EU Member States have been extraditing suspects and sentenced persons to each other for many decades on the basis of bilateral and multilateral conventions. Those arrangements were, however, slow and thwarted by exceptions based on national sovereignty. As EU integration has progressed, the Member States have agreed to base their cooperation on the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions, moving away from a system in which decisions on extradition were ultimately taken at government level. This principle was implemented in the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant and Surrender Procedures (FD EAW), adopted in 2002 on the basis of rapid negotiations following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
This paper is the first of two publications on the implementation of the European arrest warrant that EPRS will prepare for the LIBE committee.
It provides a framework for analysis as well as preliminary findings on the implementation of the above-mentioned legislation in practice. This paper will be followed by a study (due in April 2020) that will present a comprehensive assessment of the implementation of the FD EAW and tentative recommendations on how to address shortcomings identified.
The FD EAW, adopted in 2002 and implemented since 2004, is generally recognised as a successful instrument. The data available show that it has led to a considerable simplification and speeding up of handover procedures, including for some high-profile cases of serious crime and terrorism. In 2017, the average time between the arrest and surrender of people who did not consent to surrender was 40 days, a remarkable reduction compared to the one year average under the preexisting extradition regime.
Notwithstanding these achievements a number of challenges remain. More specifically, reports by EU institutions, case law and contributions by practitioners, academics and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) point to a number of challenges in the issuance and execution of EAWs. Those challenges relate back to core debates concerning judicial independence, the nature of mutual recognition and its relationship with international norms, primary EU law and values, including fundamental rights, and (the need for) additional harmonisation measures. In particular, they concern the following matters:
the definition of issuing judicial authorities and their independence from government, which excludes police officers and organs of the executive, but can include public prosecutors in accordance with certain conditions (Section 2.1.1);
the proportionality of a number of EAWs issued for ‘minor crimes’ and before the case was ‘trial ready’, also in view of other possible judicial cooperation measures, where the European Parliament’s call for legislative reform has been answered through guidelines in a Commission Handbook (Section 2.1.2)
the verification of double criminality by executing judicial authorities, leading to a lively academic debate on the compatibility of this requirement with the principle of mutual recognition and potential further questions to be raised with the CJEU; and the lack of approximation of certain offences for which verification is no longer allowed (Section 2.2.1);
EAWs for nationals and residents of the executing Member State and their interplay with the Framework Decision on the Transfer of Prisoners with the dual aim of social rehabilitation and the prevention of impunity (Section 2.2.2);
EAWs based on decisions following proceedings at which the person concerned was not present (in absentia) raising practical problems caused by non-implementation, differences concerning implementation, or incorrect implementation or application of the legislation implementing the Framework Decision on in absentia (Section 2.2.3);
and the role of the executing judicial authority in safeguarding the fundamental rights of the requested person as developed in the CJEU’s case law both as regards EAWs where there are concerns relating to poor detention conditions and broader concerns relating to the right to a fair trial, including an independent and impartial tribunal (Section 2.2.4).
Finally, requested persons have also faced difficulties in effectively exercising their procedural rights in the issuing as well as the executing Member State based on the specific provisions relating to the EAW in the various directives approximating the rights of suspected and accused persons within the EU (Section 2.3).
by Emilio DE CAPITANI (Former Secretary of the European Parliament Civil Liberties Committee – LIBE) 18/02/20
1. Asking for transparency in a public organization where most of the members are bureaucrats, diplomats and politicians has always been a challenge because each one of these categories will try to preserve and expand its power without being accountable to anyone. This kind of secrecy that ancient Romans called “Arcana Imperii” remains even today the main temptation of power holders who only recently have reluctantly accepted the checks and balances preventing the concentration of powers. Needless to say such checks and balances can prevent abuses only if rule of law is preserved and legislation is adopted with transparent debates and votes as it should be in a democratic society where citizens may play a role when choosing their representatives (representative democracy) but are also associated to the willing to definition of the public policies (participative democracy).
The evolution of transparency in the first phase of the European Communities
2. Transparency (and fundamental rights) where not cited by the founding treaties of the European Economic Community which was mainly focused on the establishment of the internal market and of the four freedoms, but become unavoidable when the ambition of the ECC became more clearly political at the end of the Seventies in the perspective of an “ever closer” Union of the peoples of these member States. It is therefore not surprising that this change of perspective triggered also a change of practices and administrative culture on the side of bureaucrats, diplomats and politicians working in the European institutions.
Suffice it to say that still in the mid-1970s, decision-making and administrative transparency were limited to some essential aspects such as the introductory justifications of each European Community measure and the mandatory publication of most (but not all) of the EC acts on the Official Journal ( which at the time was only printed in less than 20,000 copies).
3. It is only after the first direct European Parliament elections and its association to the decision-making process even if only as a consultative body that the Commission decided (notwithstanding the opposition of some Member States in the Council) to publish its proposals and, in accordance with the case law of the Court, to better describe in the preamble of the draft acts the essential elements of the procedure as well as the legal basis justifying their adoption.
4. Even if the legislative nature of certain Community measures was already recognised in the case-law of the Court () the word “legislative” was a penumbral concept in the Institution’s practices and appeared only indirectly in the mid-1980s, first in the practices of the institutions after the Single European Act (entered into force in 1987) with the establishment of a “legislative program” whose aim was to describe notably the “cooperation procedures” requiring two successive readings by the European Parliament.
5. Finally the notion of a more transparent European legislation (both for the content as well as for the adoption procedure) appeared in the Conclusions of the European Council meeting in Birmingham on October 16, 1992 () as a political response of the EU institutions to the first negative referendum in Denmark ta the time of the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty.
Thanks to this Referendum and to the Maastricht Treaty a radical change of approach has been triggered notably inside the Council marking the new EU’s ambition to upgrade its economic mission to a more political one and, consequently, to make its decision-making process more democratic (with the codecision procedure) and transparent. (see the Declaration attached to the Maastricht treaty)
Legislative and not legislative transparency
6. This approach will be reinforced with the Amsterdam Treaty which entered into force on May 1, 1999 and which provides for the first time at the level of primary law in Article 255 of the EC Treaty (TEC) the fundamental right of citizens to access European Parliament and Council Commission documents. In addition to this article art. 207 p. 3 of the TEC gave the Council the right to determine “..the cases in which it must be regarded as acting in its capacity as legislator in order to allow better access to documents in these cases, while preserving the efficiency of its process of decision making… “.
7. In application of art. Art 255 TCE the European Parliament and the Council subsequently framed with Regulation 1049/2001 the principles as well as the exceptions () to the right of access to documents which was considered an essential element of participative democracy.
Unfortunately Regulation 1049/01 was not able to make a clear distinction between legislative and not legislative activity because it mirrored the definition given by the Council internal procedures according to which were “legislative” all the EU measures “binding in and for the Member States” even if most of these measures were administrative and not legislative so that a lower level of transparency could had been justified .
The stalemate after the Lisbon Treaty
8. The entry into force on 1st December 2009 of the Lisbon Treaty and of the Charter of fundamental Rights was deemed to mark a new era for the European Union and for its Citizens because since then most of the pre-existing problems at Constitutional level were adressed: the Unanimity rule in the Council is now the exception (and no more the rule), the European Parliament has been transformed in a full-fledged co-legislator (also in domains previously jealously controlled by the Member States such as the judicial and police cooperation in criminal matters) and the Court of Justice has been recognised fully competent on almost all the European Policies.
9. Moreover the preamble of the European Charter has proclaimed a sort of Copernican Revolution by announcing that the EU was placing “.. the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice’ and this announcement is now mirrored in the new Title II of the TEU, dealing with democratic principles which now stipulates that ‘the Union shall observe the principle of the equality of its citizens, who shall receive equal attention from its institutions’ (Article 9) and that ‘every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen’ (Article 10(3)).
10. Participative democracy is now hammered in the art. 11.1 and 2 TEU according to which the EU institution shall“..give citizens and representative associations the opportunity to make known and publicly exchange their views in all areas of Union action‘ and ‘maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society”.
11. But the main rule for participative democracy (along the right to submit legislative initiatives to the attention of the Commission) is the Art 15 of the TFEU whose opening words are the following :” In order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, the Union’s institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall conduct their work as openly as possible.” This general obligation is clearly linked to the article 41 of the Charter which promote the principle of good administration inside the EU and the art. 298 of the same Treaty which states that “In carrying out their missions, the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union shall have the support of an open, efficient and independent European administration.”
12. The second paragraph states of art 15 that “The European Parliament shall meet in public, as shall the Council when considering and voting on a draft legislative act.” Public debates and votes may look quite a basic rule when enacting a legislation, but this was not the case in the European Union before the Lisbon treaty. Even if Council votes were public, this was not the case of legislative debates unlike what was happening in the European Parliament where debates were and still are public at committees and Plenary level. This situation of half transparency notably when the legislation is enacted in co-decision by the European Parliament and by the Council is clearly unacceptable for the EU citizens and even the national Parliaments which in principle should have the right to know and to follow the EU decision-making process no matter if debates are in the Parliament or in the Council.
13. Moreover after Lisbon there is no more ambiguity between legislative and non legislative procedures because the Treaty itself :
consider as legislative the measures adopted following the “ordinary” or the “special” procedure
foresee the explicit announcement in the draft agendas of the Council the legislative debates/votes
makes no more reference to the need of protecting the efficiency of decision making process.
14. It is worth noting that in cases of non legislative procedures the General Court and the Court of Justice have already accepted before the enry into force of the Lisbon Treaty a lower level of transparency than for legislative procedures by recognising a general presumption of non access () to five this kinds of non legislative documents.
This jurisprudence has been on my opinion rightly criticised by the doctrine  because Regulation 1049/01 does not make any reference to this kind of presumption. Quite the opposite the Regulation require an examination on each relevant document by also imposing a dialogue with the person who is asking the access. Moreover the presumption of confidentiality for the documents exchanged between the Commission and a Member States during the transposition of EU law in national law is prejudicial not only for the european citizens but also for the European Parliament. 
15 As far as legislative procedures were concerned the European Parliament in December 2011 voting on the revision of Regulation 1049/01 has decided to delete the reference in art 4 to the “efficiency of the decision making process” for the legislative procedures. But this vote has not been followed by the Council which is obviously more than happy to continue in its pre-Lisbon practices thanks to the survival of this exception in Regulation 1049/01 (which is still into force). Unfortunately the European Commission has also until now been supportive of the exception of the protection of the “efficiency of the decision making process” because it has found it very useful when confronted to requests for documents linked to the competition policy or dealing with its relations with the Member States when transposing EU law.
16. It is worth noting that this exception which until today is still the main reason for refusing the access to documents also for legislative procedures is not justified with the necessity to avoid a possible danger for the EU (which may justify even the creation of “classified” documents) but quite simply with the need of the Member States representatives to change their negotiating position without having to explain the real motivation to their national citizens or even …to their national parliaments.
17. When legislative procedures are at stake the Court of Justice has tried to reverse the Council and Commission position with several groundbreaking rulings such as the “Hautala” () the “Turco” ( ) and Access Info () cases but the impact on the Council and Commission behaviour has been very limited. Even two very interesting recent rulings in 2018 of the Court of Justice and of the General Court have received until now a limited impact on the EU legislative transparency.
18. The first “Client Heart” case  is significant insofar as it clarifies the scope of the concept of ‘legislative documents’, which requires a wider threshold of openness. Deciding as Grand Chamber the Court of Justice found that also documents drawn up in the context of an impact assessment qualify as legislative documents even if as outcome of the this analysis the Commission decide of not launching a legislative procedure.
The second “De Capitani v European Parliament” Ruling regarding the exception for the protection of the decision-making process, is Case T-540/15 where the General Court clarified that the negotiations between the European Parliament and the Council in presence of the Commission (so called “Trilogues”) are an essential phase of the legislative work (no matter if described as “informal”) so that the documents exchanged during these meeting and notably the multicolumn documents should be accessible even if they are evolving and provisional.
How change everything to..change nothing
19. Unfortunately two years after these two rulings the institutions have not changed their behaviour, (even if in some cases they accept specific requests on a case by case basis).
The Council is routinely marking most of the internal legislative documents debated in the working groups or at Coreper level as LIMITE and covered by “professional secrecy” even when they are transmitted to the National Parliaments (which prevent them from debating publicly) and the European Parliament still does not consider trilogues related documents as of legislative (preparatory) nature ! () Now the point is that if “Trilogues” are an essential phase of the legislative procedure the documents debated during these meetings should be proactively published as required by art. 15 TFEU() and art. 12 par 2 of Regulation 1049/01 ().
20. The “trilogue” procedure is already per se an extraordinry way to foster the EU decision making process and this can explain why now almost all the legislative procedures are negotiated in this framework. That having been said, pretending that this procedure should remain confidential is a blatant violation of the principle lf legislative transparency now embedded in the Treaties and in the Charter. It will be an exception on an already exceptional procedure where, moreover, the provisional texts exchanged when accessible are in only one language and where once a compromise is reached there is no real possibility for amendments!
Why making access to information simple when you can make it complex ?
21. To make things even worse, 18 years after the entry into force of Regulation 1049/01 the EU institutions are still quarelling on the the way how the EU citizens can have a simplified access to the documents negotiated under a specific legislative procedure.
The idea of a common “portal” was debated already debated in 2002 and some pilot projects have been tested since then in the Commission and more recently in the Office of EU publication who is in charge of the production of EURLEX. It may be surprising but institutions who spend millions of euro for the production and diffusion of their internal documents are not able of agreeing common exchange format for the most important EU activity which is to legislate for half billion people.. Such situation in the era of Google and Facebook is frankly unacceptable and in my opinion should trigger soon or later an enquiry by the Ombusdman or even by the Court of Auditors having regard to the social and economic impact of this EU institutions failure.
 Il s’agit notamment de la base juridique justifiant dans les traités l’adoption de la mesure, ainsi que les institutions consultés ainsi que un argumentaire permettant de comprendre le problème que la mesure était censé résoudre.
 Voir le point 33 de l’arret “Isoglucose”, SA Roquette Freres v Counseil [Case 138/79, 1980]) selon lequel la consultation « .. est LE MOYEN QUI PERMET AU PARLEMENT DE PARTICIPER EFFECTIVEMENT AU PROCESSUS LEGISLATIF DE LA COMMUNAUTE . CETTE COMPETENCE REPRESENTE UN ELEMENT ESSENTIEL DE L ‘ EQUILIBRE INSTITUTIONNEL VOULU PAR LE TRAITE . ELLE EST LE REFLET , BIEN QUE LIMITE , AU NIVEAU DE LA COMMUNAUTE , D ‘ UN PRINCIPE DEMOCRATIQUE FONDAMENTAL , SELON LEQUEL LES PEUPLES PARTICIPENT A L ‘ EXERCICE DU POUVOIR PAR L ‘ INTERMEDIAIRE D ‘ UNE ASSEMBLEE REPRESENTATIVE »
 Exceptions qui doivent être interprétées et appliquées strictement (arrêt du 13 juillet 2017, Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland/Commission, C‑60/15 P, EU:C:2017:540, point 63 et jurisprudence citée).
  Comme reconnu par la Cour la possibilité, pour les citoyens, de contrôler et de connaître l’ensemble des informations qui constituent le fondement de l’action législative de l’Union est une condition de l’exercice effectif par ces derniers de leurs droits démocratiques, reconnus notamment à l’article 10, paragraphe 3, TUE (voir, en ce sens, arrêts du 1er juillet 2008, Suède et Turco/Conseil, C‑39/05 P et C‑52/05 P, EU:C:2008:374, point 46, ainsi que du 17 octobre 2013, Conseil/Access Info Europe, C‑280/11 P, EU:C:2013:671, point 33).
1. The institutions shall, by appropriate means, give citizens and representative associations the opportunity to make known and publicly exchange their views in all areas of Union action.
2. The institutions shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society.
3. The European Commission shall carry out broad consultations with parties concerned in order to ensure that the Union’s actions are coherent and transparent.
4.Not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the European Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.
The procedures and conditions required for such a citizens’ initiative shall be determined in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 24 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
It is a disgrace that notwithstanding repeated formal requests of the European Parliament the European Commission do not intend to present a legislative proposal covering this objective.
 À ce jour, la Cour a reconnu l’existence de présomptions générales de confidentialité au bénéfice de cinq catégories de documents, à savoir les documents d’un dossier administratif afférent à une procédure de contrôle des aides d’État, les mémoires déposés devant les juridictions de l’Union au cours d’une procédure juridictionnelle tant que celle-ci est pendante, les documents échangés entre la Commission et les parties ayant procédé à une notification ou des tiers dans le cadre d’une procédure de contrôle des opérations de concentration entre entreprises, les documents se rapportant à une procédure précontentieuse en manquement, y inclus les documents échangés entre la Commission et l’État membre concerné dans le cadre d’une procédure EU Pilot, et les documents afférents à une procédure d’application de l’article 101 TFUE (voir, en ce sens, arrêt du 16 juillet 2015, ClientEarth/Commission, C‑612/13 P, EU:C:2015:486, point 77 ainsi que jurisprudence citée ; s’agissant des mémoires déposés devant les juridictions de l’Union, voir, en ce sens, arrêt du 18 juillet 2017, Commission/Breyer, C‑213/15 P, EU:C:2017:563, point 41 et jurisprudence citée ; s’agissant des documents échangés dans le cadre d’une procédure EU Pilot, voir arrêt du 11 mai 2017, Suède/Commission, C‑562/14 P, EU:C:2017:356, point 51). Dans chacun de ces cas, le refus d’accès en cause portait sur un ensemble de documents clairement circonscrits par leur appartenance commune à un dossier afférent à une procédure administrative ou juridictionnelle en cours (arrêt du 16 juillet 2015, ClientEarth/Commission, C‑612/13 P, EU:C:2015:486, point 78 ; voir, également, arrêt du 11 mai 2017, Suède/Commission, C‑562/14 P, EU:C:2017:356). »
 See notably “Beware of Courts Bearing Gifts: Transparency and the Court of Justice of the European Union
Marios Costa* & Steve Peers**
 For instance in case of Directives the obligations or the advantages for the national citizens arise mainly from the national measure transposing the Directive. Make transparent the informations exchanged during this phase is clearly more interesting for the Citizens than the access to the information in the “Brussels” phase. Under this perspective the national transposition phase is still an “european phase” and it would be bizarre that an EU institution hide these information. As far as the European Parliament is concerned this confidentiality during the transposition phase for codecision measure is contrary to common sens the EP being the co-author of the measures concerned.
Under this perspective the EP should had challenged this Commission practice since year as contrary to the principle of loyal cooperation.
Case C-353/99 P, Council of the European Union v. Heidi Hautala, Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 6 December 2001
 Joined Cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P Sweden and Turco v Council 4
 See e.g. C-280/11 P Council v Access Info Europe
 Judgment of 4 September 2018, C‑57/16 ‘ClientEarth’ .
 Art.15,3par 5subparagraph TFEU : “The European Parliament and the Council shall ensure publication of the documents relating to the legislative procedures under the terms laid down by the regulations referred to in the second subparagraph”.
 Art 12. 2 Regulation 1049/01 “ In particular, legislative documents, that is to say, documents drawn up or received in the course of procedures for the adoption of acts which are legally binding in or for the Member States, should, subject to Articles 4 and 9, be made directly accessible.
The discussion on human rights obligations and potential human rights violations has been part of the history of Frontex ever since the agency´s foundation in 2004. Yet, the focus of the human rights discourse on Frontex is on the protection against human rights violations ‘committed by Frontex’. Much less attention, though, is paid to the duty of Frontex to respect and protect human rights in its operations. The call for streamlining fundamental rights protection into all Frontex operations is, obviously, less likely to gain public attention than a law suit against an EU agency. Mindful of this important gap in the current human rights debate surrounding Frontex, this blogpost will look at both levels of human rights protection and suggest a way forward in light of the agency’s extended tasks and competencies.
I. The tension between human rights and efficient border controls
As its name suggests, the main aim of Frontex is to avoid irregular border crossings of the external borders. At the same time, the mandate of Frontex clearly states that ‘it is necessary to act in full respect of fundamental rights’ (Recital 1 of the 2019 Regulation). There is thus an obvious tension between a control logic and a human rights based approach to the European migration policy (see also Recital 1 of the 2011 Regulation). This tension became especially visible with regard to Frontex operations in the Mediterranean Sea. In 2008, the former Frontex director, Ilka Laitinen, stated that Operation Nautilus had failed, because it actually facilitated irregular entries of persons rescued at sea. By its mere presence (and adherence to human rights standards) Frontex was portrayed as a smuggler agency by its own director. Nevertheless, Laitinen admitted in 2013 that Frontex had been involved in push backs at the external borders. Against this backdrop, fundamental rights protection became a topical issue regarding the work of Frontex as a whole.
II. Embedded of fundamental rights protection?
II. 1. Enhanced fundamental rights protection over time
Looking at the question both from a temporal and a numerical point of view, the protection of fundamental rights plays an increasing role in the legal basis for the work of Frontex. In 2004, only Recital 22 of Regulation No. 2007/2004 referred to fundamental rights protection in an affirmative way when stating the (politically) necessary, namely that ‘[t]his Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognized by Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union and reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.’ In contrast, the 2011 amendment called in its Recital 1 more generally for the ‘development of a forward-looking and comprehensive European migration policy based on human rights’ and made reference to ‘fundamental rights’ over 30 times. More substantially, the 2011 overhaul introduced the obligation of Frontex to develop a Fundamental Rights Strategy and a Code of Conduct as well as to install a Fundamental Rights Officer and a respective Consultative Forum. Moreover, the 2011 mandate revision foresaw a possibility to cooperate with the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) and ordered that the first evaluation report on the new Regulation includes ‘a specific analysis on the way the Charter of Fundamental Rights was complied with in the application of this Regulation.’ Following the trend, in the 2016 Regulation the term ‘fundamental rights’ is used over 100 times and in the Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 the term features over 230 times. This development shows increased attention for the protection of fundamental rights but also hints to the fact that this protection remains an unsolved issue within the work of Frontex.
II. 2. Challenging role and the need for control
The importance and relevance of human rights for Frontex’s mandate was highlighted by the CJEU in a judgment of 5 September 2012. The Court annulled Decision 2010/252/EU, which concerned the introduction of additional rules governing border surveillance at the external maritime borders, because it was not taken in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. The rules regarding the way Frontex may exercise its powers in such operations were, according to the CJEU, inappropriately labeled as an additional implementing measure under Article 12(5) of the 2006 Schengen Borders Code. Consequently, the CJEU pointed out (in para. 77) ‘that provisions on conferring powers of public authority on border guards […] mean that the fundamental rights of the persons concerned may be interfered with to such an extent that the involvement of the European Union legislature is required.’
In light of the persisting human rights protection deficiencies, the European legislator saw the need to stress underlying legal obligations that are rooted inter aliain Public International Law and EU law including but not limited to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Consequently, recital 24 of the 2019 Regulation states that ‘[t]he extended tasks and competence of the Agency should be balanced with strengthened fundamental rights safeguards and increased accountability and liability, in particular in terms of the exercise of executive powers by the statutory staff’.
But even if the need for human rights protection is being widely accepted, including by the Frontex Regulation itself, an apparent implementation gap persists, and, what is more, legal remedies often lack effectiveness and efficiency. The complaint mechanism (now Article 111 of the 2019 Regulation) is institutionally weak and seldom used as it does not constitute an independent and effective legal remedy. What is more, the unsettled question of competency and effective control makes it difficult to assess against whom and in which forum to seek redress in the context of operations conducted by Frontex and Member States. The attribution and redress issue might become even more complicated if Frontex cooperates more extensively and out of its own competency with third countries. In order to avoid confusion and ineffectiveness of legal remedies, it would be necessary to establish a clear legal remedy scheme for all types of operations in which Frontex is involved. Lehnert has convincingly argued for a choice of the persons concerned regarding the addressee of a potential lawsuit in order to facilitate the effectiveness of legal remedies ‘against Frontex’, at least as long as the EU has not joined the ECHR.
II. 3. The relevance of human rights protection: returns and border controls
Fundamental rights protection is most acute in relation to returns and border controls. Concerning the first issue, namely returns, two levels are of particular importance: individual protection and independent monitoring. Regarding the former, the protection against refoulement (Article 19 CFR) and the protection of human dignity (Article 1 CFR) form the non-negotiable basis of fundamental rights protection. Yet, other consideration may equally play an important role, including vulnerabilities, the right to family union, or the best interests of children (as stated in Article 5 of the Returns Directive). The issue of return monitoring features prominently in the 2016 and the 2019 Regulations. However, the independence of the return monitoring is at risk given its full incorporation into the legal framework of Frontex and the constitution of the pool of forced-return monitors (Article 51 of the 2019 Regulation). This monitoring task deriving from Article 8(6) of the Returns Directive would be better placed with the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) in order to ensure independent monitoring.
When it comes to the second issue, namely border controls, the controls themselves have of course to abide by fundamental rights standards. This includes the dissemination of information on protection procedures and potential immediate returns that might follow a non-application (see also ECHR, Hirsi). Moreover, the surveillance of sea borders may inevitably lead to search and rescue activities. In this context, the agency’s Integrated Border Management (IBM) gains increasing attention including regarding the cooperation with and work in third countries. From a human rights perspective, the extraterritorial dimension of IBM lacks clear and workable fundamental rights protection standards. As operations in or with third countries are often coupled with the fight against cross-border crimes (smuggling and trafficking of human beings feature prominently in this area), information is mostly not readily available. In a relatively deferential judgment, the CJEU has on 27 November 2019 declined access to such information for security reasons (Case T-31/18), which makes it even more complicated to assess and address fundamental rights concerns in these operations.
Moreover, the respect for and protection of fundamental rights should be included into Frontex’s work related to risk management, migration management at large, all training activities (not only in specialized courses), and data exchange. As a matter of fact, data protection considerations are heavily underdeveloped in Frontex operations.
III. What Frontex has to say about fundamental rights protection
The 2018 activity report of Frontex suggests that fundamental rights protection is key to the agency’s work: Fundamental rights play an important role in the agency’s training curriculum and are currently also one of the 14 strategic action areas of Frontex. Yet, the main reference to the protection of fundamental rights and sensitivity towards potential human rights violations is efficiency: Protecting fundamental rights is presented as a means to enhance efficiency in the fight against cross border crimes as it facilitates the detection and identification of victims of trafficking.
Another observation concerns the language used by Frontex in its reports. The aim of respecting fundamental rights is presented as a balancing act between efficiency and (full) human rights protection. For example, ‘vulnerabilities’ may concern both borders—a ‘vulnerability assessment’ of borders is mandatory according to Article 32 of the 2019 Regulation—and persons—inter alia with the aim of identifying vulnerable persons according to Article 3(1)(a) of the 2019 Regulation. On a more general note, the use of this language appears to provide borders with personality and they also seem to have some kind of ethical standing and a right to be free from the risk of being violated. Moreover, this personalization is embedded into a security rhetoric that suggests a permanent threat by ‘irregular migration and cross-border crimes’ at the external borders and is often used in order to justify the use of technology and force.
The only exception to this efficiency-based approach to human rights protection is the principle of non-refoulement. This principle is presented as a non-negotiable key component of all Frontex measures. In practice, this principle also plays a vital role in shaping Frontex operations. Its relevance is further supported by the fact that in 2018, all three admissible complaints under Article 72 of the 2016 Regulation had at least a non-refoulement component. Looking at the Frontex reports, the main issue brought up by the Consultative Forum seems to be also the main challenge for fundamental rights in the agencies’ daily work: Are fundamental rights (just) one strategic action area or is the protection of fundamental rights a cross-cutting issue that needs to be mainstreamed into all action areas?
IV. Operationalizing fundamental rights protection—the way forward
In order to operationalize the respect for and the protection of fundamental rights the Consultative Forum has put forward some institutional considerations: On the EU level, the Consultative Forum suggests to enhance the involvement of the intra-Frontex human rights protections institutions (like the Fundamental Rights Officer and the Consultative Forum) and the intensification of intra-EU-cooperation, which in turn includes an important role for Fundamental Rights Agency as the competent EU agency in this area. On the international level, enhanced cooperation with IOM and UNHCR is mentioned as an additional safety and potentially supervisory net with regard to the adherence to international human rights standards.
It is argued in this blogpost that this cooperation should be formalized by cooperation agreements with the external institutions, especially in light of the agency’s new remit and geographical scope. From a human rights protection perspective, the cooperation with third countries must be accompanied by a monitoring component as well as a mechanism safeguarding the access to remedies. In a similar vein, it is recommended that impact assessments on fundamental rights should be mandatory for each of these measures as well as for return operations and physical border controls. Yet, formalizing these cooperation schemes requires some profound changes to the way Frontex operates with regard to the independence of monitors, the access to operational data, and the transparency of the operations in general. For the time being, though, strong and functioning legal remedies are underrepresented in most of Frontex activities, as is a fundamental rights friendly mindset.
Therefore, as long as the protection of fundamental rights is seen as an obstacle on the way to efficient and speedy procedures, persons subject to the effective control by Frontex are left with no other choice but to rely on national as well as European courts to bring claims. In the long run, the protection of fundamental rights can only be effectively guaranteed through appropriate procedures if the perceived contradiction of effective border management and rights protection is dissolved and replaced by a different mindset that is less fixated on controls and sanctions.
To conclude, operational practice has significantly enhanced the role of human rights in Frontex operations. While the 2019 Regulation reinforces this development on the regulatory level, the current human rights protection framework remains incomplete, in particular in light of weak or lacking complaint mechanisms. It is difficult to foresee whether the increase of human rights obligations for Frontex keeps up with the agency’s ever stronger institutional independence. Currently, the fundamental rights protection framework seems to lack the necessary mechanism for enforcement on different levels, in particular monitoring. As monitoring is a key component to supervise and implement human rights protection, it needs to be coupled with an effective and efficient complaint mechanism which is currently not the case: Human rights standards as well as ‘ethical standards’ for Frontex operations are (partly) blurred, and enforceable legal protection is lacking not least because the complaint mechanism of the Frontex Regulation that should provide for enhanced protection of fundamental rights is difficult to access and not fully independent as it is administered by the Frontex Fundamental Rights Officer.
Additionally, and even more importantly, a human rights culture needs to be fully established as outlined in the introduction to Frontex 2019 – in brief: ‘We also aim for Frontex to comply with the best EU standards for sound administrative and financial management and EU legal and ethical standards, which include fundamental rights.’ While strengthening the complaint mechanism to further the role of human rights may serve as a crutch for the distressed protection of fundamental rights, it will never be more than a lame duck if this protection is not fully embedded in the agency’s working culture. So although structural changes remain key to the (future) protection of fundamental rights, a mentality shift within Frontex will make all the difference.
‘The EU hotspot approach as implemented in Greece is the single most worrying fundamental rights issue that we are confronting anywhere in the European Union’. This quote by the head of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) might sound drastic. Yet, it is not far-fetched. EU bodies, national institutions, international organisations including the Council of Europe, and NGOs, have, during the past four years, continuously documented that the asylum processing centres at the EU external borders lead to fundamental rights violations on a daily basis. The EU hotspot administration indeed jeopardises the respect for fundamental rights and the rule of law as enshrined in Article 2 TEU.
Usually, when something is going wrong, a first step towards improvement is to ask: who is responsible? And yet, with regard to EU hotspots, this question is still subject to debate. Responsibilities are effectively blurred by the sheer number of actors operating in those centres combined with a lack of legal clarity. On the political level, this leads to responsibility-shifting between the European Commission, Greece and local municipalities. On the legal level, so far, only Greece as the host Member State is considered responsible, namely under the ECHR. The considerable involvement of the Commission and EU agencies—in particular Frontex and the European Asylum Support Office (EASO)— however suggests to look to EU law and to examine whether and to what extent the European Union is legally responsible.
It is argued here that EU public liability law—more specifically: an action for damages against the Union or its agencies Frontex and EASO—has a particular potential in this context. First, it would help secure the right to an effective remedy to concerned individuals. Second, it would thereby serve to address systemic deficiencies in the EU hotspot administration. Third, it could ultimately provide an answer to the crucial question of whether the Union is responsible for fundamental rights violations in EU hotspots.
1 – The violation of fundamental rights in EU hotspots—systemic deficiencies
The approach of ‘processing asylum claims at borders, particularly when these centres are located in relatively remote locations, creates fundamental rights challenges that appear almost unsurmountable’. This assessment by FRA seems plausible given the empirical evidence provided by the already four-years long ‘hotspot experiment’. More specifically, FRA finds fundamental rights risks with regard to, inter alia, Articles 1, 4, 5(3), 6, 7, 18 and 19, 20 and 21, 24, 25 and 26, 41 and 47 of the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights (ChFR). Two aspects deserve particular attention.
Second, a deportation to Turkey, at least in the vast majority of cases, would be in breach of the Asylum Procedures Directive, since Turkey cannot be considered as safe third country or first country of asylum. This is, despite the differing decision of the Greek Council of State, in line with the view of the Greek administration (and the Administrative Court of Munich). Considering the situation in Turkey, it seems that, at least for the vast majority of persons, the deportation would amount to a violation of the non-refoulement principle as enshrined in Articles 4, 18, 19(2) ChFR. This follows from the minimum standards established by the ECtHR in Ilias and Ahmad with regard to Article 3 ECHR. (The CJEU has not yet established the constitutional standards following from Articles 4, 18, 19(2) ChFR: The decision in Alheto concerns a specific case, and the decision in LH remains to be awaited). With regard to the situation in Turkey specifically, an individual complaint before the ECtHR is pending.
Those two aspects speak in favour of describing the implementation of the EU hotspot as systemically deficient. Both a breach of Article 4 ChFR as well as breach of the non-refoulement principle as enshrined in Article 4, 18, 19(2) ChFR meet the threshold of being relevant for Article 2 TEU. Further, both breaches are systemic in the sense of widespread or inherent to the situation: An arguable limitation to the sub-group of vulnerable persons does not hinder the qualification as systemic. Due to the design of EU hotspots as return centres, the question whether deportations to Turkey violate the non-refoulement principle is, despite the relatively low numbers of returns, of structural relevance.
2 – The considerable involvement of the Union in the EU hotspot administration
Against this background, it is worthwhile to have a closer look at the involvement of the Union in the EU hotspot administration. From the perspective of EU administrative law, the distinctive characteristic of EU hotspots, in comparison to other asylum processing centres at EU external borders, is the close administrative cooperation between Union bodies and national authorities. This becomes clear already from Article 2(23) Frontex Regulation defining a ‘hotspot area’ as an area ‘in which the host Member State, the Commission, relevant Union agencies and participating Member States cooperate, with the aim of managing an existing or potential disproportionate migratory challenge characterised by a significant increase in the number of migrants arriving at the external borders’.
The EU hotspot administration can hence be described as the paradigm example for advanced vertical administrative cooperation within the integrated European asylum administration. This means that several EU agencies—such as Frontex, EASO, Europol, and Eurojust—cooperate with several national authorities—such as asylum service, reception service, police, and army. In practice, international organisations such as UNHCR and IOM, several NGOs, and a private security company operate in those centres in addition.
The operational level—the role of Frontex and EASO
On the operational level, migration management support teams (MMST) deployed by the EU agencies support the Greek authorities. The distinctive feature of the MMST lies, inter alia, in the close inter-agency cooperation. While Frontex supports in particular by registering applicants and escorting deportations to Turkey, EASO supports notably by conducting asylum interviews and drafting legal opinions recommending the acceptance or rejection of the concerned individual’s claim for international protection.
With a view to EU public liability law, it should be kept in mind that the responsibility to issue administrative decisions lies with the host Member State. The role of Frontex and EASO is to provide non-formally binding administrative support. However, the line between formally-binding and non-formally binding is not that easy to draw: Non-formally binding administrative conduct can have de facto binding effects on national authorities, as illustrated by EASO’s involvement in the assessment of asylum claims. And non-formally binding administrative conduct can have quite significant effects on individuals, in particular since the reformed Frontex Regulation does not exclude the use of force by Frontex MMST staff.
The coordination and monitoring level—the role of the Commission and the EURTF
On the coordination and monitoring level, responsibility lies with the European Commission, who is supported by Frontex, EASO, and the other relevant EU agencies in this respect. Article 40(3) Frontex Regulation provides that the ‘Commission, in cooperation with the host Member State and the relevant Union bodies, offices and agencies (…) shall be responsible for the coordination of the activities of the migration management support teams.’ The Commission performs this task within the framework of the EU Regional Task Force (EURTF). The EURTF is a coordination structure which has been established without a clear legal basis and operates under non-public ‘terms of cooperation’ and ‘rules of procedure’.
With a view to EU public liability law, it should be noted that the Commission’s mandate includes the supervisory obligation to ensure that the EU hotspot approach is implemented in line with EU law. This becomes clear already from Article 40(3) Frontex Regulation, read in light of its Article 1 and recitals. Further, and more importantly, this follows from Article 17(1) TEU, as interpreted by the CJEU in Ledra, as well as from Article 51 ChFR.
3 – The Potential of EU Public Liability Law—enforcing EU law from below
The Commission, Frontex, and EASO are hence closely involved in the EU hotspot administration which is systemically deficient, and leads to fundamental rights violations in individual cases. This gives rise to the crucial question: Can the Union be held responsible? A legal regime which could provide an answer to this question would ideally grant the right to an effective remedy to the concerned individual and enforce the rule of EU law more generally, while at the same time allowing for the attribution of responsibility among the involved actors.
It is argued here that EU public liability law has a particular potential in this context due to its subjective and objective legal protection function combined with its attribution function. More specifically, the particular potential lies in the action for damages against the Union or its agencies—as codified in Article 340(2) TFEU respectively Article 97(4), 98 Frontex Regulation, and Article 45(3) EASO Regulation. In the latter case, the agency would be liable under its founding Regulation in a first degree, and the Union, since it cannot exclude its liability under Article 340(2) TFEU by adopting secondary law, in a second degree.
To begin with, it seems that, among the approaches addressing systemic deficiencies by enforcing EU law, one can distinguish between top-down procedures, initiated by the Commission as guardian of the treaties, and bottom-up procedures, initiated by individuals. Both the preliminary reference procedure, as the standard mechanism in the internal market, as well as procedures in which individuals claim their rights directly before the CJEU, as standard mechanism in competition or state aid law, form part of the latter.
In the case of EU hotspots, any procedure depending on the Commission’s initiative seems unsuitable to enforce EU law due to the Commission’s involvement in the EU hotspot administration. The preliminary reference procedure is moreover of little use already because an action for damages against the Union cannot be brought before national courts. What remains are the procedures granting the individual direct access to the CJEU.
The action for damages is the most suitable procedure in this context. Notably, it could grant the right to an effective remedy, enshrined in Article 47 ChFR, in a particularly challenging context. The increasingly integrated European administration more generally raises challenges as to how to guarantee the right to an effective remedy. In the case of EU hotspots, the challenge arises, inter alia, because the relevant administrative conduct is of non-formally binding nature and consists in omissions to comply with supervisory obligations. While the action for annulment does not provide a remedy in those cases, the action for damages does. This is indeed the reason why the action of damages has become the main action ensuring the right to an effective remedy—as examined in particular by Timo Rademacher, and as analysed with regard to Frontex in particular by Melanie Fink. Finally, EU public liability law has an attribution function: an action for damages against the Union would not exclude liability of the host Member State or the other Member States under the case law following Francovich. Quite to the contrary, EU public liability law allows to assess each contribution, and the Union and the Member States can be held jointly liable.
Against this background, one might wonder: If the situation in the EU hotspots is really so bad, and if EU public liability law really has such potential, why did nobody file an action for damages against the Union yet? To be sure, the CJEU’s dismissal of the action for annulment against the EU-Turkey Statement, which was in essence directed against the implementation of the return policy in the EU Hotspots, does not preclude an action for damages against the Union based on the systemically deficient EU hotspot administration: The CJEU’s finding, namely that the Union did not conclude the EU Turkey Statement, is not relevant to the question of whether the Union is liable due to its administrative involvement in the EU hotspot administration. Rather, practical obstacles such as insufficient capacity of legal aid may provide the reasons: The few lawyers working under extreme pressure in the EU hotspots might come to the conclusion that it is simply not feasible to invest a considerable amount of time and resources in a procedure with uncertain outcome.
4 – The critical question of who is responsible—holding the Union liable?
Now, assumed that a person succeeded in filing an action against the Union before the CJEU, and that he or she claimed damages invoking the dire living conditions in the EU hotspot or his or her deportation to Turkey: Would the Union indeed be held liable?
Finding an answer to this question requires a close analysis of the extensive case law on EU public liability law. According to the CJEU’s jurisprudence, non-contractual liability under Article 340(2) TFEU arises if unlawful conduct of a Union body, qualifying as a sufficiently serious breach of a rule conferring rights on individuals, has caused a damage. Liability under Articles 97(4), 98 Frontex Regulation and respectively Article 45(3) EASO Regulation arises under the same conditions. Given the scope of this post, the argument here is limited to considering on the basis of which administrative conduct liability might arise, and shortly outlining two crucial legal issues.
Frontex could incur liability based on its registration of applicants in the EU hotspots and based on its escorting of deportations to Turkey. The former contributes, at least insofar as vulnerable persons are concerned, to keeping applicants in conditions incompatible with Article 4 ChFR, and the latter, at least in most cases, to a violation of the non-refoulement principle as enshrined in Articles 4, 18, 19(2) ChFR. Both could be in breach of Frontex’s obligation to respect fundamental rights under Articles 1, 36(2), 44(3), 48 Frontex Regulation, Article 51 ChFR. Further, the conclusion of the relevant Operating Plan, or the omission to withdraw from the administrative cooperation despite knowledge about systemic fundamental rights violations could be in breach of Articles 1, 36(2), 46(4) Frontex Regulation, Article 51 ChFR. (On supervisory obligations conferring rights upon individuals see the CJEU’s case law, notably Ledra.) In the same vein, EASO could incur liability based on its conducting of asylum interviews, drafting legal opinions, and adopting the relevant Operating Plan and the Standard Operating Procedures, which could be in breach of EASO’s obligations to respect fundamental rights. Finally, the Commission could incur liability based on its failure to adequately exercise its supervisory obligations. The failure to ensure the implementation of the EU hotspot approach in compliance with EU law could amount to a breach of Article 40(3) Frontex Regulation, Article 17(1) TEU, Article 51 ChFR. (On administrative omission see the CJEU’s case law, Kampffmeyer, and more recently Ledra, which confirms that the Commission’s omission to effectively ensure that Member States act in compliance with EU law may incur liability.)
To be sure, several legal issues would need to be resolved. Notably, the question arises to which entity administrative conduct of staff seconded to the EU agencies must be attributed. To give an example, the question is whether the conduct of a German officer seconded to Frontex and deployed to Greece as part of an MMST is to be considered as an act of Germany, of Greece, or of Frontex. Existing doctrinal analysis mainly suggests attribution to the host Member State due to the internal decision-making structure. However, one could also argue that the external appearance of the conduct towards a reasonable addressee must be taken into account in addition—which means that the appearance of the seconded staff’s conduct as conduct of the agency speaks in favour of attribution to the latter. The CJEU’s decision in A.G.M.-COS.MET as well as the right to a remedy, which cannot be effectively exercised if the individual is required to analyse the agency’s internal decision-making structure in order to know against whom to file an action, suggest such a reading.
Another legal issue arises in the context of causation, namely: whether non-formally binding administrative conduct may incur liability. The question is whether the ‘sufficiently direct link’ required for causation is ‘broken’ by the administrative decision of the host Member State. In contrast to its earlier jurisprudence, the CJEU in KYDEP and similar cases acknowledged that even a telefax by the Commission may, in principle, incur liability of the Union. It remains to be discussed whether later case law again overturned the KYDEP doctrine. Another approach, proposed by Melanie Fink, is to transfer the differentiation between primary and attributed responsibility, based on the Draft Articles on State Responsibility, into EU public liability law. A further discussion of those issues would go far beyond the scope of this contribution.
Whether the Union actually is liable for fundamental rights violations in EU hotspots hence remains to be answered. In other words, the potential of EU public liability law in the context of EU hotspots remains to be unfolded. And this, to begin with, requires a closer doctrinal analysis of the CJEU’s case law.
5 – EU public liability law as a limit to externalisation policies
Current EU migration and asylum policy relies, not fully, but to an important extent, on externalising the challenge of dealing with enhanced forced migration towards Europe. The challenge is often either put on third countries, or, where this is not possible, on Member States located at the EU external border. This approach leads to large scale fundamental rights violations—despite the difficulties of ECHR and EU law to address situations characterised by extraterritorialisation and outsourcing.
EU hotspots can be described as a paradigm example in this regard. As externalisation has an ‘out of sight, out of mind’ effect, it seems possible to forget about daily fundamental rights violations at the EU’s external borders. EU constitutional law however calls into question whether mere externalisation to Member States located at the EU external border is really sufficient to wash the Union’s and the other Member States’ hands of responsibility. This would indeed be quite strange, not only in light of the noble values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, but also given that the European Asylum System is conceived as a Common one.
On January 31st, 2020, the United Kingdom withdrew from the European Union, and their mutual relationship entered in a phase of transition. After 47 years of membership, the withdrawal led to a series of changes in various policy areas, in which the UK, as an EU Member State, cooperated with its counterparts. This notably concerns police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, and the consequences of Brexit in this particular field will be our focus.
Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters is not necessarily the most discussed areas of mutual cooperation between EU Member States. Yet the instruments elaborated in this field are often relied upon in the background of highly visible cases, among which the emission of European arrest warrants (EAWs) against Catalan politicians, like Carlos Puigdemont, or the creation of a joint investigation team between France and Belgium after the Paris attacks in November 2015. These instruments are also frequently relied upon by British authorities, such as in the course of the investigations that were launched after the macabre discovery of 39 bodies in the “Essex Lorry”. The investigators retraced its movement from Bulgaria to the UK, through Belgium, notably with the assistance of one of the EU specialized agencies, Europol, and EAWs were issued against a person residing in Ireland suspected to have been involved in the criminal operation.
The UK’s withdrawal from the EU will have an impact on its participation in such cooperation. To understand the consequences of Brexit in this field, the present contribution will retrace the role of the UK in the development of the EU area of criminal justice (1). It will then discuss the regime applicable during the transition period, and pinpoint some of the identifiable shortcomings (2). It will finally address the possible future modalities of cooperation between the UK and the EU (3).
The role of the United Kingdom in the development of the EU area of criminal justice
The role of the United Kingdom in this field is inextricably linked to its attitude towards an increased cooperation between EU Member States in criminal justice, a field very close to the powers of the State to ensure and preserve national security, and thus also very close to the States’ sovereignty. The UK’s attitude in this regard would be best summarized as “it’s complicated”.
At first, the United Kingdom may have appeared as a state with a certain reluctance to develop EU instruments supporting cooperation in criminal matters. With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty the country extended the specific opt-out regime that applied previously to measures regarding visa, asylum and immigration. By virtue of this opt-out, provided for in Protocol No 21, the UK, together with Ireland, was not bound by measures adopted in the framework of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, nor by international agreements concluded in this field, or by judgments of the Court of justice of the EU. This opt-out regime was accompanied with a discretionary opt-in, which offered to the country the possibility to participate in new EU instruments whenever this was considered relevant. The UK exercised that possibility regularly, either from the moment an instrument was proposed, like for the Directive on the European Investigation Order (EIO), or after its adoption, like for the Europol Regulation.
In addition of this opt-out / opt-in regime, the UK also obtained a specific transitional regime concerning the 130 EU criminal justice instruments adopted before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. Among these, were included for instance the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (2002/584/JHA), or Framework Decisions on the Transfer of Prisoners (2008/909/JHA) or on the recognition of probation measures and alternative sanctions (2008/9457/JHA). The Lisbon Treaty foresaw a specific legal regime for these instruments (Protocol No 36, Article 10), which remain in force and are for some still applicable today. From 2009 to 2014, their previous regime would continue to apply (optional jurisdiction of the CJEU and no infringement proceedings) and since December 2014, these instruments would be subject to the ordinary EU law regime (full jurisdictions of the CJEU and infringement proceedings). The United Kingdom was the only Member State that was recognized the possibility to withdraw from these instruments before the end of the transitional period, and the possibility to notify its intention to participate again in these instruments. In application of this Protocol, in 2014, a first cliff-edge scenario took place, as the UK withdrew from all these 130 instruments, and only chose to “opt-back-in” in 35 of them.
This specific regimes allowed for the UK’s participation “à la carte” in the EU area of criminal justice, and this was particularly noticeable when comparing the UK’s participation in instruments favouring a more effective cooperation, like the EIO Directive, and the UK’s non-participation in other key instruments, such as the Directive on the right of access to a lawyer.
Yet, the United Kingdom has also been a driving force in the establishment of the EU area of criminal justice. The principle of mutual recognition was first put forward by Home Secretary Jack Straw at the Cardiff European Council in 1998, and later proclaimed in the Tampere European Council conclusions of 1999. This principle is since then considered as the cornerstone for judicial cooperation in criminal matters, and it constitutes the basis of many instruments of judicial cooperation. The UK has also strongly supported and used very frequently certain EU criminal law instruments, such as the EAW. As an illustration, according to the National Crime Agency, from 2004 to 2016, the the UK surrendered almost 10,000 individuals to other EU Member States and more than 1,400 requested people were returned to the UK. Furthermore, the United Kingdom has had a significant weight in the development of Europol and Eurojust, the two European agencies, competent to support and assist cross-border cooperation between police and judicial authorities. The United Kingdom is for instance known as the second largest contributor to Europol information systems, and British nationals have exercised strategic positions in these agencies. Two out of the five presidents of Eurojust were British, and Sir Rob Wainwright has been the director of Europol from 2009 to 2018.
The United Kingdom has thus played a contrasted but essential role in the development of the EU area of criminal justice. The specific regimes it obtained did not prevent it from becoming a key partner, with whom EU Member States developed a strong and well-established cooperation in criminal matters.
The regime applicable during the transition period
With the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, the modalities of its cooperation with other EU Member States in criminal matters are bound to change. In this section, we will focus on the Withdrawal Agreement, which defines the legal regime governing police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters during the transition period. The relevant provisions were marginally modified during the negotiations which led to the conclusion of a revised withdrawal agreement on October 17th, 2019.
The agreement foresees various scenarios regarding the UK’s participation in the EU area of criminal justice. In sum, the Withdrawal Agreement allows for the preservation of most of the modalities of cooperation in criminal matters between the EU and the UK for the duration of the transition period.
The general provisions have an impact on the UK’s participation in the work of the two EU criminal justice agencies. As from February 1st, as EU law remains applicable until the end of the transition period, the UK remains an active participant to the activities of Europol and Eurojust, but it does no longer participate in their management bodies (Art. 7). The UK also retains until the end of the transition period its access to the databases, networks and databases managed by Europol and Eurojust (Art. 8). In other areas of criminal justice cooperation, the UK’s withdrawal has a limited impact, provided that the requests for cooperation are made before the end of the transition period. This is for instance the case regarding ongoing judicial cooperation proceedings. According to Article 63 of the Withdrawal Agreement, only a series of instruments of judicial cooperation, 12 in total, continue to apply. As the UK had previously tailored its participation in pre- and post-Lisbon EU criminal law instruments, these 12 instruments represent the main ones for judicial cooperation in criminal matters. Are for instance included the Framework Decision on the EAW, or the EIO Directive. The same can be said regarding instruments on law enforcement cooperation and exchange of information, as the main ones will remain applicable (Art. 63). The UK authorities also retain the possibility to continue their participation in joint investigation teams, and to share and request information from Eurojust. The main change concerns the participation in new EU criminal law measures, in respect of which two options apply. For proposals amending, replacing or building upon measures in which the UK previously opted in, the UK has the possibility to opt in. However, for new proposals, the UK does not have the right to opt in, and it may only be invited to cooperate with the EU Member States under the modalities foreseen for third countries.
However, already in this legal regime, doubts arise, especially regarding the continuous execution of EAWs issued by the United Kingdom. Prior to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, a person subjected to an EAW issued by UK authorities attempted to use a “Brexit argument” to prevent his surrender to the UK. He argued that the uncertainty of the law applicable in the UK after its withdrawal from the EU could not guarantee that he continues to benefit from the right he enjoys under EU law. The CJEU had the opportunity in the case RO (C-327/18 PPU, 18 September 2018) to dismiss this argument. The Court considered that there was a presumption that the UK will apply the substantive content of the rights derived from the EAW Framework Decision, relying notably on the incorporation into British national law of provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Convention on Extradition (para. 61). The Court nevertheless indicated the possibility to refuse to execute an EAW only if there is concrete evidence to the contrary (ibid.), in line with its case law since its judgment in the case Aranyosi and Căldăraru (Joined Cases C‑404/15 and C‑659/15 PPU, 5 April 2016),regarding the risk of fundamental rights’ violations in the execution of EAWs. This judgment is to keep in mind when considering the execution of EAWs during the transition period, which would continue, unless a real and individual risk of violation can be demonstrated.
Furthermore, some Member States decided to make use of the possibility provided for in Article 185 of the Withdrawal Agreement. This provision allows Member States, due to reasons related to fundamental principles of their national law, to declare that, during the transition period, their national executing judicial authorities may refuse to surrender its nationals to the United Kingdom pursuant to an EAW. This refers to the constitutional limits regarding the extradition to nationals outside the EU, which is for instance foreseen in Germany, where the Constitution limits the extradition of nationals to situations in which the request comes from an EU Member State and/or an international court. Only three Member States, namely Germany, Austria and Slovenia, made such notification by January 28th, and the United Kingdom has now one month to notify whether its executing judicial authorities may refuse to surrender its nationals to those Members States. The practical impact of such notifications may be limited, considering that Germany, Austria and Slovenia are not, according to the National Crime Agency’s statistics, the EU Member States sending the highest numbers of EAWs to the UK. These notifications are nonetheless particularly symbolic, and mark as of February 1st, a decrease in the intensity of cooperation in criminal matters between the UK and the EU.
Possible future modalities of cooperation between the UK and the EU
As in many other policy areas, the discussions regarding the future relationship between the UK and the EU will be crucial in the coming months, and this is also true for their cooperation in criminal matters.
Both parties share a mutual interest in maintaining a close cooperation. This was already mentioned in the negotiating guidelines adopted by the European Council in March 2018, and it was taken on in the revised Political Declaration of October 17th, 2019. The future ambitious, broad, deep and flexible partnership between the EU and the UK “will provide for comprehensive, close, balanced and reciprocal law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal matters” (para. 80). The latter should notably be “underpinned by long-standing commitments to the fundamental rights of individuals, including continued adherence and giving effect to the ECHR, and adequate protection of personal data, (…) and to the transnational ne bis in idem principle and procedural rights” (para. 81). However, these elements of the Political Declaration remain vague and their concrete substance is left to the negotiations between the UK and the EU. As of February 1st, a lot of uncertainty remains. The European Commission has still to present its recommendation for a negotiating mandate, which shall be released on Monday 3rd February, and adopted on February 25th, 2020. The British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is also expected to make on February 3rd, a speech setting out his red lines on the future EU-UK relationship. This would outline the positions of the two parties before the first round of negotiations scheduled for early March. These events would allow us to know more about the envisaged future relationship between the UK and the EU, including regarding their cooperation in criminal matters.
In that field, the main point of discussion would most probably be whether the UK should be treated like other third countries which are not part of the Schengen area and do not apply free movement of persons; or whether it should, as a former EU Member State and a privileged partner, benefit from specific arrangements. From the perspective of the European Commission (and as further supported by the slides released in January 2020), existing forms of cooperation in criminal matters with Denmark and third countries participating to the Schengen area constitute the basis (and the potential limit) for developing the future cooperation between the UK and the EU. As an example, regarding the access to Europol’s databases after the end of the transition period, the cooperation agreement signed between Denmark and the agency has been referred to as a form of cooperation that the future EU-UK cooperation would not be able to provide for. Under this text, Denmark benefits from the most advanced cooperation agreement, but under a regime which is not equivalent to that of a Member State. The country has an observer status, which is subject to a series of conditions, including the jurisdiction of the CJEU. Danish authorities have no direct access to Europol databases and liaison officers only have indirect access to the data. A future cooperation agreement between the UK and Europol will most likely contain lesser forms of cooperation (e.g. access to Secure Information Exchange Network Application (SIENA, a secure platform for the exchange of sensitive and restricted data), but not to the databases managed by Europol, etc.).
More generally, the possibility remains that by the end of the transition period, and without an extension, an agreement with detailed provisions on cooperation in criminal matters may not yet be finalised or ratified. It is important to stress that even in the absence of agreement, the cooperation in criminal matters between the EU and the UK would not be interrupted overnight. Rather, such cooperation would be conducted on alternative basis, such as regional instruments elaborated within the Council of Europe. This was notably foreseen in case of a no-deal Brexit, in preparation of which transitional arrangements were elaborated for existing EAWs, in order to ensure continuity in proceedings for cases where an arrest has been made prior to exit day. It was also provided that EAWs issued by EU Member States would be treated as requests for extradition under the 1957 European Convention on Extradition, which may have potentially resulted in longer procedures, but not necessarily in refusals to extradite the person requested.
To conclude, the future of cooperation in criminal matters between the UK and the EU will be as complex to build and analyze as their future cooperation in other policy areas. Common standards, notably on data protection and procedural safeguards for suspects and accused persons, will be an essential pre-requisite, and past experiences with third countries demonstrate their importance. The EU may keep as a reference point the modalities of cooperation elaborated with third countries, especially those which have accepted to participate in the Schengen area. Flexibility and the possibility to design specific arrangements might then be limited.TOPICS:AFSJ / BREXIT
According to art.67.1 TFEU “The Union shall constitute an area of freedom, security and justice with respect for fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States”. This objective is very high in the EU agenda as, since the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty, it is second only to the main EU aim of promoting peace, EU values and the well-being of EU peoples. According to art.3.2 of the TEU :“The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime.”. Last but not least, the Preamble of the Charter of fundamental riughts hammers the same objective by stating that :“…the Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; it is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice”.
Notwithstanding all these big words, ten years after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty it is fair to say that we are still far from reaching this objective. The increasing tension with some Member States on the very issue of the EU founding values, the lack of solidarity which still jeopardise the EU asylum and migration policies, the persisting lack of trust in police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, the increasing pressure on EU fundamental freedom of movement are all signs that the EU is losing his compass and in some cases has even taken the wrong direction.
The fact is that more than twenty years after the first Freedom Security and Justice Agenda adopted by the European Council in Tampere we have no more the same agenda . Also at the level of the EU Institutions it is increasingly difficult to hide the different approach followed by the Member States inside the Council, the different General Directorates of the Commission and the different political groups in the European Parliament itself. Looking from outside , if there was a Treaties’ “Google Maps” you may find the European Court of Justice in Lisbon the European Parliament in Amsterdam, the Council still in Maastricht (with some Member States willing to come back to the pre-Schengen era..) and the Commission still lost in between all these ..cities. Jokes apart it is quite obvious that the policies linked to the trasnformation of the EU in a Freedom, Security and Justice Area are the most difficult to manage also at national level so that it is not easy to build at suparanational level a consistent agenda where at the same time you may bring together a political vision, a solid legal framework, an efficient supranational administration, enough financial ressources, and a strong support by the european citizens.
The latest occasion when the EU has tried to square this circle was with the Amsterdam Programme adopted immediately after the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty on December 10th 2009. Unfortunately this courage disappeared five years later in 2014 when the European Council was unable in managing at the same time the financial crisis , the new wave of terrosist attacks and the emerging pressure on the EU external borders.. For this reason it limited itself to the very simple objective of .. implementing the decisions already taken and evaluate their impact. In the following years the emphasis was then turned to the operational aspects of the cooperation between Member States so that the main developments have been on the side of the European Agencies such as Frontex (now deemed to become an Agency with 10.000 officials!), or the creation of the first European Public Prosecutor and the creatoin of impressive interoperable networks managing a vast amount of data. In a way, fostered mainly by the pressure of the Interior Ministers and of the Commission it has been a massive investment on the creation of a supranational nervous system, on building some muscles but, unfortunately without a true…brain.
It is then to be welcome that now the Council is dealing with the next steps to be made to transform the EU in a freedom and Security and justice area . This is very timely as it happens at the same time when,
on one side the BREXIT has taken place and, there are no more the limits which obliged the EU to establish the Schengen Area formally as an enhanced cooperation as well as to conclude specific protocols answering to the specific requests of the UK. Needless to say it will remain the position of DK and IRL but these two countries may at any moment switch to the “ordinary regime” by so crating the conditions of a common stauts (in the FSJA) for all the EU citizens and the same level playing field for the national administrations;
on the other side the EU is launching an European Conference on the future of Europe which will inevitably require also to overcome the deadlock in the most sensitive FSJA policies (Asylum, Migration, Internal and external security…)
In this perspective it is quite unfortunate that the current definition of new “Guidelines” has been conducted until now by stealth under closed doors and without an honest and transparent assesment of the problems and weaknesses which have prevented until now a sound transformation of the EU in a Freedom Security and Justice Area. Moreover everything has been done without any exchange with the civil society as well as with the European and national parliaments. This sounds very strange in a period when the same European Council claim to search a dialogue with the EU Citizens and praise the sincere cooperation between the EU institutions and the national parliaments … This very fact alone can question the credibility, legitimacy and even the binding nature of the Guidelines if they not comply with the obligations arising from the Treaties and linked, on one side to the principles of participative democracy (artt. 10-12 TEU) and on the other side of implementing the principle of sincere cooperation between the EU institutions (notably when this “strategy” will require the adoption of legislative and budgetary measures…).
For the time being these Guidelines are deemed to be a corollary of gthe eneral Strategic Agenda 2019-2024 adopted in June 2019 to guide the European Union’s work in the next five yearsn. After a reflection process initiated by the Romanian Presidency and continued during the Finnish Presidency, which was wrapped up in December 2019.
The document below is the outcome of a first (not public) debate at the informal Justice and Home affairs Council on January 23rd/24th and will be again on the Coreper table on February 5th. It will then be submitted for endorsement to the Council (Justice and Home Affairs) on 12-13 March 2020 in view of the European Council meeting on 26-27 March 2020. The latter will probably adopt these “Guidelines” as required by the art.68 of the TFEU which states “The European Council shall define the strategic guidelines for legislative and operational planning within the area of freedom, security and justice.” (continue)
Emilio DE CAPITANI (02-02-20)
Draft Strategic Guidelines for legislative and operational planning within the area of freedom, security and justice
In the last five years, the EU was confronted with a serious migration and asylum crisis, a brutal wave of terrorist attacks and increased foreign interference. We rose to these challenges as a Union, by putting together a solid set of initiatives and tools. We also had our differences, often related to geographical or historical specificities. Diverging views emerged that have an impact on mutual trust and hamper the Union’s ability to meet expectations.
Looking ahead, we need to overcome our differences on what to do, but we also have to focus our attention on how to organise our work, tools and structures to achieve our common objectives.
Values and rule of law
As stated in Article 2. of the Treaty on European Union, the Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. The respect for those values, and for the rule of law in particular, is key for the good functioning of the Union and its internal market, for the area of freedom, security and justice and for the protection of the fundamental rights of European citizens.
EU institutions and Member States have a shared responsibility to ensure that respect for the rule of law is guaranteed and that effective tools are used and, as necessary, developed to this aim.
In the Council, Justice Ministers will continue to deal with issues related to the rule of law. The respect for the rule of law in all Member States will be examined by the General Affairs Council, through a yearly stocktaking exercise closely involving Member States. This dialogue will help EU institutions and Member States identifying best practices that are worth disseminating, but also issues that deserve attention and demand corrective actions, including adequate support where capacity building is needed. This, in turn, will reinforce mutual trust.
Mutual trust between Member States is the basis for the development of many policies in the field of justice and home affairs which rely on mutual recognition. More attention should be devoted to ways in which mutual trust can be reinforced.
Implementing EU law
Time and again, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission have stressed the need for EU legislation to be properly applied. Yet, it is debatable whether enough resources are secured both at national and EU levels for turning these repeated calls into reality – starting, perhaps, with a critical examination of existing legislation to improve its quality and consistency. For instance, as regards judicial cooperation in civil matters, clear added-value for citizens and businesses needs to be demonstrated before new legislative initiatives are presented that would affect well-functioning national legal frameworks.
Rather crucially, the Union lacks aggregated information on how key pieces of EU acquis are being applied by Member States, including whether Member States actually make use of some of those instruments. This situation is not optimal when it comes to adapting EU legislation or producing new obligations. The work led by the Commission for evaluating the Schengen acquis and by the Council for mutual evaluations on the implementation of criminal law, such as, quite recently, on environmental crime and now on legal instruments such as the European Arrest Warrant, clearly serves to improve efficiency in the implementation of those policies and related legislation.
To reinforce mutual trust, we need to do more by developing systematic and effective joint evaluation schemes as provided for by Article 70 TFEU. And more resources at central level, including expertise, have to be made available to support Member States. The support given by the Commission to encourage the implementation of the passenger name record directive (PNR) is a good practice that needs to be replicated in other areas, also to address uneven financial and absorption capacities in different Member States.
Encouraging convergence of law enforcement and judicial culture
Law enforcement and judicial communities operate in different environments, developing different cultures within and among Member States in a way which is not always adequate for consistent implementation of EU law across the EU. Digitalisation offers opportunities for overcoming administrative divisions, but also challenges if departments reproduce and consolidate those divisions in the organisation of information. At EU level, digitalisation can enhance trust between Member States through joint law enforcement and judicial training schemes that could be developed for instance with Erasmus-like training modules for law enforcement and judicial communities. The Commission, EU JHA agencies and the European Judicial Training Network are uniquely placed to foster such developments.
The Schengen area – a matter of trust
As stated in the Strategic Agenda, we must ensure the integrity of our territory, also as a means of reaching the objective of the Treaty as regards the absence of internal border controls.
Control over who enters and travels in the European Union and the Schengen area will be reinforced through the full implementation of the rules recently adopted on systematic controls at the external Schengen borders, and through the greatest possible use of existing systems (SIS, VIS, EURODAC, PNR, Prüm, ECRIS, EIS), fed with quality data, and the rapid deployment of new systems (ETIAS, EES, ECRIS-TCN).
The effective implementation of interoperability solutions, opening the way for the integration of decentralised systems, customs databases and financial investigation tools, will also strengthen mutual trust – as will control over secondary movements of migrants and asylum seekers.
One Europe, One Space
What the EU policies should be as regards border checks, asylum and immigration is well defined in the Treaties and has been widely debated over the last five years, in meetings of working parties, special committees, Coreper, Council and European Council. Divergences have appeared over the reform of the common European asylum system but there is also a broad measure of agreement over the objectives of our common policies – including on the necessity to streamline the operation of our asylum system, from entry to either integration or return, so that decisions are taken in the most efficient and expedient way in the interest of all persons involved. In developing a new pact on Migration and Asylum as announced by its President, the Commission will address all these issues. To deliver on our objectives, however, organisation also matters.
Reaching out to third countries with appropriate means and resources
The EU’s efforts to strengthen cooperation with countries of origin and transit have produced some results. But more needs to be done to prevent irregular migration, to protect refugees close to their homes, encourage returns, readmission and reintegration, and to offer legal pathways. Incentives and leverages, with appropriate financial support, should be brought to bear in a reversible manner and with a thorough understanding of the difficulties faced by each country – whether through structured partnerships or more flexible arrangements. The role of Member States is essential in reaching out to partners, building upon existing relations and making sure the messages conveyed by EU actors and by those Member States that are most involved are coherent.
Expanding efforts towards third countries means bringing interaction between Member States and EU structures to a whole new level. To engage properly with third countries in our complex institutional set-up, we need to identify much more clearly who is in charge of what on the basis of which information and with what leverage. Securing returns of migrants who have no claim to remain on European soil is a difficult task, for which support from EU structures and institutions could make a real difference if conducted in a coordinated way, with appropriate consideration for the situation of countries of origin and with proper alignment of several policy areas, including visas, legal migration possibilities, development and trade.
Streamlining the EU’s efforts in this manner, with political steer from the Council to define positions to be adopted towards third countries on migration issues, would help convince Member States to engage their political capital in a common approach, to be conveyed with adequate commitment and firmness by all EU institutions and services.
Facing migration and asylum crises – lessons learned
Over these last years, much has been done to address difficult situations in Member States most affected by disproportionate migratory and asylum pressure. The EU’s empirical response, developed with those Member States by the Commission and EU agencies, has yielded important results. This know-how will help the EU to deal with similar situations of various intensity which will occur in the future. Hence the call for a structured migration management mechanism, with real-time monitoring, early warning and a single point of coordination and decision-making across the EU to mobilise structures, tools, human and financial resources as needed, across EU institutions and agencies and in cooperation with Member States. Robust intelligence coming from all actors, supported by adequate technology, can provide accurate situational pictures, with risk and threat assessments leading to preventive action to avert crisis situations before they arrive at the EU’s external borders or to handle such situations should they nevertheless occur.
From prevention to sentencing – strengthening the security chain
Because of their importance or their geographical coverage, many security threats have to be addressed also at EU level – such as corruption or organised crime, which is a growing concern in all its dimensions. A truly integrated approach to security means covering the entire security chain, with enhanced operational and interagency cooperation between police, border guards, customs, judiciary, immigration and asylum authorities. Appropriate action at EU level, through the integration of tools and operational frameworks, would help overcome deep-rooted administrative divisions at national level, encouraging cooperation and synergies. EU JHA agencies have an important role to play in an enhanced interagency approach and priority should be given to pooling and sharing equipment, specialised technical solutions, resources and expertise in areas where Member States lack sufficient capacities.
Information management is a key enabler for these developments. Implementing properly EU legislation on interoperability requires a lot of attention at national and EU level, as demonstrated by the Commission’s current support to Member States in managing change. At practical level, priority should also be given to the quality of data fed into EU information systems and to improving data analysis capacities, supported by common standards, structures, and technological tools. Developing artificial intelligence solutions and further automation in full compliance with data protection rules could help address the challenges posed by the processing of large data sets.
In this context of digitalisation, it is not clear that the mandates and resources of relevant JHA agencies adequately cover current and future needs. Adequate funding has to be secured for all JHA agencies and offices so that sound financial management can be combined with correct allocation of resources in view of the tasks they have to perform. This evaluation will have to be made, also as regards the mandate of Europol and the possible extension of the mandate of eu-LISA to customs and judicial systems.
Mastering new technologies and artificial intelligence
The Strategic Agenda recalls that the EU must work on all aspects of the digital revolution and artificial intelligence, in a manner that embodies our societal values, promotes inclusiveness and remains compatible with our way of life. This technological revolution calls for an ethical and regulatory framework to ensure the sound integration of new technologies – thereby making choices, ethical, political, economic and legal, to define the place of such technologies in human society. Industry, professionals and citizens expect clarity, legal certainty and structured knowledge, including risk awareness.
This means developing standards and certification procedures for agents and systems based on, or integrating artificial intelligence, with protocols including ethical considerations, statistical validation and risk assessment. There is also a need to deal with some specific characteristics of artificial intelligence, such as the opacity of the systems, to ensure the effective enforcement of existing laws and the protection of fundamental rights, and to avoid discrimination. Current concepts of “civil liability” and “criminal liability” would need to be further developed.
Our regulatory framework has to address data protection issues in a big data environment, as well as security concerns related to automated decision-making and, more generally, to digital transformation. This raises the issue of impact assessments, which, when available, do not seem to give enough priority to the implications of technological developments for internal security.
More generally, new technologies currently emerge in a loose regulatory environment, which is an issue in view of the disruption they are apt to cause to representative democracies. One way of addressing this concern upfront is to encourage at EU level a preventive approach, involving dialogues with industry, research and academia and taking an active part in standard-setting instances. Synergies with relevant developments in defence industry should also be exploited to avoid duplications and optimise the use of resources.
All in all, the cross-cutting nature of these challenges calls for new ways of working between policy departments, both at national and EU levels. Within the Council, presidencies will have to devote time and resources to ensure that the development of common policies is properly coordinated.
The implementation of those guidelines will be regularly monitored by the Council to ensure that, in particular, organisational issues are addressed in order to deliver on the priorities of the Strategic Agenda 2019-2024.
 Article 68 TFEU reads as follows: “The European Council shall define the strategic guidelines for legislative and operational planning within the area of freedom, security and justice”.
by EIAD – European Academy for Freedom of Information and Data Protection. Europaische Akademie fur Informationsfreiheit und DatenschutzAcademie europeenne pour la liberie d’information et la protection des donnees
Berlin, 27 January 2020
A. General remarks
Article 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (EUCFR) guarantees the protection of personal data and requires independent data protection oversight. With the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), there has been one EU data protection law directly applicable in all Member States since 25 May 2018. The extent to which the goals of the GDPR have been achieved cannot yet be seriously assessed after only 18 months. According to Art. 97 GDPR, the European Commission is required to continuously review the application and effectiveness of the Regulation and to report on this for the first time on 25 May 2020 and, if necessary, to submit proposals for amending and further developing the Regulation.
There is no denying that the GDPR has advanced the harmonisation of European data protection law and its application compared to the largely fragmented previous legal situation. The regulation has also strengthened the data protection rights of individuals subject to the processing of their data. The GDPR also provided data protection supervisory authorities with effective means of enforcement. However, it has become apparent that there are still shortcomings in the areas described above which need to be remedied.
The GDPR has had a significant impact on the global debate on data protection issues.
Several non-European countries and federal states have now passed laws based on the model of the GDPR. Examples include the Californian Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which came into force on January 1, 2020, and the new Thai Data Protection Act. The US Congress has received several drafts for a federal data protection act. It is currently discussing them on a bipartisan basis.
In addition, the data protection agreement concluded between the European Union and Japan in early 2019 has created the world’s largest zone with a uniformly high level of data protection. This has improved the opportunities for the European economy to remain competitive in the face of ongoing digitization.
The present opinion is based on the experience gained so far and is therefore provisional in nature. It is focused on key areas of action in which further development of the legal framework already appears appropriate.
The large number of opening and concretisation clauses in the GDPR urgently needs to be reviewed with a view to reducing them. As a result of the fact that the Member States have made use of national options in very different ways, a regulatory patchwork of the most diverse provisions continues to exist in many areas. This severely compromises the goal of harmonising data protection law in the EU as far as possible and the associated free movement of data. Moreover, fragmentation causes considerable practical and legal problems for legal practitioners.
1.1. The opening clauses of the GDPR for processing by public authorities allow not only for more precise regulations in the law of the Member States, but also for clarification by Union law.
The legal requirements for such regulations, such as those in Article 6 (3) GDPR and Article 9 (2) GDPR, should be specified with regard to the particular relevance of data processing by public authorities to fundamental rights in such a way that the guarantees specified in the GDPR may only be deviated from in favour of the persons concerned. In addition, so far there are Europe-wide references, the EU legislator should make greater use of its power to specify in order to further develop the principles of the GDPR in a harmonised manner for the public sector.
1.2. The diversity of regulations is particularly serious in the research field. The application of the provisions on scientific research has shown the need for more integrated rules on processing for scientific purposes, in particular for European cross-border research. Art. 89 GDPR should be revised accordingly in order to ensure a uniformly high level of data protection throughout the EU.
1.3. A higher degree of harmonisation is also needed for the processing of personal data in the employment context. The requirements for employee data protection of Art. 88 GDPR should be designed as binding guidelines for the processing of employee data and not merely as an option for national legislators. Nevertheless, it should still be possible to specify the requirements in national law and collective agreements.
1.4. In view of the increasing importance of interactive, cross-border media, more binding and concrete criteria are needed for weighing up the relationship between data protection, free speech and freedom of information. Art. 85 GDPR should be further developed accordingly.
1.5. The cooperation of DPAs is crucial for the uniform application of data protection law. The principles set out in Chapter VII (Art. 60-78) GDPR must be made more effective. There is a need for legal remedies if a supervisory authority fails to take a decision pursuant to Art. 58 in cases of cross-border importance, delays it, or intends to refrain from taking a formal measure pursuant to Art. 58 (2) GDPR with a view to amicably resolving a dispute with the company. It must be ensured by corresponding changes in Art. 64-66 GDPR that the provisions on the coherence procedure also apply to such cases.
2. Profiling / Automated decisions
Greater attention must be paid to automated systems which make or prepare decisions important for the individual or for society. Of particular relevance in terms of data protection law is the compilation and evaluation of data for the purpose of assessing individuals (profiling) and the use of algorithmic decision making systems, for example in connection with the use of “artificial intelligence” (AI).
2.1. Art. 22 GDPR should be adapted to cover all cases where the rights and freedoms of natural persons are significantly affected. Profiling must be regulated as such (and not just decisions based on it). It should be clarified that the rules for automated decision-making also apply to decisions that are essentially based on algorithmic systems (algorithmic decisions). In this respect, absolute limits must be defined, admissibility requirements must be standardised and the principle of proportionality must be specified. In doing so, the specific requirements for the use of sensitive data and for the use of data relating to children shall be taken into account. The transparency requirements of Art. 12 et seqq. for profiling and automated decisions should be formulated more specific. Persons affected must always be informed when profiling is carried out and what the consequences are. In the case of algorithmic and algorithm-based decision-making systems, the underlying data and their weighting for the specific case must be disclosed in a comprehensible form.
2.2. With regard to the functioning and effects of algorithmic and algorithm-based decision systems, in particular to avoid discrimination effects, mechanisms of algorithm control should be implemented. The requirements for data protection impact assessment formulated in Art. 35 (7) GDPR should be specified accordingly.
3. Data protection technology
In addition to written law, ensuring effective data protection is largely determined by the design of technical systems. The statement “Code is Law” (Lessig) applies more than ever in view of increasingly powerful IT systems and global processing. It is therefore all the more important to ensure that technical systems are designed in a way compatible with data protection, especially with regard to limiting the scope of personal data processed (data avoidance, data minimisation).
Anonymisation and the use of pseudonyms are effective techniques for limiting risks to the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, without unduly restricting the knowledge that can be gained from the data processing. In view of the high speed of innovation, it is necessary to examine to what extent the legal requirements guarantee adequate protection.
3.1. The provisions on technological data protection (Art. 25 GDPR) should take into account the particular risks arising from the use of new technologies and business models (in particular artificial intelligence, data mining, platforms). Corresponding specifications for the design of such systems should be specified by the European Data Protection Board.
3.2. In view of the rapid technological development, the requirements for anonymisation and pseudonymisation in Art. 25 GDPR and for the use of anonymised data should be made more specific. This should be supplemented by prohibitions of de-anonymisation and the unauthorised dissolution of pseudonyms, with the possibility of criminal prosecution.
3.3. The responsibility of the manufacturers of hardware and software should be increased, for example by extending the definition of the responsible person to include the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body marketing file systems or personal data processing services.
At the very least, they should be included as addressees of the rules on data protection by means of technology design and by means of privacy by default, Article 25, and security of processing, Article 32 GDPR, in addition to the controller and processor, with the consequence that providers of personal data processing systems and services are responsible and liable for the implementation of the requirements at the time of placing on the market. In particular, they are to be legally obliged to provide all information required for a data protection impact assessment prior to the conclusion of a contract and all information and means necessary for the implementation of the rights of the persons concerned, irrespective of company and business secrets. This could also make the provisions on certification under Art. 42 effective. Consideration should also be given to extending the regulations on liability and compensation (Art. 82 GDPR) and on sanctions (Art. 83 f) to manufacturers.
4. Rights of data subjects / self-determination
Self-determination and the rights of the persons concerned by the processing are at the centre of the fundamental right to data protection and the fundamental right to informational self-determination established by the Federal Constitutional Court. Although the GDPR standardises the central possibilities of influence of the individual on the processing of his or her data and his or her rights vis-à-vis the responsible parties, the actual possibilities of influence of the data subjects are often very limited. This applies in particular to the practice of various powerful companies offering services in which data subjects are trapped by lock-in effects. The rights of those affected should therefore be further strengthened.
4.1. The rules on consent (Art. 7 GDPR) and the right of objection (Art. 21 GDPR) must be supplemented in such a way that the persons concerned can make use of technical systems to determine their data protection preferences when exercising their decision-making powers. Those responsible must be obliged to respect these specifications and the decisions based on them.
4.2. In Art. 12 ff GDPR it must be ensured that the information provided for the data subject relates to data processing actually intended. It should also be clarified that the controller must inform the data subject of all known recipients to whom personal data of the data subject are or have been disclosed. In addition, the person responsible must be obliged to record the transmission of the data and the recipients, so that he cannot evade his obligation to provide information on the grounds of “lack of knowledge”.
4.3. The transparency obligations pursuant to Art. 12 et seq. are to be specified with regard to the use of profiling techniques and algorithmic decision-making procedures (cf. point 1, 2nd indent above).
4.4. The right to restriction of processing (blocking) in Art. 18 GDPR should be extended to those cases in which the necessary deletion is not carried out because the data must be kept only for the purpose of complying with retention periods.
4.5. The right to data portability (Art. 20 GDPR) should be specified in such a way that the data must be made available to the data subject in an interoperable format. It should also be ensured that the right covers all data processed by automated means that the data subject has generated (including metadata) and not only those that he has deliberately entered into a system. Furthermore, companies and platforms with a high market penetration should be obliged to make their offerings interoperable by providing interfaces with open standards.
C. Evaluation of the legal framework
Article 97(1) of the DS-GVO provides for an evaluation of the GDPR after 25 May 2020 at four-year intervals. In view of the rapid technical development in the field of data processing, it appears necessary to shorten this evaluation interval to two years. Even if the legal framework is designed to be technologically neutral, it must react to technical developments as quickly as possible otherwise it will fast become obsolete.