Category: 1.1 Decision Making Process – Planning

Standing up for children? The Directive on procedural safeguards for children suspected or accused in criminal proceedings

Original published on Tuesday, 22 December 2015 on EU LAW ANALYSIS

“If we don’t stand up for children, then we don’t stand for much.”

by Marian Wright Edelman (*)

Effective human rights protection is fundamental to any concept of fairness in the criminal justice system. Fairness, however, is relative: it may require different levels of protection in different circumstances.

Children require special measures of protection to take account of their particular vulnerability and needs (UN CRC Committee, General Comment 10, para 10). International standards confirm state obligations in this regard (e.g. UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC),UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, the Council of EuropeGuidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on child-friendly justice.). The need for extra protection has also been confirmed by the ECtHR which has stated that the right to a fair trial under Article 6 requires that: “a child charged with an offence is dealt with in a manner which takes full account of his age/level of maturity and intellectual and emotional capacities and that steps are taken to promote his ability to understand and participate in the proceeding”(T v. UK, No. 24724/94, 16 December 1999, at [84]).

The Commission states that approximately 1 million children face criminal justice proceedings in the EU each year (around 12% of the total) (Commission Staff Working Document 2013). It has gathered data on child justice and its reports shows wide variability in practice and procedure between States. The EU has now agreed the text of a Directive to establish specific procedural safeguards for child suspects. This is the fifth in a series of six EU-specific standards, all in the form of Directives, which have been agreed under a Roadmap for strengthening the procedural rights in criminal proceedings (on the fourth measure, on presumption of innocence, see discussion here; on the sixth proposal, on legal aid, see discussion here). The Directives attempt to promote consistency in procedural protection within the criminal justice systems of EU Member States. Measure E of the Roadmap requires special safeguards to be created for vulnerable suspects. A Recommendation setting out procedural safeguards for vulnerable persons has already been published. This post deals with the recently agreed Directive on child suspects.

THE DIRECTIVE Continue reading “Standing up for children? The Directive on procedural safeguards for children suspected or accused in criminal proceedings”

The Reform of Frontex: Saving Schengen at Refugees’ Expense?

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EU LAW ANALYSIS (Wednesday, 16 December 2015)

by Steve Peers

Years ago, shortly before the creation of Frontex (the EU’s border control agency) and the big EU enlargement of 2004, I discussed the future of EU borders policy with a senior German civil servant. Anxious about the forthcoming enlargement of the EU (and, in time, Schengen), his vision was that every Lithuanian or Polish border post would be jointly staffed by a friendly German.

Yesterday’s proposals from the European Commission don’t precisely reproduce that vision – but they do embody the same doubt that Member States (in the south, rather than the east) can be fully trusted to patrol the external border. Given that Frontex has been created in the meantime, it’s the agency itself – flanked by reserves from national border agencies – which would be sent in to help patrol the borders of Member States, albeit only in certain cases.

This is only one of a batch of proposals made yesterday. I’ll sum them all up, but focus on this one, as it’s the most important. Overall, though, the proposals are flawed, in two contradictory ways: they simultaneously seek to do too much in the area of border controls (where the Frontex proposal exceeds EU powers and is politically unprincipled) and too little in the area of asylum (since there is no significant attempt to address humanitarian or protection needs within the EU). In short, they seek to save the Schengen system, at the expense of refugees.

Overview

There’s a Commission communication issued yesterday which tries to sum up all the new proposals. But in an even smaller nutshell, here’s what the Commission has tabled. The flagship proposal is a Regulation which would replace the existing Frontex legislation, creating a new ‘European Border and Coast Guard’ (EBCG) consisting of national border guards plus the agency.  This is accompanied by two proposals for minor consequential amendments to the Regulations establishing the EU’s Fisheries Control Agency and Maritime Safety Agency, whose work would be coordinated with the EBCG.

Next, an amendment to the Schengen Borders Code would increase checks at the external borders on EU citizens and, to some extent, non-EU citizens, for security purposes. A fifth proposed Regulation attempts to make expulsion and readmission more effective, by creating a uniform document to be used during removals of irregular migrants to their country of origin.

There are non-binding measures on border control issues too. The Commission has adopted a Handbook for use operating the EU’s ‘Eurosur’ system of maritime surveillance. It has also released its latest regular report on the Schengen system in practice.

In the area of asylum, there’s only one proposal for a binding measure: a Decisionwhich would exempt Sweden from the EU’s system of relocation of asylum-seekers (which I previously discussed here), for a period of one year. There’s a non-binding Commission Recommendation for a voluntary humanitarian admission programme of refugees from Turkey. Finally, there are Commission reports on the operation of the ‘hotspots’ for immigration control in Greece and Italy, and on the application of the recent plan to manage asylum and migration flows coming through the Western Balkans.

The new European Border and Coast Guard

As noted already, the proposal would replace the existing legislation establishing Frontex, which was first adopted in 2004, then amended in 2007 and 2011. (I previously produced a codified text of the Regulation – see here). To compare it with the text of the rules it replaces, see the Annex to the proposal. There would be no change to the separate legislation, adopted in 2014, which regulates Frontex actions as regards maritime surveillance (see my comments on that law here).

It should be emphasised that the legislation would not apply to the UK or Ireland, because they don’t participate fully in Frontex. In fact, according to CJEU case law, they can’t participate fully in Frontex unless they join the Schengen system fully – which is hardly likely, to say the least (it would require a referendum in the UK). However, the current loose cooperation between Frontex, the UK and Ireland would be retained, particularly for joint expulsions.

These new rules would – if agreed – significantly transform the status and role of Frontex. I won’t examine every detail for now (I might come back to the finer points during or at the end of the negotiations). Rather, my focus here is on the key aspects of the proposal. Keep in mind that this proposal is far from a ‘done deal’, since it has to be approved by a qualified majority in the Council (the UK and Ireland don’t have a vote, due to their opt-out) as well as the European Parliament. Already press stories suggest that many Member States oppose some key features of the proposal.

The first key feature of the law is the relationship between Frontex and national border forces. At present, the current Regulation states that ‘the responsibility for the control and surveillance of the external borders lies with the Member States’. Frontex is merely tasked with the ‘coordination’ of national forces.

But the proposed Regulation would, in effect, promote Frontex from the job of tea lady to the role of chief executive officer. The new law would not just upgrade the EU agency itself, but create a ‘European Border and Coast Guard’ consisting of national forces and the Agency. The Agency will adopt an ‘operational and technical strategy for the European integrated border control management’. National authorities then adopt their own strategies, but they must be ‘coherent’ with the Agency’s strategy. To put the strategy into effect, the Agency will not only be ‘reinforcing, assessing and coordinating’ national forces, but also taking control of them when Member States are not able to do so effectively.

The current tasks of Frontex – training, risk analysis, research, operational support, border surveillance, and support for expulsions – would all be retained and considerably enhanced. For instance, Frontex would have powers to send liaison officers to Member States, to check the ‘vulnerability’ of external border controls, to create a ‘return office’, and to gather and analyse more personal data. It would also have powers to send staff to third countries to participate in operations, not just (as at present) liaison officers. It would have more staff and funding, as well as reserve forces from Member States to call upon for border control or joint return operations. Most significantly, it would be able to send forces to an external border, in certain cases, without a Member State’s consent.

Is this power compatible with the limits on the powers of the EU? Article 72 TFEU states that the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Title of the Treaty ‘shall not affect the exercises of the responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security’. This Article must apply to border control as well as policing, since there was an equivalent clause in the border controls and immigration Title of the Treaty before it was merged with the policing rules by the Treaty of Lisbon. It obviously does not rob the EU of all power to adopt laws regulating borders, since Article 77 TFEU goes on to confer powers to adopt laws on ‘the checks to which persons crossing external borders are subject’ and which are ‘necessary for the gradual establishment of an integrated management system for external borders’.

But the JHA Title specifically restricts EU powers regarding intelligence agencies, and bans coercive powers for Europol (the EU police agency) and prosecutorial powers for Eurojust (the EU prosecutors’ agency). In my view these restrictions are particular applications of the general rule set out in Article 72, which must mean that while the EU can establish rules on border controls and regulate how Member States’ authorities implement them, it cannot itself replace Member States’ powers of coercion or control, or require Member States to carry out a particular operation.  This is consistent with Article 4(2) TEU, which requires the EU to respect Member States’ ‘essential state functions, including ensuring the territorial integrity of the State, maintaining law and order and safeguarding internal security’, and with the requirement that any common EU defence would have to be agreed unanimously and ratified by national parliaments.

So the EU does not have the powers to send Frontex or its reserve forces to other Member States without their consent, or to require Member States to deploy those reserve forces without their consent either. Moreover, this is politically problematic for many Member States, who have historic concerns about foreign forces coming on to their territory without consent, stemming from the Cold War, the Second World War, and earlier history besides. While Frontex and its reserves should not be regarded as an ‘army’, due to their limited size and functions, they will nonetheless be perceived as such. So this aspect of the proposals is not only legally suspect, but politically ill-judged.

What to make of Frontex’s other enhanced powers, which Member States are rather more likely to accept? The key issue here is the accountability of Frontex for human rights abuses. The agency has fought a long battle with the EU Ombudsman to evade any accountability for individual cases, but it would finally lose that war, if this proposal is accepted. Individuals (or someone acting on their behalf) could make a complaint about human rights abuses, but it would be rejected if it was ‘anonymous, malicious, frivolous, vexatious, hypothetical or inaccurate’. Each complaint would go through the Frontex Fundamental Rights Officer, who would decide on admissibility and then either forward the complaint to the Frontex Executive Director or a national border force. If the complaint is well-founded it will be followed up, possibly by disciplinary action.

However, the proposed process is inadequate. The Executive Director, who will decide on the merits of admissible claims, is obviously not independent of Frontex. There is no reference to a remedy if the complainant believes that his or his complaint has been wrongly rejected as inadmissible or not well-founded. Even where Frontex considers the complaint well-founded, the remedies are ineffective: there is no reference to damages, or a possible criminal prosecution in the most outrageous cases. Furthermore, the new rules are limited in scope, as they do not apply to national border guards, who are responsible for alleged cases of illegal push-backs and assaults upon migrants. To address this, the other proposals released yesterday should be amended to require Member States to hold independent investigations with effective remedies in any case where national border guards are alleged to have acted in breach of fundamental rights.

There is also a need for specific rules regulating Frontex (and national authorities’) action as regards the ‘hotspots’ for migrants at external borders, to clarify that they are not making decisions on the merits of asylum applications or issuing return decisions, and that only national authorities can make such decisions with full respect for the safeguards and content of EU and national law. (For more on the lack of clarity regarding the ‘hotspots’, see Frances’ Webber’s analysis here).

Other new measures

The most significant other new measure is the proposal for changes to theSchengen Borders Code. At present (see codified text here), Member States must check EU citizens at the external borders (either on entry or exit), to ensure that they hold an EU Member State’s passport which is not registered as lost or stolen. But there is no obligation to check them in security databases, except on a ‘non-systematic basis’. As for non-EU citizens, they must be more thoroughly checked on entry, including the use of security databases, but on exit the consultation is only optional, and security checks need only be carried out ‘wherever possible’.

Both sets of rules would be amended by the new proposal. EU citizens would have to be checked in security databases, both on entry and exit. But if this ‘would have a disproportionate impact on the flow of traffic’ at land and sea borders, Member States could decide to carry out such checks on a ‘targeted’ basis. There is no such derogation for air borders, which will also be subject to separate legislation (recently agreed in principle) concerning the collection of passenger records (Member States will also apply this law to internal Schengen flights). Also, the enhanced border checks won’t be recorded as such in a database, although that would happen in future if recent plans to include EU citizens in the future ‘smart borders’ rules are put into effect. As for non-EU citizens, the current derogation relating to exit will be abolished, and there will always have to be a check in security databases, regardless of any disproportionate impact on traffic.

So overall, checks on EU citizens in security databases would no longer be the exception to the rule (as at present); they would be the rule – subject to exceptions. The exceptions are relatively limited and the proposal does not accept that pressure at air borders could also be ‘disproportionate’. Surely that is a possibility, since if checks add several seconds each to a check of hundreds of disembarking passengers, a back-up could swiftly ensue. Given that data on air passenger movements will soon be recorded anyway, and that the Schengen Information System can’t be used to deny entry to EU citizens, the only practical use for the new rules would be in catching someone who was meant to be arrested, perhaps on the basis of a European Arrest Warrant, or who should be placed under surveillance. But in the latter case it might be awkward to arrange for the surveillance to start without tipping off the person concerned that it’s happening. The proposal might prove useful in detecting people subject to potential arrest due to suspicion of receiving terrorist training (see the separate recent proposal on this point), but is it really necessary for that purpose that it apply at all air borders?

Overall, it may be questionable whether any increase in security that may result from this proposal is proportionate to its impact on passenger movements. There would be a stronger case to amend the Borders Code to allow Member States to check certain flights or border crossings systematically following a risk assessment. This may give rise to concerns about discrimination, but there are already distinctions based on nationality as to who needs a visa, and it would have to be specified that all those on the particular flight must be checked – not just those who ‘appear Muslim’. Checks on all flights could only be justified if it were clear that ‘foreign fighters’ were returning to the EU via other countries too.

As for the other proposals, the Regulation on a standard travel document for expulsion would not change the substantive rules on expulsion; time will tell if it leads to non-EU countries accepting more expelled persons.

The real problem is with the lack of ambition of the asylum measures. As noted above, the only binding measure suggested yesterday would exempt Sweden from the EU’s relocation rules. This is largely a cosmetic gesture, since only a tiny fraction of the 160,000 who were meant to be relocated – which anyway is not a huge proportion of those entering Greece and Italy – have in fact been relocated. In the meantime, the capacity of Greece and other States to register migrants, process asylum applications, and ensure basic living conditions for the persons concerned is clearly under immense strain.

What the EU really needs is a new strategy to deal with these protection and humanitarian needs. Is there anything it can do to make the relocation programme work? Failing that, can it assist Member States to process asylum applications, or do more than it is doing to ensure basic living conditions are satisfied? Why the focus on empowering Frontex, and no parallel attempt to empower the EU’s asylum support agency to play a greater role to address some or all of these issues?

Furthermore, pending a full review of the EU’s Dublin system (to be completed early next year), the Commission could at least have issued a recommendation to Member States on how to apply the existing Dublin rules on family reunion, and to widen the admission of family members to admit siblings, and the relatives of EU citizens or non-EU citizens who are legally resident other than as refugees or asylum-seekers.

As Thomas Spijkerboer and Tamara Last have pointed out, there is no shortage of migration controls in the EU. The death toll of migrants and refugees has built up over the decades in which visa requirements were imposed and carriers were sanctioned for letting those without authorisation get on a flight or a ferry. Bolstering Frontex may have an impact on the management of those who arrive, but solves neither the underlying problems in the country of origin or the huge pressure placed on national asylum systems – or the human misery that accompanies it.

Looking forward : the new 18 months programme of the Council for the Freedom Security and justice area

The incoming new “trio” of Council Presidencies (Netherlands, Slovak and Maltese ) has just set the Council’s work programme covering the period January 2016 to June 2017 (doc .12396/15). You can read below the more relevant sections for the Freedom security and justice area related policies by including also the external dimension.
As always, in this kind of “Pravda-like” documents the most interesting messages are hidden behind the diplomatic jargon but, sometimes, even the visible part could be worth reading..

Emilio De Capitani

Introduction

This document sets out the Council’s work programme as established by the future Netherlands, Slovak and Maltese Presidencies, covering the period January 2016 to June 2017.

Now that the economy is showing signs of recovery, the Union should focus on delivering strong economic growth. At the same time it faces unprecedented challenges notably to its security and as a result of migration. Responding to these challenges requires a fundamental re-think in several policy areas. But the three Presidencies also have the opportunity to develop new policies in areas where action at the European level can bring real added value.

In establishing the Council’s work programme, the three Presidencies have been guided by the priorities of the Strategic Agenda and recent conclusions of the European Council. They have put particular emphasis on the first pillar of the strategic agenda, since inclusive, smart and sustainable growth, jobs and competitiveness remain the top priority over the next eighteen months.

In implementing this programme the three Presidencies will take into account the importance of the principles underpinning better regulation. The Council as a co-legislator has a particular responsibility for ensuring that EU regulation is of the best quality and fully respects the principles of subsidiarity, proportionality, simplicity, transparency, coherence and fundamental rights.

Better regulation will help meet the objectives set out in the Strategic Agenda. And a reduction in regulatory burdens will be an important driver for economic growth and competitiveness. The three Presidencies also note the Commission’s intention to launch a reflection on an increased role for national Parliaments in the preparation of EU decision-making.

This programme is presented in a new format. It is operational, and seeks to provide a framework for organising and programming the work of the Council over the next eighteen months. Its structure – in five pillars – follows that of the Strategic Agenda. It highlights, for each pillar, those key files and issues that the Council will need to address during the period. Equally, it does not aim to be exhaustive; the three Presidencies will ensure that the Council remains flexible and that it can respond to new developments, and that it swiftly addresses challenges that may appear.

The Presidencies acknowledge that many of the issues set out in this programme impact on each other. They will therefore ensure that all issues are handled in a way which takes full account of the wider context and of the potential impact in other sectors. Each section of the programme may involve the work of several Council configurations. The Presidencies will use every opportunity to improve the working methods of the Council in order to allow for better discussions and better results. They will also work closely with the European Parliament given its pivotal role as a co-legislator together with the Council.

Consistency of priorities across policies and institutions is crucial. The Presidencies have thus had consultations with the President of the European Council, and have ensured that this work programme reflects the Commission’s annual work programme for 2016. The Trio programme will also serve as a guide for the three Presidencies in their cooperation with other institutions on annual and multiannual programming.

(…)

  1. A Union of freedom, security and justice

 The area of freedom, security and justice will be developed on the basis of the Strategic Guidelines set out by the European Council in June 2014. The focus during the period will be on implementation, in a spirit of mutual trust, and ensuring coherence between all relevant policies and instruments, including the external aspects.

The topics of irregular migration flows and international protection remain high on the agenda and call for solidarity and responsibility from all Member States.

The Presidencies will aim at identifying gaps and explore new ways of addressing them.

Particular attention will be devoted to the “smart borders” package and the implementation of the actions identified in the Commission’s Communication on a European Agenda on migration of May 2015 and in the June and October 2015 EC conclusions, including work on the future development of the Common European Asylum System, efforts on relocation and resettlement, return and readmission, border management, stepping up the fight against human smuggling, and taking forward work in relation to legal migration.

Furthermore, the three Presidencies will work to ensure a better link between migration, security and external policy. The three Presidencies aim to make progress in the on-going legislative work concerning new management of external borders and the new Visa code.

In the field of security, further to the Commission’s Communication on a European Agenda on Security, the implementation of the Renewed EU Internal Security Strategy, is paramount.

The three Presidencies aim to have a comprehensive and integrated approach to cyber-security and cybercrime, corruption, serious and organized crime and trafficking in human beings, including for labour exploitation. The fight against terrorism remains high on the agenda of the Council.

Concerning the area of justice, the emphasis will be on consolidation and effectiveness of existing instruments in practice. The three presidencies will promote improvement of the quality of legislation, taking into account the needs of citizens, authorities and legal practitioners.

The three Presidencies will focus on progress on procedural rights in criminal proceedings as well as the continued the fight against fraud to the financial interest of the Union, including the work on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.

As regards civil justice, work will focus on family law.

The three Presidencies will boost e-justice solutions.

Protection of human rights will be a general objective and the three Presidencies will try to take work forward on the accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human rights.
Progress on the Data Protection package will be one of the priorities[1].

This priority area includes the following:

European Agenda on Migration, including:
* the Review of the Blue Card Directive and a new approach to Legal Migration
* Evaluation of and possible amendments to the Dublin Regulation
* work on an EU relocation mechanism
* Further efforts to enhance resettlement opportunities
* Proposals for strengthening the role of the European Asylum Support Office
* Effectiveness of the Schengen area
* Proposal to amend the Asylum Procedure Directive (Directive 2013/32/EU) to strengthen ‘Safe Country of Origin’ provisions
* Work related to irregular immigration, including return and readmission
* Work emanating from the Action Plan on migrant smuggling 
* proposals for enhanced protection schemes in the proximity of the EU
* Migration Action Plan with Turkey
Reinforcement of Frontex, including in the context of discussions over the development of a European Border and Coast Guard System
Smart Borders proposals, including the Entry/Exit system and Registered Traveller Programme
Implementation of the Common European Asylum System, including regulation on the international protection of unaccompanied minors
A simplified Union Visa Code and Touring visa regulations
Visa facilitation and liberalisation agreements
Enlargement of the Schengen area
Europol Regulation
Passenger Name Records directive and agreements
Operational cooperation between law enforcement authorities
Legislative proposal on firearms
Peer evaluation regarding cybercrime

The EU Agenda on Security, including
* Follow-up to the Renewed EU Internal Security Strategy, including upcoming Commission initiatives on the revision of the framework decision on terrorism, improved rules on firearms, extension of ECRIS to third country nationals and fraud on non-cash payments
* Renewed EU strategy on trafficking in human beings
* Reviewing obstacles to criminal investigations on cybercrime, notably on issues of competent jurisdiction and rules on access to evidence and information
* New EU policy cycle for organised and serious international crime
Supporting the establishment of a European Victims’ Rights Network
Data Protection Package
EU-US Data Protection Umbrella Agreement
Eurojust Regulation
European Public Prosecutor’s Office Regulation
Roadmap on strengthening procedural rights for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings, including notably the proposals on procedural safeguards for children and legal aid in European arrest warrant proceedings
EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights
Family law: matrimonial property regime and property consequences of registered partnerships
e-Justice
Regulation promoting the free movement of citizens and businesses by simplifying the acceptance of public documents
Rule of Law dialogue
Revision of the “Brussels II” Regulation on the Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility
Mutual recognition of confiscation orders
 

  1. The Union as a strong global actor

The EU’s strategic environment has changed due to globalisation and growing instabilities surrounding the EU, threatening our European values and security. Greater connectivity, competition and complexity in our global environment confront the EU with both challenges and opportunities. The EU will need to address this uncertain outlook, in which threats, challenges and opportunities coexist and EU internal and external security are increasingly intertwined.

In particular, in the EU’s neighbourhood, inherent instability has brought heightened risk.

To the east, disregard for the principles of international law has undermined the European security order and led to geopolitical tension. To the south, conflicts and human rights violations are predominant features, and have created long-lasting security, humanitarian and socio-economic challenges.

Against the background of this volatility in the broader neighbourhood, the credibility of the enlargement process and effective progress of the Western Balkans region towards the EU remains strategically important.

An “arc of instability”, stretching from Eastern Europe to the Sahel, affects the EU’s own security and threatens to undermine EU shared values and interests.

The EU must deal with emerging threats such as hybrid threats, terrorist groups with massive resources at their disposal such as ISIL/Da’esh and cyber-attacks; as well as perennial ones such as proliferation, piracy, extremism and terrorism.

 Greater human mobility has led to challenges from irregular migration, human trafficking and smuggling. Universal human rights and democratic values are under attack by hostile ideologies and propaganda.

 Migration will most certainly remain high on the international agenda.

The implementation of The European Agenda on Migration, the European Council Conclusions of April, June and October 2015, the outcome of the Meeting of Heads of State or Government of September 2015, and the outcome of the Valletta-summit of 11-12 November 2015 as well as the High-level Conference on the Eastern Mediterranean/Western Balkans route of 8 October 2015, will be at the core of the Trio agenda with regard to the external aspects of migration.

 The agreed measures on migration will have to be implemented and assessed in 2016 and 2017 as some of them need a medium to long-term approach, particularly those aimed at stemming the flow of irregular migration and on tackling the root causes by reinforcing cooperation with countries of origin and transit in an integrated manner.

 On counter-terrorism the ambitious conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Council of February 2015 will need to be further implemented, in particular with regard to the EU’s external counter-terrorism work, including enhanced counter-terrorism political dialogues, the action plans and capacity building projects with the countries of the Middle East and North Africa.

The EU response will need to include an outward looking and joined-up approach to security and diplomacy. Relevant EU policies and instruments will need to be deployed in a more strategic way, aiming at protecting and  promoting EU values and interests.

In this regard, the forthcoming EU global strategy on foreign and security policy will play a crucial role in defining our political ambitions, objectives and instruments to achieve them. The review of the European Neighbourhood Policy and the mid-term review of European Neighbourhood Instrument will be central to defining a new approach to our neighbourhood.

Differentiation will be key, ensuring that the EU’s approaches take account of partner countries’ specific situations. Effective and coherent application of EU policies relating to external action is essential, working on the basis of a comprehensive approach that links, inter alia, diplomacy, trade, energy, development, migration, human rights, and security and defence.

 This will include the further development of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) as CSDP missions and operations continue to make a significant contribution to international peace and stability. EU civilian and military capabilities need to be strengthened and the CSDP better tailored to present and future challenges, including human rights considerations.

In accordance with the European Council conclusions of June 2015, the EU should further enhance cooperation, including internationally, in the field of security and defence, in close coordination with international parties such as the UN and NATO as well with the European defence industry.

 A facilitating role for the European Defence Agency is foreseen. Increased cooperation with partner organisations, greater complementarity and mutual exchange of information is key, in particular with the UN, the OSCE, NATO and the African Union in areas such as hybrid threats, maritime security, rapid reaction and cyber security.

Contributions by partners to the CSDP will continue to be encouraged. Implementation of capacity building in support of security and development with a flexible geographic scope,  as well as the development of an EU-wide strategic framework for Security Sector Reform, shared by CSDP and development cooperation policy, are also foreseen.

 Beyond the Neighbourhood, bolstering partnerships is key – in particular with likeminded actors, but also with partners of rising global and regional influence, as well as with multilateral organisations and other fora. In order to bring sufficient weight to bear, the EU must be united in defending European values and interests, human rights remaining a core value of the EU that guides and drives actions of the EU, both internal and external.

 The Americas present opportunities that need to be fully tapped. Overall, the EU has much to enable it to engage and influence in a positive way. A close and effective strategic relationship with the United States allows for close cooperation on many foreign and security policy issues. The EU will strive to strengthen mutual cooperation on trade, energy security, CSDP and data protection.

 In Asia there are tensions among regional players jostling for influence. The EU has a genuine strategic interest in promoting stability in Asia and will seek to convey a strong message of its commitment to Asia and its regional integration, including at the 11th ASEM summit to be held in July 2016. The EU will remain engaged with the countries of Central Asia, implementing the EU-Central Asia Strategy reviewed in June 2015.

 In close cooperation with African Countries, the EU will continue to work on the implementation of the EU-Africa Roadmap adopted at the 2014 summit and prepare for the next summit. Continued EU engagement will aim to prevent and address crisis situations, contribute to peace and stability and contain the growing flow of irregular migration and fight terrorism, in close cooperation with the African Union, regional organisations and international partners. The EU will continue to implement the regional strategies and accompanying action plans to contribute to the security and development of the Sahel, Gulf of Guinea and the Horn of Africa regions.

 Adapting EU relations with African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (ACP) after 2020 (post-Cotonou) to these new global realities and challenges will be part of these political reflections.

 Global challenges will continue to feature prominently on international agenda in 2016 and 2017. It is the EU’s aim to reach an ambitious and binding climate protection agreement at the UN Framework Climate Change Convention (COP 21) in Paris, which will have to be implemented by both the EU and its partners.

The preparation of a second climate diplomacy action plan will have to be explored in the light of the international implications of the Paris agreement. Regarding the promotion of EU’s energy security it will be important to assess the implementation of the external elements of the Energy Union communication endorsed by the European Council in March 2015, in particular regarding the support of EU’s diversification efforts with Foreign Policy instruments.  

 Development policy and cooperation remain central elements of the EU’s external action. The EU will continue its work to make its development assistance more effective and targeted. In pursuing this, the EU will also strengthen the efforts to link up the development cooperation programmes of the EU and Member States though Joint Programming. The EU and its Member States will also continue its efforts to better link up its external relations tools and instruments in line with the principles of the EU’s comprehensive approach.

 The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development agreed in New York will provide a new global framework for sustainable development efforts. Consequently, the focus of the Trio Programme will be the implementation of this agenda, including on the internal EU implementation in the appropriate fora.

 The EU’s policies will need to be looked upon in line with the new Sustainable Development Goals, through a multi-stakeholder approach. Equally, fostering Policy Coherence for Development remains important to the implementation of the EU’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development ambitions. In this context, the reviews of the development instruments as well as the discussions on EU-ACP relations after 2020 (post-Cotonou) are also important. 

 In a context of multiple and protracted crises, with unprecedented numbers of displaced persons, the EU will continue to contribute to the efficient delivery of humanitarian aid to those affected by conflict, instability and natural disasters. The first World Humanitarian Summit in May 2016 will create momentum for innovative approaches and reinvigorating the collective responsibility of the international community in this regard.

 The Netherlands, Slovakia and Malta will work together in the Council of the European Union on a shared commitment focusing on the countries with a membership perspective, the Neighbourhood, as well as its adjacent regions, as well as the EU’s strategic partners, in support of the actions of the High Representative and the Commission.

The new Europol: no more European FBI, not yet European NSA…

by Emilio DE CAPITANI

On November 30th the European Parliament Civil Liberties Committee “informally”  endorsed (by 43 votes to 5 with 4 abstentions) the text that the Council will soon adopt as “its” position on the post-Lisbon European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation and Training (Europol).

Following the “informal” interinstitutional practice of the so-called “legislative trilogues” (particularly the so-called “early second reading” agreements), the Chair of the LIBE Committee has already addressed a letter to the President of the Permanent Representatives Committee announcing that when the Council will formally send the text to the plenary, LIBE will recommend the Council’s text be approved  without amendments in the Parliament’s second reading so that the legislative procedure will be finalized and the “informally” agreed text (after some linguistic corrections) could be published in the coming months in the Official Journal.

I have already expressed my strong personal reservations on the legitimacy of such “informal” practices, notably because they are done in secret when treaties require the transparency of legislative debates (and negotiations) also for the Council. In the Europol case the latest public texts were: the first “reading” of the EP adopted on 25 February 2014 (at the end of the previous legislature) and the “general approach” of the Council  on 5 June 2014. Ten secret “trilogues” have been held in the following 16 months until suddenly, at the end of November 2015, a draft compromise has finally emerged and has been submitted to the vote of the Coreper and of the Parliamentary committee, paving the way to the “formal” legislative procedure.

Leaving aside European procedural (and democratic) intricacies, the text agreed (see below) is far below what could have been expected after the entry into force, six years ago, of the Lisbon Treaty. Because of the confidentiality of the negotiations, it is difficult to say now if such of a low-level compromise is due to the lack of ambition of the European Parliament or, more likely, of the EU Member States.

What is evident even from a quick reading, is that most of the possible improvements resulting from the Lisbon treaty have not been agreed and even if many things have apparently changed, the most important aspects are still as they were in the pre-Lisbon era (not to say the Maastricht era) and some new worrying aspects are taking shape.

First and foremost, the revision of the most important tool for police cooperation is taking place in the absence of a comprehensive post-Lisbon legally binding framework for police cooperation, as could have been done on the basis of art.87 of the TFEU.  So, even if the new Regulation recognises that “Large-scale criminal and terrorist networks pose a significant threat to the internal security of the Union and to the safety and livelihood of its citizens”  it  considers that such “EU internal security” matters should remain framed only by the Council and the Commission with “soft law” tools like the European Internal Security Strategy or the so-called “Policy Cycle”. The problem is that these tools associate the Member States only on a voluntary basis so there is no assurance that the common goals which have been defined will be reached nor is it possible to sanction those who do not contribute as was originally planned. Even the creation of a Center of excellence pooling important technical and human resources to fight Cybercrime or Terrorism as was (at last!) recently decided remains in the form of important opportunities offered to the EU member states and not of common binding tools. Unlike Frontex which is playing an increasing role in a well settled EU binding legislative framework (Schengen Border Code and EUROSUR), Europol is still floating in an unchartered legislative framework and building its own mission as a permanent laboratory or a taxi for Member states which are willing to use it. Last but not least, relying on “soft law instruments” makes the role of the European Parliament irrelevant, even if the latter try to follow up the initiatives taken by the Council and/or the Commission (a situation which is hardly acceptable for an EU which, after Lisbon, claims to be bound by democratic principles…) with non-binding resolutions.

This aspect should be very present in the EP’s mind as it has been co-responsible of EU policies linked with police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters for six years but for inexplicable reasons it continues to accept being marginalized, as happened with this draft Regulation in which the objectives of Europol’s activity will be defined only by …the Council and the Commission (not to speak of the EU Member States which are represented on its Management Board).

Even more surprisingly the European Parliament, which is also the Budgetary authority (which finances EUROPOL with 80/90 million euros per year), does not ask to have a say on the appointment of the Director of the Agency. Even in countries (such as the USA) where there is a clear distinction between the executive and the legislature the official responsible for federal agencies should have the approval of the Congress..

Even more worrying is the way in which the management of classified informations is framed. Here the draft Regulation takes the “originator principle” as the cornerstone of everything and places private entities, third countries and EU Member States or other EU and National agencies on the same ground. Now, in a European Union which claims to be founded on the principle of the rule of law, it is the legislator who should decide under which conditions information can be classified / declassified and has to be shared in the interest of the EU regardless of the good or bad will of the “originator”. Moreover, the principle of loyal cooperation should frame relations between EU institutions, agencies and bodies so that each one of them could fulfil its constitutional role regardless of the will of the “originator”.

Under this perspective the treatment that the European Parliament has accepted in this regulation is grotesque because it has accepted to be bound by the internal security rules of ….the Council and not by legislation to be adopted on the basis of art. 15 of the TFEU (and of the Charter). The point is not who should be the winner of an inter institutional game, as much as who among the EU institutions the European citizens can trust. By abdicating to its role the EP is thus deliberately weakening its own legitimacy and the democratic principles on which the EU claims to be founded.

Another weak aspect of the new text is the absence of a real link (and interdependence) with the judicial dimension of the European Freedom Security and Justice Area. Such a link, which is vital in the member states to avoid possible abuses on the police side, is practically absent in the new regulation which makes a vague reference to administrative agreements with Eurojust and plainly ignores its possible relation to the future European Public Prosecutor  who ” shall be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment, where appropriate in liaison with Europol, the perpetrators of, and accomplices in, offences against the Union’s financial interests,….” (art.86.2 TFEU). The point is that Europol, by claiming an increasing role in the collection and treatment of intelligence informations linked with Cybersecurity, Terrorism and PNR, is trying to become the main EU “intelligence information hub” which brings it closer to the model of an EU National Security Agency than to a European FBI as it was in its first phase.

A further weak aspect of the draft Regulation is the protection of personal data where the situation is so confused that, in a declaration attached to the text, the EP and Council already declare: “… that, following the adoption of the proposed General Data Protection Regulation and Data Protection Directive for data processing in the police and justice sector, including the new, soon to be created European Data Protection Board, and in light of the announced review of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, the different mechanisms for cooperation between the European Data Protection Supervisor and the national supervisory authorities in this field, including the Cooperation Board set up in this Regulation, should in the future be reorganised in such a way as to ensure effectiveness and consistency and avoid unnecessary duplication, without prejudice to the Commission’s right of initiative.”

Many other points may be raised, but if you are really interested, have a look at the text below (which is over 90 pages long..).

Continue reading “The new Europol: no more European FBI, not yet European NSA…”

Can Schengen be suspended because of Greece? Should it be?

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EU LAW ANALYSIS

by Steve Peers

A leaked Council document (see separate blog post) suggests in effect that the Schengen system should be suspended for up two years, due to ‘systemic deficiencies’ in the control of external borders by Greece. That would allow any Schengen States which wish to do so to maintain or introduce border checks on their ‘internal’ borders with each other. Probably not all Schengen States would take this opportunity, but many would (especially since a number of them already do so). This follows a recent press report in the Financial Times (paywalled), which states that some Member States are considering threatening to throw Greece out of the Schengen system, due to its management of refugees and migrants at the external borders.

It’s possible that the general threat to suspend Schengen is intended as a threat to suspend Greece only, but is simply badly drafted. Or perhaps the idea is to threaten to suspend the whole of Schengen, and pin the blame on Greece. Either way, in my view, this threat is seriously mistaken, for both legal and political reasons.

The Legal Framework

In principle, the Schengen system can’t be scrapped completely without amending the EU Treaties, since the Treaties refer to it several times. Instead, there are two types of possible suspensions: short-term (up to three months) and long-term (up to two years). The leaked Council document refers to use of the long-term suspension.

The short-term waiver rules have always formed part of the Schengen system. They allow individual Member States to reimpose checks on internal borders  for a short time, for reasons of public policy and public security. Over the years, those provisions have often been invoked by Member States, usually for a few days during an international summit or football tournament. This autumn, they have been invoked more often and for longer periods, as a response to the refugee crisis affecting the continent. Since this reintroduction is only allowed for a maximum period of six months, there is an upcoming legal problem if Member States with to prolong these controls past next spring.

But a newer, different set of rules apply to suspending a Member State from the Schengen system. As a response to the ‘Arab Spring’ of 2011, and a spat between Italy and France over responsibility for some Tunisians, the Schengen rules were amended in 2013 in order to provide for the collective reimposition of internal border controls for up to two years. Those amendments need to be read in conjunction with the rest of the rules which they amended. So I suggest you read them in the codified version (showing the amendments), which is set out in an Annex to the report which I wrote for the SIEPS thinktank on the revised rules (start on page 121).

These amendments were generally understood as providing in effect for the possible suspension of individual Member States from the Schengen system. However, that is not expressly set out in the rules, and the leaked Council document clearly intends something broader, since it refers explicitly to continuation of existing border checks, ie between Germany and Austria, not (only) between other Member States and Greece. But the role of individual Member States is still relevant, because this collective suspension of Schengen can only be triggered if there are ‘serious deficiencies’ in how one Member State applies the Schengen external borders rules.

The process would start with a Commission recommendation following a Schengen evaluation, according to the separate rules (also amended in 2013) on the process of assessing whether Schengen states comply with their obligations. If the Commission finds in its report that there are ‘serious deficiencies’ in a Member State complying with its external border control obligations, then it can recommend that this country take ‘specific measures’, including accepting assistance from the EU’s border agency, Frontex, and submitting plans for Frontex to assess.

If there is not enough action on settling these problems within three months, the process can escalate. In ‘exceptional cases’ where there is a ‘serious threat to public policy or public security’ in the Schengen area or parts of it, the Council can recommend ‘as a last resort’ to Member States that they reimpose border controls against that Member State for periods of six months, renewable up to the two-year maximum. It’s arguable that this process can be fast-tracked and be applied even without giving the Member State three months to fix its problems.  Since Member States would have to vote in favour of it in the Council (by a qualified majority), it can be assumed that most Member States would then follow this recommendation. The Council has to act on a proposal from the Commission, but Member States can request the Commission to make such a proposal.

In adopting this recommendation, the Council has to assess whether it will ‘adequately remedy’ the threat to public policy, as well as the ‘proportionality’ of the measure in relation to the threat. This must be based on detailed information, and consider the EU assistance which was provided or which could have been requested, the likely impact of the deficiencies in border control upon the threat to public policy or public security, and the impact on the free movement of persons.

The legality of suspending Schengen and/or sanctioning Greece

It’s not clear exactly where we stand in the process as regards Greece. The Commission has recently adopted a Schengen evaluation report, but it’s not public. It’s not even clear if that report concerns Greece (all Schengen states are evaluated). So it would take a while (three months after a formal finding of ‘serious deficiencies’, which hasn’t happened yet as far as I know) before Greece could be sanctioned, unless the process is fast-tracked.

Indeed, the Council document seems to be aiming to fast-track the process. It wants the Council already to request a Commission recommendation to suspend the abolition of border controls for up to two years. Since (as far as I am aware) there’s not even a finding of Greek ‘serious deficiencies’ yet, there’s obviously not yet a three month period during which those problems continued. And the Council document doesn’t even attempt to assess whether the substantive criteria apply; the intention simply seems to be to find some way to justify a longer period to continue the internal border checks which Member States have reintroduced recently.

If the current threats get to the stage of a Council Recommendation that border controls be reimposed, it’s not clear if Greece could sue the Council in the EU Court of Justice (since technically Recommendations are not binding), or would have to sue Member States for following the Recommendation instead. Individual travellers could also sue Member States in national courts for imposing border controls, indirectly challenging the legality of the Recommendation; national courts could then send the issue to the Court of Justice.

Procedural issues apart, is there a substantive case for suspending Schengen rules and reimposing border controls, because of ‘serious deficiencies’ due to Greek control of the external border? In my view, there are serious doubts that there is such a case, for two main reasons.

First of all, according to the Financial Times article, other Member States are annoyed because Greece did not accept the support of Frontex, register enough asylum-seekers, or request humanitarian aid to assist them. While the failure to request support from Frontex is referred to in the EU border controls legislation, the other issues are not. And for very good reason: because the failure to control the numbers of refugees at the external borders is NOT a breach of the Schengen rules.

This assertion may seem surprising, because the critics of the EU’s response to the refugee crisis – on either side of the argument – often assume that EU law requires refugees and asylum-seekers to be refused entry at the borders. From one side, the EU is criticised for letting refugees and asylum-seekers in, and therefore ‘not protecting its borders’. From the other side, the EU is criticised for establishing a ‘Fortress Europe’.

Both sides are clearly wrong – at least, on this specific legal issue. This follows from the Schengen Borders Code itself, which expressly exempts refugees from the rules on penalising non-EU citizens for unauthorised entry across the borders, and includes an exemption from the usual conditions on border crossing if the non-EU citizen is claiming asylum. It equally follows from the EU’s asylum procedures Directive, which requires Member States to process not only asylum applications made on the territory, but also those made at the border. (Of course, Member States don’t always fully comply with their EU legal obligations).

So it’s really the border crossing rule itself which is controversial, not Greece’s failure to apply it. There’s a political problem with the rule in practice, either because (from one side’s perspective) it is no longer keeping out enough people, or (from the other side’s perspective), it is too difficult for genuine refugees to reachEU territory without the risk of drowning or paying money to smugglers.

But for the purposes of finding that there are ‘serious deficiencies’ in Greek control of the external border, the point is that Greece is not failing in any obligation to stop asylum-seekers crossing the external borders – quite simply because there’s no such obligation. Just the opposite. Of course, due to the sheer scale of the numbers involved, it’s difficult for Greece to operate an effective asylum system, but that failure is subject to a wholly separate process. Indeed, the European Court of Human Rights and the CJEU have already said that Member States cannot send asylum-seekers back to Greece, because the asylum system has effectively collapsed there. The Dublin III Regulation sets out rules which apply in the event that the Dublin system has to be suspended for those reasons, and the EU has recently adopted Decisions (discussed here) to relieve the burden on Greece a little by relocating some asylum-seekers from that country.

Of course, some of those who cross the Greek border do not apply for asylum immediately, or later fail in their asylum applications. According to UNHCR statistics, about half of those recently arriving in the Greek island of Lesvos (the main destination) are coming from Syria and Iraq (countries with high refugee recognition rates) and half are coming from other countries, with lower recognition rates. In that context, it is legitimate to suggest that Greece ought to accept assistance from Frontex and other EU agencies, and that Frontex in particular has a role coordinating the fingerprinting and registration of people when they first arrive. (Fingerprinting of irregular migrants and asylum-seekers isn’t a panicked authoritarian response to the refugee crisis, as is sometimes suggested, but a long-standing EU law obligation, going back to 2003).

The second problem is the link between the Greek ‘deficiencies’ and the reimposition of border controls, either against Greece or between other Schengen states. There’s certainly no link between the deficiencies and the borders between Greece and other Schengen States, since none of those are land borders, and (would-be) asylum-seekers and refugees travel by land between Greece and other Member States. So checking people flying between Greece and other Schengen States would be hugely disproportionate to the relevant deficiencies.

What about border controls between other Schengen States? These are the controls that the Council document expressly wants to continue. Here there is a link between the people originally entering via Greece and later trying to cross the Austria/Germany border, for instance. But again, the real deficiencies are with the EU’s asylum system, not Greek border controls, since EU rules provide for admission of asylum-seekers. Asylum-seekers move on to other Member States because the Dublin rules were not drawn up with today’s increased numbers of asylum-seekers in mind, and Greece can’t manage the numbers that it would be responsible for under the rules. That’s certainly a problem – but that problem is notcaused by Greek deficiencies in external border controls. The EU has to use the legal instruments available under its asylum policy to try to fix it.

Political context

Although it’s not evident from the face of the document, the political context of the Council paper may be an attempt to convince Greece to agree to further measures relating to border control. That’s evident from the Financial Times article, which conveys several Member States’ allegations against Greece (summarised above). In turn, the Greek government has defended itself and made counter-allegations against the EU, which are summarised in a Guardian article.

In some ways, this resembles the attempt by some Member States this summer to coerce Greece to leave the euro ‘temporarily’. As I argued at the time, this process did not have a shred of legality, unless we use the creative argument that Greece had never legally joined the euro.

However, there are differences as regards Schengen. There is on paper a process to suspend Schengen rules temporarily; the only question is the correct interpretation of those rules. Undoubtedly some will not share my interpretation above, and would argue that defects in the asylum system are implicitly part of the assessment of whether there are ‘serious deficiencies’ in external border control. In the absence of case law to date, it’s an open question which of us would be correct. It’s also an open question whether the Commission – which has made much of its strong support for Schengen – would be willing to suggest a suspension for two years.

Even if it’s legal to threaten Greece this way, is it wise? The EU was heavily criticised for trying to strong-arm Greece as regards the euro – although technically it wasn’t the EU institutions making the threats last summer, but rather the parallel ‘Eurogroup’ bodies which are not an ordinary part of the EU’s political system.

Far better for the EU to redouble its efforts to help both Greece and the people concerned, by ensuring that there are decent reception centres and living conditions in the country, by making greater effort to ensure that the relocation system works, and by working with Turkey to genuinely improve the living conditions of refugees there, so that fewer of them want to leave (more on that recent EU/Turkey deal in a later blog post).

As regards Schengen itself, if a temporary suspension is strongly desired, it might be better to provide for it by means of a legislative amendment to the Schengen Borders Code (with a ‘sunset clause’ providing for its expiry, since permanent suspension would violate the Treaties) rather than by the indirect means of threatening Greece. Or an amendment to the rules on checks near the internal borders could justify some occasional checks in the event of dysfunctional applications of EU asylum rules, if fixing those rules proves politically impossible – as well it might.

EXCLUSIVE: LEAKED DOCUMENT REVEALS EU PLANS TO SUSPEND SCHENGEN FOR TWO YEARS

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EU LAW ANALYSIS

Comments by Steve Peers

The following is Council document 14300/15, dated 1 December 2015. It’s entitled ‘Integrity of the Schengen area’, and addressed to Coreper (the body consisting of Member States’ representatives to the EU) and the Council – presumably the Justice and Home Affairs ministers meeting Thursday 3 and Friday 4 December.

The first three parts aren’t exceptional, but part 4 calls for the start of a process to officially allow the reimposition of internal border controls in the Schengen area for up to two years. Legally, this has to be triggered by ‘serious deficiencies’ in the border control of a particular Member State.

This has been reported as a plan to suspend Schengen as regards Greece. But the wording of the document suggests a much broader intention – applying to the whole of Schengen. This intention is clear from the reference to continuing in force the border controls that many Member States have imposed this autumn, which can only be imposed for a maximum period of six months. The purpose of using the ‘serious deficiencies’ clause, instead of the normal clause on suspending Schengen, is clearly to allow a much longer suspension period. It may be that not every internal border would be subject to checks, but the intention seems to be to issue a blank cheque to this effect.

More on the legal details (and whether this is even legal) in a parallel blog post shortly.

Document follows:

INTRODUCTION

The migratory and refugee crisis has put the application of the Schengen acquis and of the asylum acquis under severe pressure during the last years, with an unprecedented influx of migrants over the last months. In this context, several Member States have temporarily reintroduced border control at their internal borders, with reference to a serious threat to public policy or internal security as provided for by the Schengen Borders Code. Temporary controls at internal borders have also been carried out by a Member State for reasons related to terrorism, following the attacks in Paris on 13 November 2015. In addition, some Member States have taken specific measures to reinforce the control at their external borders.

In its Conclusions of 9 November 2015 on measures to handle the refugee and migration crisis, the Council has identified a number of measures to implement fully the orientations already agreed by the European Council [1]. These measures address a wide range of issues, including in particular reception capacities, hotspots, relocation, return, readmission, resettlement,  lack of cooperation of migrants, contingency planning, the functioning of the Schengen area, external and internal borders, smuggling in human beings, visa policy, a common information strategy and the use of the Integrated Political Crisis Response (IPCR).

In the Conclusions adopted on 20 November 2015 on Counter-Terrorism after the Paris terrorist attacks by the Council and Member States meeting within the Council it was agreed to implement reinforced measures for the purpose of fighting terrorism, including strengthening controls at external borders[2].

Under point 9 of its Conclusions of 9 November 2015, the Council decided “to conduct at the December Justice and Home Affairs Council, on the basis of the 8th bi-annual reporting by the Commission, a thorough debate on the functioning of the Schengen area (1 May 2015 – 31 October 2015) and on the lessons learned from temporary reintroductions of controls at internal borders”.

In Coreper on 26 November 2015 the Commission indicated, however, that the said 8th bi-annual report would not be ready for the meeting of the JHA Council in December 2015, but would be integrated in the future border package. The Presidency concluded that Ministers would be invited to hold a debate on the functioning of the Schengen area on the basis of a Presidency paper.

With a view to preparing this debate, the Presidency issued a questionnaire on lessons learned from temporary introductions of controls at internal borders [3]. The Presidency has prepared the present paper in the light of replies from Member States, having in mind also major issues that have been raised during recent months regarding the functioning of the Schengen area, with a focus on border controls.

ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION

The Presidency invites the Council to hold a debate on the functioning of the Schengen area and to address in particular the following issues related to internal and external border controls.

  1. Consultations between Member States – Based on the information available to the Presidency, it appears that, in situations where some Member States have applied recently Article 25 of the Schengen Borders Code to reinstate temporarily controls at internal borders, there has not been sufficient prior consultation with other Member States.  The same has been noticed for technical reinforcement of borders between border crossing points, for changes in national policies leading to filter migrants at border crossing points and for organizing the transit of migrants from one border to next.  This has severely hindered the possibility for neighbouring countries to prepare themselves for changes in migratory routes and for all Schengen countries to handle migratory flows in a coherent manner.

In addition, procedures approved by Coreper in March 2015 for improved information sharing on temporary reintroduction of border controls at internal borders have not been fully respected in all cases.

The Presidency proposes that:

–           even in emergency situations falling under Article 25 of the Schengen Borders Code and requiring immediate action, a Member State deciding to temporarily reintroduce internal border controls should make all efforts to inform neighbouring Member States sufficiently in advance to allow neighbouring Member States to adjust to the new situation and, where possible, to cooperate to reduce the negative impact of the reintroduction of internal border controls;

–           Member States reconfirm their commitment to fully apply the procedures for improved information sharing on temporary reintroduction of border controls at internal borders agreed in Coreper in March 2015. [4]

 

  1. Securing external borders – A number of irregular migrants entering the EU, or exiting an EU country to re-enter later in the EU, pass through the so-called “green land borders” (the parts of the land borders between border crossing points). According to Frontex, more than 1,2 million illegal border crossings have been detected at the EU external borders for January – October 2015, an increase of 431% compared with the corresponding period in 2014. In addition, a number of illegal crossings have not been registered. The exact figure is unknown.

Also in the context of the fight against terrorism, the Council concluded on 20 November 2015 that control at the external borders which are most exposed should be strengthened “in particular by deploying, when the situation so requires, rapid border intervention teams (RABITs) and police officers in order to ensure systematic screening and security checks”.

In view of the critical situation that the EU is currently confronted with, the Presidency proposes that:

–           considerably more efforts should be made to prevent illegal border crossings (entry and exit) through the external “green land borders” and to ensure that external borders are crossed only at the border crossing points referred to in Article 4, subject to the exceptions in Article 4(2), of the Schengen Borders Code;

–           RABITs are deployed as necessary for that purpose. This is at present  particularly relevant for external land borders in relation to the Western Balkan countries route;

–           A Frontex operation at the northern borders of Greece be deployed without delay to address severe difficulties encountered with neighbouring countries.

  1. Increasing checks regarding illegal migration – Irregular migrants who have entered the Schengen area and have not been registered at their arrival should not be able to stay in that area undetected for long periods of time.


The Presidency proposes that:

–           the possibilities for checking persons inside the Schengen area, including by the use of relevant databases, are fully exploited to ensure that irregular migrants are detected and registered and their cases processed.

  1. Addressing serious deficiencies in external border controls – Several Member States have recently reintroduced temporarily internal border control pursuant to Articles 23-25 of the Schengen Borders Code. Under these provisions, a Member State may not implement such controls for more than a total period of six months. A prolongation of this situation would require the adoption by the Council, upon a proposal from the Commission, of a recommendation in accordance with Article 26 of the Schengen Borders Code. Such recommendation may be adopted in exceptional circumstances to address a situation where a Schengen evaluation has identified persistent serious deficiencies relating to external border control and the measures referred to in Article 19a of the Schengen Borders Code are not effective. Where in such cases the overall functioning of the area without internal border control is put at risk, and insofar as the exceptional circumstances constitute a serious threat to public policy or internal security within the area without internal border control or within parts thereof, the period for the reintroduction of internal border control may be extended up to a total maximum of two years.

On this basis, the Presidency:

–           proposes that the Council invites the Commission to consider presenting a proposal as appropriate pursuant to Article 26 of the Schengen Borders Code for a Council recommendation that one or more Member States decide to reintroduce border control at all or at specific parts of their internal borders;

–           considers that, at the same time, all possible measures should be taken aimed at strengthening the normal functioning of the Schengen area, in particular by reinforcing the control of external borders.

Supreme allies: Top national courts and the implementation of EU law

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON “DESPITE OUR DIFFERENCES”

by Daniel Sarmiento, (*)

In a short time-frame, two high courts of two Member States, the French Cour de Cassation and the Spanish Tribunal Constitucional, have delivered two important judgments on the implementation of EU Law by lawyers and domestic courts. The two decisions touch different subject-matters and deal with different claims, but they are equally relevant for what they represent for the correct implementation of EU Law. As I said a few weeks ago in a previous post, national high courts are becoming key players in EU Law, and the Court of Justice should cherish and look after this highly valuable ally.

Last May, the French Cour de Cassation ruled in favor of a former worker who had sued his lawyer for not making a proper defense of his client (see the judgment here). The lawyer did not invoke the Court of Justice’s case-law stated in the well-known cases of Mangold, Kücükdeveci, Petersen, etc., on discrimination on the grounds of age. As a result of it, the worker lost his case against his former employer. The Cour de Cassation stated that the claimant’s chances of success in case of having invoked the Court of Justice’s case-law were up to 80%. Therefore, the certainty of the loss suffered entitled the claimant to successfully claim damages from his lawyer.

Yesterday, the Spanish Constitutional Court, in plenary formation, ruled in favour of another worker whose claim based on EU Law was plainly ignored by the High Court of Madrid (see the judgment here). Following the Court of Justice’s case-law in the cases of Gavieiro Gavieiro, Lorenzo Martínez and others, which solved a series of cases identical to the one of the claimant, it was obvious that this case-law applied and solved the case. However, the High Court of Madrid ignored this and dismissed the claimant’s appeal.

The Spanish Constitutional Court has now stated that any jurisdiction in Spain that ignores a judgment of the Court of Justice is breaching the fundamental right to a fair trial, as provided by article 24 of the Spanish Constitution. This gives any claimant in such circumstances the chance of invoking another ground of appeal, and, above all, the use of the special procedure for the protection of fundamental rights before the Constitutional Court (recurso de amparo).

These two judgments impose considerable responsibilities on lawyers and judges. The French decision sets a high standard of professional expertise on practitioners, especially on those who are highly qualified and (as in the case of France) allowed to plead before the highest courts of the country. The Spanish judgment is a nice reminder for all courts in Spain that the case-law of the Court of Justice is binding in the strongest possible way, and therefore binding for all courts. Both cases have in common a total absence of reference to EU Law, by the lawyer in his submissions in one case, and by a court in its judgment in another.

Therefore, the sum of both decisions is not revolutionary, because it is obvious that a total lack of reference to the applicable law, whether it is national or EU Law, raises serious issues about the decision at stake. However, it is important that the highest courts of Member States are assuming the task of ensuring the correct application of EU Law. This is of course a matter for the Court of Justice, but also for its domestic counterparts too. And it is nice to see that these cases have been solved without the need to make a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice. High courts know what their role is and how it must be put into practice under national law. Now it is time for lawyers and for the remaining domestic courts to act accordingly.

*Professor of EU Law at the University Complutense of Madrid

Data retention and bulk data: sometime the Council raises some good questions. But what about the answers ?

It does not happen very often but in a PUBLIC document diffused yesterday the Council Presidency raises some very interesting questions arising from the 2014 CJEU ruling on data retention (see below). It is worth recalling that already at that time the Court justified its decision with reference not only to art. 8 of the Charter (protection of personal data) but also to art. 7 (protection of privacy). The same happened this year with the Schrems case which deals with a similar situation (even if referred to a third country). Quite surprisingly the Council Presidency does not make reference to this ruling even if , according some doctrine (see the Martin Scheinin position published here)  it contain already an answer to the first question. According to Martin Scheinin the Court by referring to Article 7 of the Charter makes clear that:  In particular, legislation permitting the public authorities to have access on a generalised basis to the content of electronic communications must be regarded as compromising the essence of the fundamental right to respect for private life, as guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter…

When the “essence” itself of a fundamental right is threatened, according to art.52 of the Charter is no more question of verify the “proportionality” of this kind of measures as they would be per se against the Charter (and the Treaty)

Let’s see what will be the MS (and judiciary) reaction and if they will take this occasion to re-examine some wide ranging legislative proposals which foresee a generalised collection of personal data (PNR, Entry-exit systems, not to speak of the monthly bulk transmission of EU citizens personal data to the US administration within the EU-USA TFTP (“SWIFT”) agreement…).

EDC

 

DOC  14246/15 24 November 2015 NOTE
From:Presidency
To:Permanent Representatives Committee/Council
No. prev. doc.:14369, 13085/15, 11747/1/15 REV 1
Subject: Retention of electronic communication data – General debate

1. The invalidation of the Data Retention Directive 1 by the Court of Justice of the EU 2on the grounds that it disproportionately restricted the rights to privacy and to the protection of personal data, has given rise to questions in the Member States, in particular as regards national transposition legislation and the availability of electronic communication data collected for access by law enforcement authorities and their use as evidence in criminal proceedings.

2. Member States had been given a wide margin of discretion in the implementation of the Data Retention Directive. This lead to considerable differences in the national legal frameworks3, which are compounded by the varying consequences of the assessment of the national data retention schemes by national parliaments and courts, especially in view of the Data Retention Judgement and the pending “Tele2” case 4.

3. The Data Retention Judgement has not directly affected national implementing legislations of the Data Retention Directive and these remain valid until amended, or repealed by national parliaments, or invalidated by national courts, provided that they comply with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. Member States thus find themselves in a situation where they no longer have an obligation deriving from a specific Union legal instrument to introduce or maintain a national data retention regime providing for the mandatory storage of electronic communication data by providers for the purposes of detecting, investigating, and prosecuting serious crime. However, Member States retain the possibility to do so under Article 15(1) of the “E-privacy Directive” 5.

4. Opinions diverge on the interpretation of the Court’s judgement and thus on the legality of schemes for retaining bulk electronic communication data without specific reason. This has inter alia resulted in a large variety of situations at national level6. Some Member States have already adopted or are in a process of preparing new legislation on data retention, that, according to the information received by delegations, aims at ensuring strengthened procedural guarantees and safeguards in compliance with the Charter and in line with the ruling of the Court (EE, ES, IE, LT, LU, LV, MT, PL), including some Member States where the national law has been invalidated by the constitutional Court (DE, BG, NL).

5.Eurojust’s analysis of the current situation7 and expert debates held during the Luxembourg Presidency8 highlight that this fragmentation of the legal framework on data retention across the Union has an impact on the effectiveness of criminal investigations and prosecutions at national level, in particular in terms of reliability and admissibility of evidence to the courts based on the collection of electronic communication data, as well as on cross-border judicial cooperation between Member States and internationally.

6 In view of these challenges and the legal, procedural and practical problems they pose for investigations and prosecutions of all kinds of crime, not in the least in relation to counter-terrorism, the Presidency invites Ministers to address the following questions:

  • Is the Data Retention Judgement to be interpreted in the sense that retaining bulk electronic communication data without specific reason is still allowed ?
  • Considering the current fragmented situation throughout the Union, and the consequences it entails, should an EU-wide response be considered or should it be up to individual Member States to address the issue ?
  • Should the Commission be invited to present a new legislative initiative and if yes in what timeframe ?

 

NOTES

1        Directive 2006/24/EC on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC
3        It is recalled that the transposition did not go easily in certain Member States, as a number of national constitutional courts annulled the national transposition laws for being contrary to the Constitution or the European Convention on Human Rights and certain national parliaments raised serious concerns.
2        Judgement of the Court of justice of the European Union (CJEU) (Grand Chamber) “Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and others” of 8 April 2015 in joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12
4        The CJEU currently examines a preliminary ruling (pending Case C-203/15, lodged on 4 May 2015, Tele2 Sverige AB v. Post-och telestyrelsen ) on the compatibility of a national legislation (Swedish law in this case) to retain traffic data covering all persons, all means of electronic communication and all traffic data for the purpose of combating crime, with Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC (the e-privacy Directive), taking account of Articles 7, 8 and 15(1) of the Charter.
5        Directive 2002/58 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector
6        The current state of play is as follows: the transposition law of the Data Retention Directive has been invalidated in at least 11 Member States (AT, BE, BG, DE, LT, NL, PL, RO, SI, SK, UK). Amongst these, 9 countries have had the law invalidated by the Constitutional Court (AT, BE, BG, DE, SI, NL, PL, RO, SK). In 15 Member States (CY, CZ, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, LU, LV, MT, PT, SE) the domestic law on data retention remains in force, while they are still processing communication data.
7        Doc. 13085/15 and 13689/15
8        Doc. 11747/1/15 REV 1

THE NEW DIRECTIVE ON IMMIGRATION OF STUDENTS AND RESEARCHERS: A SMALL STEP OR A BIG LEAP FORWARD?

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EU LAW ANALYSIS (Monday, 23 November 2015)

by Steve Peers

For a number of years, the EU has aimed to attract highly-skilled non-EU migrants to its territory. However, the existing legislation on this issue – the researchers’ Directive, adopted in 2005, and the students’ Directive, adopted in 2004 – have only had a modest impact on attracting more students and researchers to the EU, according to the Commission’s reports (see here and here) on the two Directives, issued in 2011.

Consequently, the Commission proposed an overhaul of this legislation in 2013. The European Parliament (EP) and the Council recently agreed on the text of this proposal (for the text of the provisional version of the future Directive, see here; the final version will be ‘tidied up’ a little legally). As you would expect, the EP and the Council compromised between their respective positions (for those positions, see here and here), which I discussed in an earlier blog post.

I’ll examine first the background and content of the new Directive, then look at how effective it is likely to be in its objective on increasing the numbers of researchers and students coming from third States.

Background

The current students’ Directive also applies to the admission of school pupils on exchange programmes, unpaid trainees and volunteers, although Member States have an option to apply it to the latter three groups of migrants. The CJEU has ruled twice on the interpretation of this Directive. In  Sommer it ruled that Member States could not apply a labour-market preference test for students; in Ben Alaya case (discussed here), it ruled that Member States must admit students who comply with the rules on admission in the Directive. The same logically applies to the current researchers’ Directive. The UK and Denmark opted out of both Directives, while Ireland opted in to the researchers’ Directive. All three countries have opted out of the new law.

The new law

The new Directive merges the students’ and researchers’ Directives, making major changes to them both. First of all, the Commission proposed that Member States would be obliged to apply the currently optional rules relating to school pupils, unpaid trainees and volunteers, as well as rules on two new groups of migrants: au pairs and paid trainees. The EP agreed with this idea, while the Council rejected it entirely. Ultimately, the two institutions compromised: the new Directive will have binding rules on (paid and unpaid) trainees and some volunteers (those participating in the EU’s European Voluntary Service), although stricter conditions will apply to the admission of trainees (more on that below). However, the rules on other volunteers and school pupils will remain optional, along with the new rules on au pairs.

Next, the Commission proposed to limit Member States’ current power to apply more favourable rules for students and researchers, confining that power to only a few provisions relating to the rights of migrants, while fully harmonising the rules on admission. The final Directive accepts the basic principle that the power to set more favourable standards should be more limited that at present, but imposes fewer such constraints than the Commission wanted. Member States will be allowed to apply more favourable rules for the persons concerned as regards the time limits on their residence permits. Many of the conditions relating to admission and withdrawal or non-renewal of the right to stay will be optional, not mandatory (as the Commission had proposed), and the Council insisted on many additional options being added. A clause in the preamble sets out the Council’s wish to provide expressly that Member States can have rules on admission of other categories of students or researchers.

Against the Commission’s wishes, the final Directive provides that the current rules on delegating decision-making to research institutions or universities will remain. Furthermore, it adds that Member States can optionally delegate such powers as regards volunteers or trainees as well.

Trainees are defined (more restrictively than the current law) as those who have recently completed a degree (within the last two years), or who are currently undertaking one. Their time on the territory is limited to six months, although this can be longer if the traineeship is longer, and the authorisation can be renewed once. But Member States retain the power to set more favourable standards as regards these time limits.

One striking feature of the agreed Directive is a new right for students and researchers to stay after their research or study to look for work or self-employment. The EU institutions agreed on the principle of this right, but disagreed on the details. According to the Commission, the right should apply for a period of 12 months, although after 3 months Member States could check on the genuineness of this search, and after 6 months they could ask the migrant to prove that they have real prospects. The EP wanted to extend the period to 18 months, and to make Member States wait longer to check on the genuineness of the job search or likelihood of employment. On the other hand, the Council wanted several restrictions: to reduce the stay to 6 months; to allow Member States to limit students’ possibility to stay to those who have at least a Master’s degree; to check on the likelihood of employment after 3 months; and to give Member States an option to limit the job search to the areas of the migrant’s expertise. The final deal splits the difference on the period of extra stay (it will be 9 months), and accepts the various optional limits on the right which the Council wanted.

As for students’ right to work, the current Directive allows them to work for at least for 10 hours a week. The Commission proposed to let them work for 20 hours a week, and to drop the option to ban students from working during their first year of studies. The EP agreed with this, but the Council wanted to revert to the current 10-hour a week limit, and introduce a possible labour-market preference test (overturning Sommer). Again, the final deal splits the difference: 15 hours’ of work allowed per week, with no labour market preference test.

Another issue was equal treatment of those who work. Currently, the EU’s single permit Directive provides for equal treatment of most third-country nationals who are allowed to work, even if (like students) they were not admitted for employment. However, that Directive excludes au pairs from its scope, and only applies where the relationship is defined as ‘employment’ under national law; this will not always be the case for researchers. The new Directive will extend the equal treatment rules to students and researchers, even if they are not considered employees, and to au pairs whenever they are considered employees. Even non-employees will have equal treatment for goods and services (besides housing and public employment offices). But the new Directive will not waive any of the various exceptions to equal treatment that the single permit Directive currently provides for, besides a few minor exceptions for researchers.

Also, the new Directive will replace the weak rules on family reunion in the current researchers’ Directive with a fully-fledged right to family reunion. The EU’s family reunion Directive will apply to Directive will apply to researchers, and many of the restrictions in that Directive will be waived: the minimum waiting period; the need to show a reasonable prospect of permanent residence; the need to show integration requirements for family members before entry (those rules can still be applied after entry; on the CJEU’s interpretation of those rules, see here). There will also be a shorter deadline to process applications, and family members will have a longer period of authorised stay. The EP and Council compromised on the Commission’s proposal to waive the waiting period before family members could access the labour market: the Council wanted to delete this proposed rule entirely, but it agreed to it with a derogation for ‘exceptional circumstances such as particularly high levels of unemployment’. However, the EP got nowhere with its suggestion to extend these more favourable rules to the family members of students as well.

The Commission aimed to simplify the current rules on the movement (‘mobility’) of researchers and students between Member States for the purpose of their studies and research. It also proposed to extend those rules to paid trainees, while the EP wanted to extend those rules to cover unpaid trainees and volunteers as well. However, the Council prevailed on this issue, restricting the scope of these rules to researchers and students (as at present), and adding very complicated details to the proposal on this issue.

Finally, the Commission proposed to introduce a 60-day deadline to decide on applications for admission, shortened to 30 days for those benefiting from EU mobility programmes. (The current laws have no deadlines to decide on applications at all). The EP supported an even shorter period to decide on applications (30 days), while the Council wanted to raise the time limit to 90 days. Yet again, these institutions split the difference, with a 90-day general rule and a 60-day rule where institutions have been delegated the powers to decide on applicants.

Comments

The agreed Directive should be appraised in light of the Commission’s impact assessment report for the proposed Directive, which made detailed arguments for the amendments which the Commission proposed. This report provided evidence that students or researchers are attracted to a job-search period after the end of research or studies, as well as by further employment rights for students and for researchers’ family members. Certainly the new Directive addresses all of these issues to some extent.

Conversely, would-be migrants are deterred by the great variety of national rules and the rules on mobility between Member States.  On this point, the new Directive will only reduce the variety of national rules modestly, and will install mobility rules more complex than those applying at present.

Presumably, it is also a deterrent for would-be students and researchers who are already legally present to leave the country to make their applications. To address this, the EP wanted to oblige Member States to consider in-country applications for researchers, but ultimately it could not convince the Council (or the Commission) to change the existing rules, which give Member States only an option to allow this.

As for the additional scope of the Directive, it is striking that the new binding rules on admission only apply to trainees who are undertaking or who have completed higher education, and to volunteers in the EU’s own programme. The latter change in the law is necessary in order to ensure the effectiveness of that programme, but the former change in the law is another example of the EU focussing its migration policy upon highly qualified employees. (Remember that according to the preamble to the new Directive, the admission of trainees who have not entered higher education is left entirely to national discretion). It’s unfortunate that at least the rules on equal treatment aren’t binding for all volunteers, school pupils and au pairs, to ensure that these migrants are not exploited and that domestic labour standards are not undercut.

Many of the changes in the Directive intending to attract qualified migrants would make even more sense if they were part of a ‘joined up’ policy – for instance, allowing trainees to make an in-country application for studies or research, or waiving some of the conditions in the EU’s ‘Blue Card’ Directive for highly-skilled migrants (reducing the income threshold, for instance) for graduate trainees, researchers, and students looking for work under this new Directive. Fortunately, there will be a chance to address this issue in the near future, as the Commission will soon be proposing an amendment to the Blue Card Directive (on the reform of that Directive, see here).

Overall, then, the new Directive has gone some distance towards accomplishing its intended objectives, but its effect could be further augmented in the near future by a broader reform of EU law on highly-skilled immigration in general.

Fundamental Rights Agency :  Surveillance by intelligence  services: fundamental rights safeguards and remedies in the EU.  Mapping Member States’ legal frameworks

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY : FULL REPORT AVAILABLE HERE

 Introduction

Recent revelations of mass surveillance underscore the importance of mechanisms that help prevent fundamental rights violations in the context of intelligence activities.

This FRA report aims to evaluate such mechanisms in place across the European Union (EU) by describing the current legal framework related to surveillance in the 28 EU Member States. The report first outlines how intelligence services are organised, describes the various forms surveillance measures can take and presents Member States’ laws on surveillance. It then details oversight mechanisms introduced across the EU, outlines the work of entities set up thereunder, and presents various remedies available to individuals seeking to challenge surveillance efforts.

The report does not assess the implementation of the respective laws, but maps current legal frameworks. In addition, it provides an overview of relevant fundamental rights standards, focusing on the rights to privacy and data protection.

Background

In June 2013, media worldwide began publishing the ‘Snowden documents’, describing in detail several surveillance programmes being carried out, including by the United States’ National Security Agency (NSA) and by the United Kingdom’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). These brought to light the existence of extensive global surveillance. Details of these programmes, which set up a global system of digital data interception and collection, have been widely publicised 1 and critically assessed.2

Neither the US nor the British authorities questioned the authenticity of the revelations,3 and in some cases confirmed them.4 However, the media’s interpretation of the programmes was sometimes contested – for example, by the UK Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament 5 and academia.6

Since most of the Snowden revelations have not been recognised by the British government, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, in hearing challenges to the legality of the programmes, took the approach of hearing cases on the basis of hypothetical facts closely resembling those alleged by the media.7 For the Austrian Federal Agency for State Protection and Counter Terrorism (BVT), the Snowden revelations represented a “paradigm shift”: “Up until a few years ago, espionage was largely directed at state or business secrets, and not, for the most part, at people’s privacy, which can now be interfered with extensively by intelligence services since they possess the necessary technical resources to do so”. 8

The Snowden revelations were not the first to hint at the existence of programmes of large-scale communication surveillance set up in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks.9

But the magnitude of the revelations was unprecedented, potentially affecting the entire world.

The revelations triggered an array of reactions.10 In the intelligence community, and in particular among the specialised bodies in charge of overseeing the work of intelligence services, dedicated inquiries were conducted.11 The European Union reacted strongly.

The European Commission (EC), the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament (EP) reported on the revelations, expressing concern about mass surveillance programmes, seeking clarification from US authorities, and working on “rebuilding trust” in light of the damage created by the revelations.12

On 12 March 2014, the EP adopted a resolution on the US NSA surveillance programme, surveillance bodies in various Member States and their impact on EU citizens’ fundamental rights, and transatlantic cooperation in Justice and Home Affairs (the Resolution).13

The resolution drew on the in-depth inquiry that the EP tasked the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee (LIBE) to conduct during the second half of 2013, shortly after the revelations on mass surveillance were published in the press.14

The wide-reaching resolution launched a “European Digital Habeas Corpus”, aimed at protecting fundamental rights in a digital age while focusing on eight key actions. In this context, the EP called on the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) “to undertake in-depth research on the protection of fundamental rights in the context of surveillance, and in particular on the current legal situation of EU citizens with regard to the judicial remedies available to them in relation to those practices”.15

Scope of the analysis

This report constitutes the first step of FRA’s response to the EP request. It provides an overview of the EU Member States’ legal frameworks regarding surveillance. FRA will further consolidate its legal findings with fieldwork research providing data on the day-to-day implementation of the legal frameworks. A socio-legal report based on an empirical study, to be published at a later stage, will expand on the findings presented ere.

While the EP requested the FRA to study the impact of ‘surveillance’ on fundamental rights, given the context in which the resolution was drafted, it is clear that ‘mass surveillance’ is the main focus of the Parliament’s current work. During the data collection phase, FRA used the Parliament’s definition to delineate the scope of FRA net’s research.

The EP resolution refers to “far-reaching, complex and highly techno-logically advanced systems designed by US and some Member States’ intelligence services to collect, store and analyse communication data, including content data, location data and metadata of all citizens around the world, on an unprecedented scale and in an indiscriminate and non-suspicion-based manner” (Paragaph 1).

This definition encompasses two essential aspects: first, a reference to a collection technique, and second, the distinction between targeted and untargeted collection.

The report does not analyse the surveillance techniques themselves, but rather the legal frameworks that enable these techniques. For Member States that carry out signals intelligence, the focus of the analysis is on this capacity, and not on other intrusive capabilities the services may have (such as wiretapping).

This report covers the work of intelligence services. It does not address the obligations of commercial entities which, willingly or not, provide intelligence services with the raw data that constitute Signals Intelligence (SIGINT), and are otherwise involved in the implementation of the surveillance programmes.16 The private sector’s role in surveillance requires a separate study.

While the premise of this report is the existence of an interference, since the “secret monitoring of communications” interferes with privacy rights from a fundamental rights point of view,17 the report focuses on analysing the legal safeguards in place in the EU Member States’ legal frameworks, and therefore on their approaches to upholding fundamental rights.

“Assuming therefore that there remains a legal right to respect for the privacy of digital communications (and this cannot be disputed (see General Assembly Resolution 68/167)), the adoption of mass surveillance technology undoubtedly impinges on the very essence of that right.” UN, Human Rights Council, Emmerson, B. (2014), para. 18

The report’s analysis of EU Member States’ legal frameworks tries to keep law enforcement and intelligence services separate. By doing so, the report excludes the work of law enforcement from its scope, while recognising that making this division is not always easy.

As stated by Chesterman, “Governments remain conflicted as to the appropriate manner of dealing with alleged terrorists, the imperative to detect and prevent terrorism will lead to ever greater cooperation between different parts of government”.18 The EP resolution recognises this and called on the Europol Joint Supervisory Body (JSB) to inspect whether information and personal data shared with Europol have been lawfully acquired by national authorities, particularly if the data were initially acquired by intelligence services in the EU or a third country.19

The Snowden revelations have also shed light on cooperation between intelligence services. This issue, important for the oversight of intelligence services’ activities, has been addressed by the EP resolution (Paragraph 22), by oversight bodies,20 by the Venice Commission,21 and by academia.22

This aspect, however, proved impossible to analyse in a comparative study, since, in the great majority of cases, cooperation agreements or modalities for transferring data are neither regulated by law nor public. This in itself creates a fundamental rights issue linked to the rule of law and, more particularly, regarding the importance of the existence of a law that is accessible to the public, as well as regarding the rules governing the transfer of personal data to third countries.

Though this report could not deal with this aspect beyond referencing the lack of proper control by over-sight bodies, it does raise important questions under relevant legal standards.

Fundamental rights and safeguards Continue reading “Fundamental Rights Agency :  Surveillance by intelligence  services: fundamental rights safeguards and remedies in the EU.  Mapping Member States’ legal frameworks”