovenija se je na vstop začela pripravljati že v devetdesetih letih. Priprave 
so trajale več kot deset let, pri tem pa je bilo opravljeno več reform, med drugimi 
reforma pravnega sistema na področju varovanja meja, kadrovsko-organizacijska 
reforma, spremenjene so bile metode in oblike nadzora državne meje, zgrajeni novi 
mejni prehodi, policija je dobila novo (predvsem pa drugačno) opremo in še in še. 
Schengen, širitev, Slovenija, schengenski pravni red, razvoj, priprave, uveljavitev, 
meje, policija.
Despite the fact that “Schengen” has become a familiar term, not many know its 
meaning. In geographical terms it is a name of a small village in Luxembourg. In 
fact, the word indicates the Schengen Acquis, which means the abolition of border 
controls at the internal borders (the borders between Member States of the Schengen 
Acquis), measures of cross-border police cooperation and measures at the external 
borders. This extremely complex system can be seen as a peculiar uniqueness and 
has been developed due to economic needs. It signifies a turning point in the history 
of Europe and has evolved gradually. Over the period of the first, relatively simple, 
agreement through the Convention and the several decisions of the Executive 
Committee a complex system, known under the name “Schengen Acquis”, was 
formed. Due to its efficiency and strong political will of the Member States of the 
European Union, this system was integrated into the Acquis Communitaire in 1999, 
14 years after the signing of the first agreement. 
The inclusion of the Schengen Acquis into the Acquis Communitaire signifies sub-
stantial changes in conditions, both for the old (a modified system of decision-ma-
king) as well as the new Member States. For the new Member States and Candidate 
States, for the integration of the Schengen Acquis into the Acquis Communitaire, 
it represents an additional obligation. It is not possible that a state decides to join 
the European Union and fails to fulfil its obligations for entry into the Schengen 
area. Nevertheless, there still remains a possibility that a state decides to enter the 
Schengen area without joining the European Union. 
Entry into the elite club of states - joining the Schengen area is not easy. A state that 
decides to join the European Union or merely the Schengen area must fulfil a number 
of extremely high set conditions. The readiness of the states is fully examined with 
a special procedure and only after positive findings from specific groups can the 
doors open - border checks at internal borders are abolished at the borders between 
Member States of the Schengen area. The enlargement of the Schengen area in 2007 
and 2008 was also associated with other difficulties, especially with the difficul-
ties resulting from the arrears in the development of the second generation of the 
Ključne 
besede
Abstract
Anton Travner
 161 Bilten Slovenske vojske 
Schengen Information System (SIS II). Despite the fact that SIS II should have been 
completed by the year 2005, this project is still ongoing.
The Republic of Slovenia started to prepare for entry in the nineties. The preparati-
on lasted over 10 years with the implementation of numerous reforms. A reform of 
the legal system in the field of Border Security, reform of the human resources or-
ganization and changes of the methods and types of border control were made. In 
addition a new border crossing point was built; the Police received new (and above 
all different) equipment and there was a series of other changes.
Schengen, enlargement, Slovenia, Schengen acquis, evolution, preparation, 
implementation, borders, police.
The slovenized word šengen is known to everyone and frequently heard. It is often 
used in phrases such as the Schengen border (šengenska meja), the Schengen 
Policemen (šengenski policisti) etc. Due to problems this border brings for the local 
inhabitants it often has a negative meaning. Not many people know that Schengen 
is a small village in Luxemburg near the triple border of Germany, France and 
Luxemburg. In this village, with less than 500 inhabitants, an Agreement on the 
gradual abolition of checks at their common borders was signed in 1985 and in 
1990 the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement was signed in the 
same village. More precisely, both documents were signed on a small boat. The 
region is otherwise known for winemaking, even so, in 2006, the municipal council 
of the Remerschen municipality named the entire municipality after the renowned 
Schengen village. The reputation of this village is in deed justified. Both documents, 
signed in this village mark a turning point in the philosophy of providing security for 
inhabitants, and a unique, non-recurring paradigm in the history of Europe. Out of a 
relatively simple agreement and convention developed one of the most comprehen-
sive systems of modern time.
 1 REASONS FOR CREATION AND DEVELOPMENT  
OF THE SCHENGEN ACQUIS
Essentially, the national borders represent a conflict imperative. The borders should 
be concurrently open and closed and should at the same time be a wall and a door 
(Marenin, 2006, p. 19). Globalisation and new security threats require new approa-
ches to the management of borders. In this field, development should and does follow 
economic development and economic possibilities. This statement is of global nature, 
since the successfulness of the economy, its growth and progress and not least the 
level of democracy are closely connected with the management of national borders.
It can be stated that the establishment of the common market and the related greater 
economic power is the most important reason for European integration. This was 
Key words 
Introduction 
SCHENGEN, EVOLUCIJA, ŠIRITEV IN VSTOP SLOVENIJE NA SKUPNO SCHENGENSKO OBMOČJE
 162 Bilten Slovenske vojske  163 Bilten Slovenske vojske 
one of the objectives of the six1 Member States of the European Coal and Steel 
Community (ECSC) already in 1955. On the basis of the Messina Declaration 
two other communities have been founded in 1957 with the two Treaties of 
Rome – European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy 
Community (EAEC). The Contracting States wrote a definition of the internal market 
in the treaties regarding the European Economic Community (EEC) /…/ “an area 
without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services 
and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty”. In order to 
attain this objective the border control on internal borders had to be abolished and as 
free movement of all factors of the internal market as possible had to be ensured. In 
this way the states engaged themselves to give up control, which up until then effec-
tively prevented cross-border criminal, drug and weapons smuggling, terrorism and 
illegal migrations. In short, the ambition to abolish internal borders was conditional 
on the economy (Sie Dhian Ho, 2006, p. 125) 
Regardless of the fact that the abolition of border control on internal borders was one 
of the basic factors of the European integration, this process was difficult and tedious. 
In addition to technical difficulties, caused by the abolition of the border control, 
arose political difficulties. Despite integration the internal security of Member States 
remained at the national level. Due to the lack of a clear and generally accepted 
political encouragement the process was conducted in a two-track manner – within 
the community and on the initiative of certain Member States. 
Within the framework of the community developed a mechanism for greater mobility 
of students and pensioners2 and on the initiative of the Member States the so-called 
TREVI3group, whose origin dates back to 1976, has been formed. It should be 
stressed that the two trends have not complemented themselves, but have in some 
parts been rivals to one another. Due to an exceptionally great political motivation of 
certain Member States, the system as we know it today, developed under the auspices 
of international cooperation and not within the framework of the Community law. 
Numerous analysts ascertain that the system in its present form - based on the level 
of community could not be established due to the lack of political will (Gogu, 2006). 
The first step towards the objective (abolishment of the border control on internal 
borders) was the agreement signed between France and the Federal Republic of 
Germany on 13 July 1984 in the German city Saarbrücken. The agreement on the 
gradual abolition of checks at the Franco-German borders is most known for the 
so-called “green E” - a label on cargo vehicles, due to which the crossing of border 
was possible without border control on roads that linked the two states. 
1 The Federal Republic of Germany, Italy and the Benelux states – Belgium, Netherlands and Luxemburg.  
2 Examples are the directives 90/364/EEC and 90/365/EEC.
3 After a series of terrorist attacks a first meeting of senior officials has been convened in Rome on the British 
initiative at which they have discussed the possibilities of fight against terrorism and the cross-border criminal. 
The general opinion is that the group got a name after a famous fountain in Rome, particularly because the 
president of the meeting was a Dutch representative with the surname Fonteijn.
Anton Travner
 163 Bilten Slovenske vojske 
On 11 December of the same year, the ministers of transport of the Federal Republic 
of Germany and the Benelux states adopted an agreement on the mitigation of the 
border congestions in the car traffic, while a day later, on 12 December 1984 a group 
of five (Federal Republic of Germany, France and the Benelux states) was esta-
blished with the Benelux Manifest. The representatives of the states prepared an 
Agreement on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders4, which was 
signed in a small Luxemburg village Schengen on 14 June 1985 by the presidents 
of the governments. In everyday use the term Schengen Agreement is used for this 
agreement. The agreement is very general in nature with principle-based objectives, 
framework program and short- and long-term measures for their realization.
It took five years for the states to reach an agreement on concrete measures, which 
have been written down in the new convention. On 19 June 1990, again in the 
Schengen village, has been signed the convention on the realization of the Schengen 
Agreement. The new convention with the full name Convention implementing the 
Schengen Agreement dated 14 June 1985 between the governments of the Benelux 
Economic Union, Federal Republic  of Germany  and  the French Republic  on  the 
gradual abolition of checks on their common borders5 is an important step to the re-
alization of political objectives and the Schengen Agreement. For this document the 
name Schengen Convention is used in practice. The original signatory states of the 
Convention were Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg, Germany and France. 
Both documents together (the Agreement and the Convention) got the title Schengen 
in everyday use. Since Schengen or the Schengen system signified an actual progress 
in the abolition of checks at the internal borders Italy (27 November 1990), Spain 
and Portugal (25 June 1991), Greece (6 November 1992), Austria (28 April 1995), 
Denmark, Finland and Sweden (19 December 1996) also acceded to this convention. 
On December 19, 1996 Iceland and Norway, which are not members of the EU, but 
were able to become members of Schengen, also signed the cooperation agreement. 
The Schengen Convention envisages a complete abolition of checks on internal 
borders for everyone, even for the citizens of the so-called third countries.6 In order 
to compensate for the abandoned security tool7 the Agreement introduces a variety 
of mechanisms for the provision of security in the Member States. The Schengen 
Convention is a rather comprehensive document comprising the provisions on:
free crossing of the internal borders without personal border control;
4  The full name is the Agreement between the governments of the states of the Benelux economic union, the 
Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common 
borders. 
5  The full name is: Convention implementing the Schengen agreement of 14 June 1985 between the governments 
of the states of the Benelux economic union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the 
gradual abolition of checks at their common borders. 
6 The Convention demands that the Member States completely remove all facilities in which the border control 
has been implemented. The traffic on internal borders must be running smoothly and unimpeded. Only 
reasonable speed limits are allowed (conclusion of the administrative board SCH/Com-ex (94) 1, rev. 2).
7 The control of the national border included both the border crossings control as well as the protection of the 
national border outside the border crossings; more precisely is the protection of the green and the blue border.
SCHENGEN, EVOLUCIJA, ŠIRITEV IN VSTOP SLOVENIJE NA SKUPNO SCHENGENSKO OBMOČJE
 164 Bilten Slovenske vojske  165 Bilten Slovenske vojske 
 – uniform conditions for the entry and a short stay;
 – asylum;
 – police cooperation; 
 – judicial cooperation; 
 – Schengen Information System;
 – free circulation and free movement of goods;
 – tasks and competences of the Executive Committee for the implementation of the 
Convention;
It is even more important that we can assert that the convention was not rigid, for 
it had built-in a special instrument for simultaneous upgrading. From Article 131 to 
133 the convention defines the establishment of the Executive Committee and its 
jurisdictions. The decisions of the Executive Committee have been obligatory and 
have gradually upgraded the Convention in relation to the actual state and political 
progress. 
Because the decisions of the Executive Committee have been binding for the Member 
States the entire legal system developed in practice. This system has been composed 
of the Schengen Agreement and the Schengen Convention, the Accession Agreement 
of the Member States, the provisions of the Schengen Executive Committee, decla-
ration and decisions of the Schengen authorities. For this legal order is used the term 
Schengen legal order 8 or the Schengen Acquis (quoted from Travner, 2008).
It should be stressed that the Schengen Acquis was created shape and was deve-
loping independently from the Acquis Communautaire, nonetheless the Schengen 
members constantly endeavoured that the Schengen Acquis would be in compliance 
with the Acquis Communautaire. Both the Schengen Agreement and the Convention 
are addressed to the citizens of the EU Member States. The Convention determi-
nes that its provisions are to be applied only if they are in compliance with the 
Community law; any Member State can adhere to the Convention at any time. 
Even though the two-track system seemed coordinated this was not the case, due 
to which the tendencies for the integration of the Schengen Acquis into the Acquis 
Communautaire appeared (unfortunately unsuccessfully) already during negotiati-
ons for the Maastricht Treaty9. 
The idea of integration re-emerged during the negotiations for the Amsterdam 
Treaty10, which is one of the key landmarks in the development and the transformati-
on of the EU, being a result of endeavours at the Intergovernmental Conference esta-
8  The general Secretariat of the council issued a publication The Schengen acquis integrated into the European 
Union in which are collected all important documents, which were elaborated under the »Schengen« auspices 
by 1999. This publication is actually a collection of all documents for which we use the name the Schengen 
ACQUIS. 
9 The established name for the Treaty on European Union or shorter TEU.
10 The Amsterdam Treaty consists of three parts, an annex, 13 protocols and 51 statements, adopted by the 
conference, and 8 statements that were presented at the conference. 
Anton Travner
 165 Bilten Slovenske vojske 
blished on the basis of the Article 48 of the European Union Treaty. The Schengen 
Protocol is a part of the changes introduced into the Acquis Communautaire by the 
Amsterdam Treaty11.
On the basis of the Schengen Protocol the participation of the Schengen states moved 
under the institutional and legal frame of the EU. Such transfer was enabled by 
the establishment of the legal concept of a closer cooperation under the Amsterdam 
Treaty. Article 1 of the Schengen Protocol allows the thirteen EU Member States to 
carry on with the Schengen cooperation within the legal and institutional framework 
of the EU12. Article 2 Paragraph 1 defines that the Schengen Acquis is applied im-
mediately after the establishment of the Amsterdam Treaty, that is, as a part of the 
Acquis Communautaire. 
After the Amsterdam Treaty entered into force, the Council of the EU replaced the 
Schengen Executive Committee. Measures adopted by the Council, which substi-
tute the provisions on the abolishment of checks on the internal borders from the 
Schengen Convention, must provide the same degree of security as the Schengen 
Convention provides. This made the Schengen Acquis more transparent and more 
effective.13
 2 CONCEPTUAL IDEAS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 
After the transposition of the Schengen Acquis to the Acquis Communautaire that is 
after 1999 appeared the first tendencies and need to upgrade and improve the control 
of the external EU borders. The European Council held in Laeken between 14 and 
15 December 2001, has adopted a carefully selected compromise text14, providing 
a mandate for the Senate and the Commission during which they should find more 
successful means of cooperation in controlling the external borders (Monar, 2006). 
Prior to this event appeared the idea of the establishment of the European border 
police. Since this idea has been rather futuristic Belgium, Finland and Austria engaged 
themselves to prepare a study on the so-called European border police. The study 
was concluded in March 2002. On 30 May 2002 Italy, which also participated in the 
11 The B2 Protocol – Protocol on the integration of the Schengen acquis into the EU. The Point B of the 
Amsterdam Treaty includes the protocols, which are an appendix to the European Union Treaty and the Treaty 
Establishing the European Community. 
12 Denmark is also included in these 13 states. Great Britain and Ireland are the only EU members not 
participating in the Schengen Agreement. Norway and Iceland are members of Schengen, but not members of 
the EU. Based on the Council’s Decision from December 2007, Slovenia, Hungary; Slovakia, Czech, Poland, 
Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Malta, enter the Schengen area. 
13 Until this moment the Schengen Acquis was composed of almost 100 different documents, out of which some 
were classified and available only to a limited circle of persons in the Member States. The system has been 
truly nontransparent. This manifested in a series of decisions of the Executive Committee, which referred to the 
Executive Committee’s previous decisions, supplementing or partly canceling them.  
14 Decision no. 42.
SCHENGEN, EVOLUCIJA, ŠIRITEV IN VSTOP SLOVENIJE NA SKUPNO SCHENGENSKO OBMOČJE
 166 Bilten Slovenske vojske  167 Bilten Slovenske vojske 
study and 12 other states, organized a ministerial conference in Rome. The candidate 
countries for the entry into the EU have also been invited to the conference15. 
Due to opposition of certain large countries it became clear at the conference that the 
EU is still not ready for such radical changes in the control of its external borders. 
Even though the idea on the establishment of a uniform European border police has 
not been adopted, the conference was a great success; it highlighted certain priori-
ties which served as a guideline for the development of this area during a few more 
years to come. The need for a more close cooperation and the division of burden of 
protecting the external borders was also stressed. Until that time the policy of the 
EU was that each state has to ensure the control of its own borders, which are at the 
same time the external borders of the EU. This was not a just solution, because those 
states, which did not have an external border, could redirect a part of the budget, 
primarily devoted for the protection of their borders, while those states, which did 
have external borders were sometimes forced to allocate more resources for the pro-
tection of the external borders due to increasing demands for protection. 
Based on the Laekn decisions from May 2002, simultaneously with the idea on the 
establishment of the European border police, the European Commission issued a 
communication envisioning five key components of development in the field of ma-
nagement of the external borders of the EU (Gogu, 2006). 
The Commission suggested the following in order to unify the legal order:
a. common coordination and the establishment of an operational mechanism;
b. joint threat assessment; 
c. uniform approach to training and infrastructure;
d. burden-sharing.
The European Commission suggested the establishment of a common unit of external 
border practitioners as a concrete proposal for the improvement of coordination and 
operational mechanisms. A few weeks later, in June 2002, the European Council 
adopted an action plan envisaging the establishment of such group. Following the 
discussion on the legal basis and the form of this body was adopted a solution, which 
signified that the so-called SCIFA+/Common unit is to be formed within the SCIFA 
(strategic committee for migration frontiers and asylum). This group was composed 
of the representatives (mainly chiefs) of the EU Member States border police. The 
working group met for the first time at the end of July 2002 in Denmark (Gogu, 
2006). This group’s16 task was to prepare a discussion or the proposals for closer co-
operation in the field of protection of the EU’s external borders. Based on the initia-
tives of several Member States and in accordance with the Commission’s communi-
cation numerous centres (Threat assessment centre in Finland, Centre for air borders 
in Italy, Training Centre in Austria, Sea borders centre                                                in 
Greece and Spain and the Land borders centre in Germany) have been established. 
15 The author of this article was also among the participants of this conference.
16 The author of the article has been a member of this working group from May 2003 to June 2004.  
Anton Travner
 167 Bilten Slovenske vojske 
Initially the task of these centres has been the care for the unification of standards 
and procedures on individual areas of control of the external EU border. The practice 
showed very different approaches. Some centres (primarily for the land borders, 
threat assessment and training) have performed their work very seriously and accu-
rately and have in deed greatly contributed to progress on individual fields, while 
others have been less active. 
The results of the centres’ work have been often discussed at the SCIFA+/Common 
Unit. The outcomes of the discussion in this working group, strongly supported by 
the Commission, showed that perhaps the best answer to the initial idea (unification 
of the standards for the control of the external border of the EU with the establis-
hment of the European border police) is the establishment of the agency for external 
borders. After lengthy and wearisome discussions (mainly regarding the seat of 
the new agency – Slovenia also stood as a candidate for the seat, but the agency 
finally ended up in Warszawa) Frontex17was established in 2004, while the decision 
regarding the seat has not been adopted before April 200518. 
Today Frontex is a modern agency, employing over 180 experts and other personnel. 
In 2008, it used over 70.4 million Euros for salaries and other expenses, mainly for 
the support and financing of joint operations (operations on external borders return of 
the foreigners to their home states and other operations). Fontex is leas and directed 
by the executive committee composed of the representatives of all Member States. 
It is currently presided by Austria’s representative, Robert Strondl. The executive 
director, which is currently the Finland representative Ilka Laitinnen, is in charge 
of the operational management of the agency. Beside a member of the  executive 
committee Slovenia also has some other people employed in Frontex. It should be 
noted that after the initial period Frontex developed rapidly and is taking over more 
and more important tasks (More about the agency can be read at the www.frontex.
europa.eu). 
The Regulation (EC) no. 863/2007 of the European Parliament and European 
Council dated 11 July 2007 on the establishment of the mechanism for the founda-
tion of the groups for rapid intervention on the frontiers and on the changes of the 
Council Regulation (EC) no. 2007/2004, referring to this mechanism and to the ar-
rangement of tasks and authorisations of the guest officials prove that the idea of 
the European border police is not entirely forgotten. This introduces the so-called 
Rapid Border intervention Teams (RaBIT), which were given the name “rabbits”. 
The Regulation introduces a rapid intervention mechanism on frontiers, intended 
for the provision of time-limited rapid technical and operational assistance for the 
Member States confronted with worrying and immense pressure, particularly due 
to the arrival of a large number of the third countries citizens, which are trying to 
17 Regulation of the Council no. 2007/2004 dated 26 October 2004 on the establishment of the Agency for the 
management of external borders of the EU Member States. 
18 The Decision of the Council dated 26 April regarding the determination of the seat of the Agency for the 
Management of External Borders (2005/358/EC).
SCHENGEN, EVOLUCIJA, ŠIRITEV IN VSTOP SLOVENIJE NA SKUPNO SCHENGENSKO OBMOČJE
 168 Bilten Slovenske vojske  169 Bilten Slovenske vojske 
illegally enter the EU at its external borders. The Regulation also defines tasks and 
authorisations of group members during operations in the Member States. The rapid 
intervention units, capable of providing personnel, expert and technical support at 
any time and anywhere to states which ask for such help, were formed under the 
auspices of Frontex. 
Contingents are composed of competent border policemen from all Member States, 
which can exercise all border police authorizations in any state or which are equal 
to the home policemen. They are a kind of a European border police and if a foreign 
policeman addresses you in English at the border crossing point or at the green 
border, this is no longer unusual or unlikely to happen as it has been some years ago. 
We can only guess of the direction the progress will take. However, it is true that 
the question of protecting the external EU border is a very delicate one, especially 
after the enlargement of the Schengen area. During the enlargement strong critics 
and a fear of the deterioration of internal security could be perceived in certain “old” 
states. These fears were proven to be entirely unjustified, nonetheless this topic 
remains very popular and a good way of acquiring votes, particularly by radical 
political parties in certain EU states. 
 3 SLOVENIA AND SCHENGEN
 3.1 First steps
The first preparations for Slovenia’s entry into the Schengen area started well before 
1999. The first pioneers were employed in the then division for national border and fo-
reigners within the Uniformed Police Directorate of the General Police Directorate19. 
Due to exceptional understanding of the then director of the Administration20 and the 
management of the police started the first preparations and the first conceptual steps 
were undertaken. These steps later showed that Slovenia was the only new member 
that prepared for the entry into the Schengen area in a timely manner and the most 
thoroughly (Anželj, 2002 also discusses this topic). 
 3.2 Inter-Institutional Assistance
The EU provided considerable financial resources for the assistance at the preparati-
ons for the entry of Slovenia into the EU and into the Schengen Area. Initially these 
were the projects of the PHARE program (over 50 million Euros), and later the in-
strument called the SCHENGEN FACILITY (over 110 million Euros). The assets 
have been used for equipment, infrastructure, partly for the salaries of policemen, 
education and training, while a part of them has been intended for various projects. 
19 Branko Celar, Marko Gašperlin and Rajko Komat have been heads of the division for national border and 
foreigners until the year 2000. From 2000 to 2004, the author of this article has been head of the department 
for Border Security and later the head of the division for national border and foreigners. 
20 In this period Stanislav Veniger was the head of the Uniformed Police Directorate.
Anton Travner
 169 Bilten Slovenske vojske 
Since 1999, we have come across different twinning projects. I would like to highlight 
three projects within the PHARE Institution Building titled Establishment  of  an 
effective  national  border  control  system  I,  Establishment  of  an  effective  national 
border control system II and Police cooperation. In the first two projects participa-
ted experts from Germany and Austria and in the last one participated experts from 
Spain. The projects between 1999 and 2003 helped to set-up the foundation of sub-
sequent reforms and Slovenia’s preparations for the entry into the Schengen area. 
 3.3 Adjustment of the National System
Most importantly, the Republic of Slovenia persisted in the process of joining to 
the EU and consequently did not have to establish a special border police, which all 
other new members had to do. In view of the attainment of standards set-up by the 
Schengen Acquis, we have prepared organizational changes on all three levels; local, 
regional and national. 
 3.3.1 Deciding Between the Concept of Independent Border Police and the 
Concept of Border Police as an Integral Part of the Police
The Schengen Area Member States had different organizational personnel approa-
ches, because of which the European Commission proposed certain measures in the 
field of education and appointments and infrastructure, already in correspondence 
from 2002. 
Organizational approach to the control of the external border has two forms in 
Europe:
 – border police as an integral part of other police forces or security services;
 – border police as an independent service.
The personnel controlling the external border can be policemen (e.g. Belgium), border 
guards (Finland), gendarmes (France) or even the coast guard (e.g. Greece, where 
the coast guard is a part of the armed forces under civilian control). Influenced by 
large states, the European efforts have directed towards unification of the standards 
for appointment and training (Gogou, 2006). The sovereignty of the Member States 
taken in consideration, the Commission and other certain Member States have not 
managed to direct the development in such a way that the external borders would be 
protected by special border guards. Such ideas have been unacceptable for the old 
members, but the conditions for the new members have been completely different. 
The standpoints have been rather “soft”, meaning that a majority of the experts 
insisted on recommendations that we should follow the examples of good practice in 
the reorganization of the border services, among which attention was drawn particu-
larly to the Finland and German border guards. 
In the process of joining the EU, the Republic of Slovenia managed to assert the 
concept of a single police and consequently avoid a too large increase of emplo-
yments. The then management of the police was convinced that this would be 
SCHENGEN, EVOLUCIJA, ŠIRITEV IN VSTOP SLOVENIJE NA SKUPNO SCHENGENSKO OBMOČJE
 170 Bilten Slovenske vojske  171 Bilten Slovenske vojske 
the only acceptable and rational concept for Slovenia as a small state. Otherwise 
Slovenia would introduce special border police and as a result additionally and un-
necessarily burden the national budget. The enforcement of this decision was not 
very simple, because it demanded a lot of efforts, persuasion and lobbying. During 
the first twinning project already, the foreign experts suggested and persisted that 
Slovenia should establish a special autonomous and independent border police. In 
so doing they followed the tendencies of the European Commission and experiences 
of certain old Member States, in particularly Germany and Finland. The pressures at 
both, expert and political levels have been extremely strong and persistent. Due to 
these pressures the majority of the new states decided to introduce a special autono-
mous and independent border police. The Slovenian concept of the integrated border 
police received a lot of political and expert critiques (Hills, 2006). 
As we have already mentioned, Slovenia stubbornly opposed to the introduction of 
a special autonomous and independent border police and persistently defended its 
views. To this day, quite a few other states gave up the special border police and 
rather decided to have an integrated border police (Hungary, Estonia and Germany, 
after it lost its external border), which proves that our path was a right one. 
The Slovenian concept is actually a bit more complicated, as we have the border 
police on the local level, while the police on the regional and national level (with the 
exception of the special operational units) are an integral part of police directorates 
and of the General Police Directorate21 (more on this in Hills, 2006, p. 52–54). 
Through the single police concept we have established a standpoint, supported also 
by Slovenia’s national legislation (mainly in the National Border Control Act and in 
the Police Act), which determines that the external EU border is controlled across 
the entire Slovenia’s territory and not only at the border line and some ten kilometre 
zones, such as is the case in other states which have incomparably more policemen 
per kilometre of a border than Slovenia does. This is also apparent form Slovenia’s 
negotiation position for Chapter 24 of the Acquis Communautaire.
 3.3.2 Possibility of Participation of the Slovenian Armed Forces in Border 
Control and the Possibility of Establishing a Gendarmerie 
Due to frequent and justified tendencies of rationalization in 2003 and 2004, appeared 
the idea that the Slovenian Armed Forces could participate in the protection of the 
national border. Inherently, the idea is not bad and would indeed be a great contri-
bution to the rationalization of the use of the budgetary resources, but such solution 
is simply unacceptable. The idea is not unacceptable because such manner would 
be less effective, transparent or undemocratic. On the contrary, the solution would 
be just as effective, the system just as transparent and democratic control would be 
provided for the police as well as for the army. The problem lies elsewhere, namely 
in the legal order and the recommendations as well as in the practice of the EU. The 
21 More on the organization of the Slovenian police is available at the www.policija.si.
Anton Travner
 171 Bilten Slovenske vojske 
Schengen Convention does not clearly state that the armed forces could not be used 
for the protection of the borders; however, this is clearly defined in the Schengen 
Catalogue which is a guide for all states and which indicates the unification of the 
practice and is at the same time used as a guide for evaluation. In 2003, evaluation has 
been performed in Austria. The experts came to a conclusion that the Austrian Armed 
Forces are not responsible or competent for the protection of the green border and 
that they merely assist the Austrian gendarmerie in its protection. The report has been 
negative and critical22and the Justice and Home Affairs Council instructed Austria to 
immediately abolish this practice. It is true that Austria lingered for a long time and 
has not immediately complied with the decision, but what is even more important is 
the second fact, which is that Austria has already been a member of the Schengen 
area during evaluation. If it would not have been a member already, it would not be 
allowed to enter this area. Slovenia followed these examples of practice and complied 
with the clear decisions of the Council and after careful consideration decided that 
Slovenian Armed Forces will not participate in the protection of the border. 
The other proposal, similar to the first one, has been to establish in Slovenia a gen-
darmerie, which would be a semi-military organization. Not even this idea, which 
has been in play for quite some time, has been applied at the end. To this contributed 
not only the arguments previously used to counter the use of the armed forces at the 
borders, but also the demand of the EU for specialization and professionalization of 
the personnel for the protection of the national border. It is written in the catalogue, 
that the formation protecting the border cannot be a military one, but it is also written 
that the officials protecting the border must be specially trained and professionalised. 
Considering these demands the introduction of gendarmerie would not indicate rati-
onalization, but would additionally complicate the system, making the management 
of personnel even less transparent. 
The EU practice described beforehand, the establishment of the Agency and the in-
troduction of the rapid intervention units point to the accuracy of Slovenia’s decision, 
also confirmed by the results of the Schengen evaluation. 
 3.4 Schengen Implementation Plan
As a part of preparations for the EU membership Slovenia’s government adopted the 
Schengen Implementation Plan (SIN, decision 003-06/2001-4)23 at its 28th session on 
24 May 2001 in which it defined the tasks and deadlines for the implementation of 
the Schengen standards for the control of the future external border (Mihovec, 2007). 
In view of the implementation plan regarding the enforcement of the Schengen 
control standards for the future EU external border started a new type of activities 
which were to ensure that by 2005 Slovenia would be able to apply the Schengen 
level of control at the external EU border, at which the border control on internal 
borders could be abolished.
22 All evaluation reports are confidential.
23 The majority of the Government material has been prepared by the Police.
SCHENGEN, EVOLUCIJA, ŠIRITEV IN VSTOP SLOVENIJE NA SKUPNO SCHENGENSKO OBMOČJE
 172 Bilten Slovenske vojske  173 Bilten Slovenske vojske 
As a part of the negotiation positions for the Chapter 24 of the Acquis Communautaire, 
this document was also communicated to Brussels. The Member States of the EU and 
the European Commission accepted it as a relevant document for preparing Slovenia 
to takeover commitments for a full enforcement of the Schengen Convention within 
the timescale provided. Based on the data known at the time, it could be foreseen that 
the implementation of the Schengen Convention for the new Member States could 
start already in 2006, but it was postponed until 2007 due to problems regarding the 
setting-up of the second-generation information system (SIS II). 
At the 158th correspondence session on 14 August 2002, Slovenia’s government 
addressed the report on the realization of the Schengen Implementation Plan for the 
establishment of the future external border of the EU and adopted the employment 
dynamics. 
At the 34th regular session on 28 August 2003, the Government addressed the report 
on the evaluation of the implementation plan for the enforcement of the Schengen 
standards at the control of the future external border of the EU and adopted the report 
and some supplementations of the implementation plan. The report has also been 
addressed at the Government’s 30th regular session on 23 June 2005 at which the 
Schengen Implementation Plan has been supplemented. 
The plan envisaged in detail all measures, activities, holders of activities and 
deadlines in the following fields:
 – alignment with the Acquis Communautaire;
 – implementation of the organizational personnel conception for the control of the 
national border: 
 – organizational personnel conception;
 – organizational changes;
 – systemization of workplaces;
 – employment and transfer; 
 – education and training;
 – information and telecommunication system and the implementation and operation 
of the Schengen Information System;
 – introduction and operation of SIRENE and other forms of international cooperation;
 – other technical equipment;
 – police units facilities for the control of national borders and accommodation 
facilities:
 – new constructions and adaptation of facilities;
 – provision of apartments and beds in single rooms;
 – measures undertaken at the airports and in the harbours;
 – measures undertaken at internal borders and in the inland of the state;
 – realization of the Schengen Agreement provisions in the field of data protection; 
 – cost estimate; 
 – Schengen evaluation;
 – activities of the police at the abolishment of the border control at the internal borders.
Anton Travner
 173 Bilten Slovenske vojske 
The plan referred to the activities in charge of which have been the Ministry of Internal 
Affairs and the Police, but special parts of the plan have been devoted to the activities 
of the Ministry of Public Administration, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Traffic and 
the Ministry of External Affairs. At the same session, the Government decided that in 
order to provide a timely and effective establishment an effective control mechanism 
has to be set-up. The Government also set-up an inter-ministerial coordination for the 
establishment of security, customs and inspection control on the external EU border. 
Until Slovenia’s entry into the Schengen Area the pace of changes and adjustments has 
not changed much. We have been running behind in some areas (adjustment of the Jože 
Pučnik Airport), but the preparations have been mostly carried as planned. 
 
 4 ENLARGEMENT OF THE SCHENGEN AREA
Even though since the Amsterdam Treaty, the enlargement of the Schengen Area is 
closely linked with enlargement of the EU for the new members, these enlargements 
should not be equated. It should be stressed that the Schengen Area is enlarging in-
dependently of the EU enlargements. This is the case of Switzerland, which is not 
an EU member and shows no signs of wanting to become one. Nonetheless, in 2008 
Switzerland entered the Schengen Area and in the future we can expect Lichtenstein 
to enter as well. For the new EU members the entry into the Schengen Area is obli-
gatory, but the process of full entry is conducted independently and separately. 
The process of enlargement of the Schengen Area is demanding and is introducing 
numerous particularities for the old and the new members (Sie Dhian Ho, 2006). 
Undoubtedly the first particularity is the EU’s preparation for enlargement. Since the 
Amsterdam Treaty the entry into the Schengen area is connected to the entry into the 
EU, nonetheless it should be noted that the area of control of the external borders is 
rapidly developing and that this development causes problems to the old members. 
The legislation of the Community is developing exceptionally fast and causes quite 
some troubles in the implementation process. At the same time we witness great (if 
not existential) difficulties in the development of the Schengen Information System 
of the second generation. 
The next particularity is that the new members start with the realization of a part of 
the Schengen Acquis with the entry into the EU and also start intensive preparations 
for the second part, which is connected with the abolishment of the border control at 
internal borders. As already described, extremely fast development presents a diffi-
culty already for the old members and therefore the new members find the process of 
adjustment much more difficult because of rapid and comprehensive changes.
The process of integration into the Schengen Acquis is very demanding from the 
financial aspect. It is true that the EU contributes a part of the resources, but the en-
largement of the Schengen area is a great financial burden also for the state, which 
is to enter this area. 
SCHENGEN, EVOLUCIJA, ŠIRITEV IN VSTOP SLOVENIJE NA SKUPNO SCHENGENSKO OBMOČJE
 174 Bilten Slovenske vojske  175 Bilten Slovenske vojske 
Regardless of the sovereignty of individual states, the enlargement of the Schengen 
border signifies changes in both the quantity and the quality on the future external 
border. This is related to a variety of problems, which the enlargement of the 
Schengen area brings to the borders between the member and non-member states. 
Finally, the enlargement of the Schengen area is a very sensitive political question. 
At the last enlargement this could be noted mainly in Austria and in Germany, since 
their right-oriented political parties associated the enlargement with the collapse of 
internal security. 
 4.1 System of Enlargement
For new Member States of the EU the adoption of the Schengen system is carried-
out in two phases. Since the Amsterdam Treaty, more precisely, since the integrati-
on of the Schengen Acquis into the Acquis Communautaire, a part of the Schengen 
Acquis is implemented at the entry into the EU and the second part after evalu-
ation is concluded.24. A special horizontal working group named SCH-EVAL25 is 
organized in the EU Council. The group is in charge of monitoring the implemen-
tation of the Schengen Acquis in the Member States. Appointed to this group are 
the representatives of all EU Member States as well as representatives of Iceland 
and Norway and since 2008 also of Switzerland. Among other things this working 
group prepares and deals with the Schengen evaluations. On the proposal of the 
state, which wants to enter the Schengen area it prepares and approves a question-
naire, it addresses and aligns the schedule and the places of the evaluation groups 
visits and discusses the report after the evaluation is finished. The end report 
is discussed by the Justice and Home Affairs Council, which makes decisions 
regarding the enlargement.
 4.2 Evaluations
As I have already mentioned, evaluation has several stages:
1. First of all, the state, which claims to fulfil and assesses that it fulfils all condi-
tions for the entry into the Schengen area, declares this by a special statement, 
which acts as a basis for the beginning of the procedure.
2. After political decision to start the evaluation, the SCH-EVAL questionnaire for 
this state is confirmed. The questionnaire is a very comprehensive document, 
providing the experts initial and rather accurate information regarding an indivi-
dual state, its system and its current situation. With the help of the questionnaire 
the experts can later prepare themselves for field evaluation. I should stress that 
all questions are very precise and comprehensive. The questionnaire for Slovenia 
had over 200 questions written on 30 pages and has been published in June 2005. 
24 The Conclusion of the Executive Committee dated 16 September 1998 on the establishment of the Committee for 
evaluation and implementation of the Convention (SCH/Com-Ex (98) 26 def). 
25 The name of the working group is not an abbreviation, but derives from group’s basic activity – the Schengen 
evaluation (SCH-EVAL).
Anton Travner
 175 Bilten Slovenske vojske 
3. A state prepares the answers to the questionnaire, and if necessary, defends its 
position also at the group’s session. Slovenia presented its answers (without the 
SIS field, because at the time the decision for the Schengen Information System 
has not yet been adopted) on 182 pages.
4. After a detailed examination of the answers, concrete evaluations of individual 
fields are planned, namely for:
a. land borders;
b. air borders;
c. sea borders;
d. visas;
e. police cooperation;
f. data protection;
g. information technology (IT) – mainly the inclusion into the Schengen 
Information System (SIS).
 A group of experts is determined for each field. It should be noted that all states 
are allowed to send one expert to each mission. This does not happen in practice, 
but the missions are nonetheless quite strong in number. However, it is even 
more important that the mission members are exceptionally experienced and 
trained high officials. 
5. Evaluation missions visit each state, where they closely examine how the state 
is prepared and how it implements the Schengen Acquis. Evaluations are very 
accurate. The experts also ask very unpleasant questions, perform a variety of 
field inspections, interview randomly selected discussion partners etc. 
6. The draft of the report is starting to take form already during the evaluation. 
When the proposal for a report is finished, the state that was being examined 
can suggest certain changes, which are or are not included in the report after the 
discussion. Afterwards the report is discussed at the working group and at the 
Justice and Home Affairs Council. 
 4.3 Enlargement of the Schengen Area in the Years 2007 and 2008 
The process of evaluation and the process of entry into the Schengen area seem rela-
tively simple, but at the last enlargement this was not the case. Because this has been 
the biggest enlargement of the Schengen area so far, the number of difficulties has 
been correspondingly larger. The greatest and the most complicated difficulty was 
the Schengen Information System. The project of its renovation or the constructi-
on of the second-generation system is lasting for over a decade. At first the position 
of the EU has been that the project will undoubtedly be finished before 2005 and 
that enlargement will be possible at that time. Already in 2002 and 2003 it became 
evident that the SIS II project is accompanied by bad luck and that it would probably 
be finished no sooner than by 2007. In 2006, it became evident that the project will 
not be finished in 2007 either. Despite numerous oppositions during the overall rush 
of pessimism, Portugal presented a solution - the upgrading of its own system. At first 
the European Commission believed it to be impossible, but Portugal itself developed 
a test system and proved to all sceptics that the enlargement is possible and that the 
upgrading of the SIS – SISone4all will be prepared during its presidency. 
SCHENGEN, EVOLUCIJA, ŠIRITEV IN VSTOP SLOVENIJE NA SKUPNO SCHENGENSKO OBMOČJE
 176 Bilten Slovenske vojske  177 Bilten Slovenske vojske 
The problems related to the SIS were not the only problems. Some countries were 
less well prepared, for which reason new evaluations had to be made. But as all 
new countries envisaged the abolishment of the border checks on internal borders, 
the Slovenians were treated within the same framework. On one side there were 
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and on the other side there were Poland, Czech, 
Slovakia, Hungary and Slovenia. The Portugal Minister of Internal Affairs and his 
Slovenian colleague Dragutin Mate have taken the initiative for the coordination of 
preparations. All candidate states for the entry into the Schengen area have obliged 
themselves to do their best and to mutually help each other. Portugal also offered all 
available help at the implementation of the system. There are a lot of anecdotes and 
interesting stories on behind-the-scenes activity, which has been very lively during 
the last preparations for the enlargement. Regardless of the difficulties, success has 
been expected. On 21 December 2007 Slovenia and seven other states (Lithuania, 
Latvia, Estonia, Czech, Slovakia, Hungary and Poland) entered the Schengen area. 
The border control on internal land borders has been abolished. From this day 
forward Slovenians too can travel freely, without border controls anywhere around 
Europe in road and rail traffic. On 30 March 2008 (when the flight schedule has been 
changed) the border controls in air traffic have also been abolished.26. And so after 
ten years the Schengen external border once again moved towards the south and the 
east (Brozina, 2008). 
The Schengen area is very attractive to everyone. At a referendum the inhabi-
tants of Swiss Confederation voted for Switzerland, which is not a member of the 
EU, to enter the Schengen area. During the Slovenian EU presidency evaluati-
ons have been performed also in Switzerland and were conducted by Slovenian 
experts. There were some minor irregularities, which Switzerland eliminated and is 
therefore today also a part of the Schengen area. The evaluations of Romania and 
Bulgaria are also under way. 
Even though the Schengen area enables free movement of persons and is an area 
without border control, the latter can be temporarily reintroduced at certain events, 
which would be demanding in security. The states reintroduce the border control at 
large sports events (Olympic Games in Italy, football world championship in Austria 
and Switzerland) or at large economic and political events (G8 summit in Italy.) 
Special and very strict rules apply for all such events and the reintroduction of border 
control on internal borders, and usually the states consistently adhere to these rules. 
26 The Conclusion of the Council dated 6 December 2007 on the full implementation of the Schengen legal order 
provisions in the Czech Republic, Republic of Estonia, Republic of Latvia, Republic of Lithuania, Republic of 
Hungary, Republic of Malta, Republic of Poland, Republic of Slovenia and the Republic of Slovakia (2007/801/
EC). 
Anton Travner
 177 Bilten Slovenske vojske 
As I have already mentioned in the Introduction, the entry into the Schengen area 
brings certain advantages and certain disadvantages. The inhabitants living along the 
border are for the time being definitely in a disadvantage due to the introduction of 
a more severe regime of control on the external border, since there are as much as 
seven times more policemen in this areas as there are in others. The police checks 
are more frequent and sometimes disturbing. The transit of the external border is 
no longer as simple as it used to be. Many points of transit, where the local inhabi-
tants used to illegally cross the border are closed, the control of the green border is 
much stricter and the control at the border crossing points is much more thorough. 
Despite the strong support of the EU the entry into the Schengen area has been a 
considerable expenditure for the taxpayers. In spite of certain negative consequen-
ces, I am convinced that there are a lot more of positive consequences. In a way 
we have already got used to the fact that we no longer have to show our passports 
on the border crossing points in order to travel around the EU (except in air traffic 
for purposes of insolvency assessment). Entry into the Schengen area has brought 
quite a few new workplaces and employments as well as considerable progress. I am 
convinced that we have become a safer state and a more appealing state for tourism 
in the eyes of foreigners, for we are now a part of the same area. At the present, we 
probably cannot foresee all consequences of the entry and we can not foresee them 
through superficial examination. In time many positive sides will come into view 
and when we will get completely used to this system, we will find it foreign, unplea-
sant and unappealing to have to show our passports at border crossing points. 
Regardless of the advantages and the disadvantages brought by the enlargement 
of the Schengen environment, we expect more enlargements to come (the entry of 
Romania, Bulgaria and the Western Balkan states). Only through enlargement will 
Europe become an area in which the free movement of persons will be possible. 
The enlargement of the Schengen area brings numerous changes to everyone. A lot 
of them are positive, but there are certainly some negative changes. Regretfully, due 
to the limitations in length of the article I was not able to present the advantages or 
disadvantages that the enlargement will bring. 
1. Anželj, D., 2002. Slovenska policija v procesu prilagajanja Evropski uniji. Teorija in 
praksa. 39-4, p. 705–719.
2. Brozina, D., 2008. Predsedovanje Slovenije Svetu EU. Področje notranjih zadev. 
Ljubljana: Ministrstvo za notranje zadeve.
3. Caparini, M., Marenin, O. (eds.). 2006. Borders and security governance: managing 
borders in a globalized world. Münster; Wien; Zürich. Geneva Centre for the Democratic 
Control of Armed Forces (DCAF). 
4.  Celar, B., 2002. Slovenija in njene meje. Ljubljana: Visoka policijsko-varnostna šola.
5.  Društvo za Združene narode za Republiko Slovenijo. 1995–1996. Človekove pravice: 
zbirka mednarodnih dokumentov. Del 1, Univerzalni dokumenti. Ljubljana: Društvo za 
Združene narode za Republiko Slovenijo. 
6. Burian, D., Debelak, S., 1999. Schengen v praksi. Ljubljana: Ministrstvo za notranje 
zadeve. 
Conclusion
Bibliography
SCHENGEN, EVOLUCIJA, ŠIRITEV IN VSTOP SLOVENIJE NA SKUPNO SCHENGENSKO OBMOČJE
 178 Bilten Slovenske vojske  179 Bilten Slovenske vojske 
7. Generalni sekretariat Sveta, 2001. The Schengen Acquis integrated into the European 
Union. Luxembourg: Office for Official publications of the European Communities. 
8.  Gogou, D., 2006. Towards a European Approach on Border Management: Aspect Related 
to the Movement of Persons. V Caparini; Marenin (eds.). 2006. Borders and security 
governance: managing borders in a globalized world. Münster; Wien; Zürich. Geneva 
Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF). p. 102–123.
9. Guiraudon, V., 2006. Enlisting Third Parties in Border Control: a Comperative Stud 
of its Causes and Consequences. V Caparini; Marenin (eds.). 2006. Borders and security 
governance: managing borders in a globalized world. Münster; Wien; Zürich. Geneva 
Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF). p. 79–97.
10. Hills, A., 2006. Towards a Rationaly of Democratic Border Managemet. V Caparini; 
Marenin (eds.). 2006. Borders and security governance: managing borders in a 
globalized world. Münster; Wien; Zürich. Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control 
of Armed Forces (DCAF). p. 41–55.
11. ICMPD, 2005. 2004 Yearbook on Illegal Migration, Human smuggling and trafficking in 
Central an Eastern Europe. Dunaj: ICMPD. 
12. Koslowski, R., 2006. Information Technology and Integrated Border Management. 
V Caparini; Marenin (eds.). 2006. Borders and security governance: managing borders 
in a globalized world. Münster; Wien; Zürich. Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control 
of Armed Forces (DCAF). p. 59–77.
13. Marenin, O., 2006. Democratic Oversight and Border Management. V Caparini; Marenin 
(eds.). 2006. Borders and security governance: managing borders in a globalized world. 
Münster; Wien; Zürich. Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces 
(DCAF). p. 18–40.
14. Mihovec, J., 2007. Uvajanje schengenskih sporazumov in standardov v Republiki 
Sloveniji. Uprava. 5-1, p. 117–139.
15. Monar, J., 2006. The Project of European Guard: Origins, Models and Prospects in 
the Context of the EU’s Integrated External Border Management. V Caparini; Marenin 
(eds.). 2006. Borders and security governance: managing borders in a globalized world. 
Münster; Wien; Zürich. Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces 
(DCAF). p. 194–208.
16. Sie Dhian Ho, M., 2006. Enlarging and Deepening the EU/Schengen Regime on Border 
Controls. V Caparini; Marenin (eds.). 2006. Borders and security governance: managing 
borders in a globalized world. Münster; Wien; Zürich. Geneva Centre for the Democratic 
Control of Armed Forces (DCAF). p. 125–145. 
17. Travner, A., 2008. Omejitve svobode pogodbenih strank pri sklepanju pogodb o prevozu 
oseb v mednarodnem prometu. Magistrsko delo. Ljubljana: Pravna Fakulteta v Ljubljani. 
18. Westphal, V., Stoppa, E., 2004. Evropsko pravo za mejno policijo. Ljubljana: Ministrstvo 
za notranje zadeve.
Anton Travner