Under the Schengen Borders Code, a member state may temporarily reintroduce internal border controls only under exceptional circumstances — specifically, a serious threat to public policy or internal security — and only for renewable periods not exceeding 30 days, with total duration capped at six months. In 2023, the Commission's evaluation found that four member states had maintained consecutive renewals of border controls for periods exceeding two years, citing ongoing migration pressures as the justification. The Commission noted that migration pressure, as a structural and foreseeable phenomenon, does not legally qualify as the kind of unforeseeable acute threat the Code was designed to address.
Which of the following can be most reliably inferred from the passage?
Elige tu respuesta
Explicación
The passage states two things: (1) the Code requires that the threat be exceptional and unforeseeable, and (2) the Commission found that migration pressure is structural and foreseeable and therefore does not legally qualify. It follows necessarily that the Commission considers the continued controls — justified by migration pressure — to be incompatible with the Code's conditions. This is a direct logical inference. Choice A introduces a judgment of 'bad faith' which the passage does not support — the Commission makes a legal finding, not a finding about intent. Choice C goes beyond the passage; the Commission's evaluative role and enforcement powers are not described. Choice D overstates the inference — the passage says migration pressure as a structural phenomenon doesn't qualify; it does not say migration pressure has 'never' been accepted in any form. Choice E concerns notification procedures, which the passage does not address.
