Category: 1. EU and MS legal Order and Institutional framework

Brexit: can the ECJ get involved?

ORIGINAL TEXT PUBLISHED ON EU LAW ANALYSIS

by Steve Peers

Today’s ruling by the High Court requires the government to obtain approval from Parliament if it wishes to trigger ‘Article 50’, ie the process of withdrawing from the European Union. This short post won’t focus on the national constitutional law issues, but on the process of possible involvement of the EU courts in Brexit disputes.

The government has announced its intention to appeal today’s ruling to the Supreme Court. Some have suggested that the case might then be ‘appealed’ to the ECJ, but this misunderstands the judicial system of the European Union. There is no ‘appeal’ from national courts to the ECJ. Rather a national court may suspend proceedings and ask the ECJ some questions relating to EU law that the national court believes it needs the answers to. After the ECJ gives the answers to those questions, the national court resumes its proceedings and gives its judgment in light of them. The ECJ normally takes about 16 months to give a ruling, although it could (and probably would) fast-track a case raising fundamental questions about Brexit.

What EU law questions arise in this case? The obvious one is whether a notification to leave the EU under Article 50 of the TEU can be revoked once it is given. This is relevant because at the heart of the UK case is a dispute about the ‘royal prerogative’, ie the underlying powers of the UK executive. The royal prerogative allows the executive to conduct international relations, including decisions relating to international treaties. But prior case law makes clear that the prerogative cannot extend to taking away rights conferred by Parliament. The High Court has ruled today that this is what would happen if the executive invoked Article 50, since rights are conferred by the European Communities Act.

Yet logically if an Article 50 notification is revocable, then the decision would arguably not as such necessarily lead to the removal of rights conferred by Parliament. Only the subsequent failure to revoke it would. The High Court assumed in its judgment that the notification was not revocable, but that’s only because the parties agreed on this. The claimants agreed that an Article 50 notification was irrevocable because otherwise it would have weakened their case. The government agreed, perhaps because it would have been politically awkward to argue the opposite.

But it’s not up to parties in a national proceeding to decide on what the correct interpretation of EU law is. Article 267 TFEU says that final national courts must send questions of EU law to the ECJ if necessary to give judgment. So the Supreme Court may decide that it wants to have this question answered.

The revocability of Article 50 is not just an issue in this litigation. It’s a broader political issue, since some politicians would like there to be another referendum before the UK fully leaves the EU, once the public knows the terms of exit. That’s only a feasible suggestion if it is possible to revoke an Article 50 notification once it’s made, given that the EU refuses to discuss the terms of exit with the UK until that notification is made.

What if the Supreme Court decides not to refer to the ECJ – is that the end of the matter? Not quite. Since the ECJ judgment in Kobler, it’s established that a Member State can be liable in damages if its supreme court gets EU law wrong without asking the ECJ questions about it. So individuals could go to a lower UK court claiming damages on this basis, and the lower court might deem it necessary to clarify the point by asking the ECJ about revocability, perhaps ordering the government not to make the Article 50 notification in the meantime.

There are several other possibilities for Brexit issues to come before the CJEU. It might be disputed what could be included within the scope of an Article 50 withdrawal agreement, and in particular whether this must be separate from a treaty on the post-Brexit EU/UK relationship. There might be other issues about that latter treaty; some say that the EU legally cannot negotiate one until the UK has fully left. Many say that the UK cannot negotiate trade deals with non-EU countries until it has left.

How could such issues reach the Court? Article 218 TFEU allows it to rule on future treaties between the EU and non-EU states, so in principle could be used. Any Member State, or the EU Commission, Council or Parliament, could invoke it. A lot of issues arise here, though. Does Article 218 apply to Article 50 at all – since the UK hasn’t left yet, and Article 50 only refers to some parts of Article 218? Is it too soon (for now) to ask about future treaties between the UK and EU, given that notification and negotiations haven’t happened yet?

Alternatively, Article 273 TFEU allows Member States to bring a dispute with each other about issues related to EU law to the CJEU by special agreement. However, the UK would have to be willing to use this provision, and it would have to find another Member State to agree to do so, in order to bring issues before the ECJ.

Other issues may arise about Brexit, even in other Member States’ national courts. An Irish court has already ruled that European Arrest Warrants issued by the UK are still valid in light of Brexit. But this issue is likely to keep arising. UK citizens living in the EU (and vice versa) might want to litigate the argument that they cannot lose their EU citizenship.

In any event, the status of British goods, services and citizens in the remaining EU will doubtless be raised in the EU courts after Brexit, either by means of interpreting EU/UK treaties and/or autonomous EU laws (governing non-EU migration, for instance).

It’s probably only a matter of time before some aspect of the Brexit issue gets decided by the EU courts; and there’s no small irony in that prospect.

BREXIT : UK High court says parliament must vote on triggering article 50

FULL TEXT HERE

Summary of the court judgement

Here is the full text of the official summary (pdf) of the high court judgemen from the Lord Chief Justice (Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd), the Master of the Rolls (Sir Terence Etherton) and Lord Justice Sales.

The question

1- The issue before the court is whether, as a matter of UK constitutional law, the Government is entitled to give notice of a decision to leave the European Union under Article 50 by exercise of the Crown’s prerogative powers and without reference to Parliament. This is a pure question of law. The court is not concerned with and does not express any view about the merits of leaving the European Union: that is a political issue.

2- It is accepted by all sides that this legal question is properly before the court and justiciable: under the UK constitution, it is one for the court to decide [5]. It turns on the extent of the Crown’s powers under its prerogative [explained at 24-29]. The Government accepts that neither the European Union Referendum Act 2015 nor any other Act of Parliament confers on it statutory authority (as distinct from the Crown’s prerogative power) to give notice under Article 50 [67-72, 76 and 105-108].

Background

3 – On 1 January 1973 the United Kingdom joined what were then the European Communities, including the European Economic Community. Parliament passed the European Communities Act 1972 (1972 Act) to allow that to happen since it was a condition of membership that Community law should be given effect in the domestic law of the United Kingdom and primary legislation was required to achieve this [1 and 36-54]. The European Communities have now become the European Union.

4 – Pursuant to the European Union Referendum Act 2015 a referendum was held on 23 June 2016 on the question whether the United Kingdom should leave or remain in the European Union. The answer given was that the UK should leave [2].

5- The process for withdrawal is governed by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which states that once a Member State gives notice to withdraw there is a two-year period in which to negotiate a withdrawal agreement. If no agreement is reached in this time then, subject only to agreement on an extension of time with the European Council acting unanimously, the EU Treaties shall cease to apply to that State. The Government accepts that a notice under Article 50 cannot be withdrawn once it has been given. It also accepts that Article 50 does not allow a conditional notice to be given: a notice cannot be qualified by stating that Parliament is required to approve any withdrawal agreement made in the course of Article 50 negotiations [9-17].

6 – Therefore, once notice is given under Article 50, some rights under EU law as incorporated into domestic law by the 1972 Act would inevitably be lost once the Article 50 withdrawal process is completed [57-66].

The constitutional principles

7 – The most fundamental rule of the UK’s constitution is that Parliament is sovereign and can make and unmake any law it chooses. As an aspect of the sovereignty of Parliament it has been established for hundreds of years that the Crown – i.e. the Government of the day – cannot by exercise of prerogative powers override legislation enacted by Parliament. This principle is of critical importance and sets the context for the general rule on which the Government seeks to rely – that normally the conduct of international relations and the making and unmaking of treaties are taken to be matters falling within the scope of the Crown’s prerogative powers. That general rule exists precisely because the exercise of such prerogative powers has no effect on domestic law, including as laid down by Parliament in legislation [18-36].

8 – In the present case, however, the Government accepts, and indeed positively contends, that if notice is given under Article 50 it will inevitably have the effect of changing domestic law. Those elements of EU law which Parliament has made part of domestic law by enactment of the 1972 Act will in due course cease to have effect [76-80].

9 – The central contention of the Government in the present case is that Parliament must be taken to have intended when it enacted the 1972 Act that the Crown would retain its prerogative power to effect a withdrawal from the Community Treaties (now the EU Treaties), and thereby intended that the Crown should have the power to choose whether EU law should continue to have effect in the domestic law of the UK or not [76-81].

Conclusion

10 – The Court does not accept the argument put forward by the Government. There is nothing in the text of the 1972 Act to support it. In the judgment of the Court the argument is contrary both to the language used by Parliament in the 1972 Act and to the fundamental constitutional principles of the sovereignty of Parliament and the absence of any entitlement on the part of the Crown to change domestic law by the exercise of its prerogative powers [82-94, 97-104]. The Court expressly accepts the principal argument of the claimants [95-96].

11 – For the reasons set out in the judgment, we decide that the Government does not have power under the Crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union.

A guide to EU procedures for the conclusion of international trade agreements (EP Briefing)

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED HERE

by  Laura Puccio (European Parliament Members’ Research Service)

SUMMARY

The European Union (EU) was the world’s biggest exporter and importer of goods and services in 2015, representing 32.51 % of global trade in goods and services. The USA and China, meanwhile, accounted for 12.01 % and 10.68 % respectively. The EU has been negotiating trade agreements since the 1970s, then as the European Communities. Over time it has diversified its trading partners, and is now negotiating trade agreements with partners from every continent. The content of trade agreements has also evolved as EU trade competences have developed. The EU is currently in the process of amending and modernising some of its older trade agreements and is working on some of the most ambitious trade agreements since its inception (such as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with Canada and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the USA).The Lisbon Treaty modified both the EU’s competences in trade and the procedure for concluding trade agreements, giving a stronger role to the European Parliament. This briefing looks at how trade negotiations are conducted and concluded in the EU, and discusses some of the key issues in the current EU trade policy debate.

 

In this briefing:

1.Background
2.Negotiations
3.EU competences, mixed agreements and the legal basis for Council decisions regarding trade agreements
4. Signature and provisional application
5. Conclusion of trade agreements

Background

In 2015, the EU-28 was the largest global exporter and importer of goods and services, representing 32.51 % of total world trade in goods and services (Source: World Bank data), while the US and China represented 12.01 % and 10.68 % respectively.
The EU has been negotiating trade agreements since the 1970s, back then as the European Communities. Originally focused on European, African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) and Mediterranean trade partners, the EU now negotiates with partners on every continent. From the point of view of substance, the content of trade agreements has evolved, from mainly agreements on trade in goods, instituting free trade areas, to agreements including WTO+ commitments1 in a wide range of areas (such as services, intellectual property rights, investment and regulatory cooperation). The EU has started a great number of negotiations in order either to modernise older agreements (such as those with Mediterranean countries and with Mexico and Chile), or to negotiate new bilateral agreements with Asian, Oceanic and North American partners, as well as to advance the multilateral trading system (through the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) or the Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA) for instance).
The evolution in the content of trade agreements reflects that of EU competences in trade, but has raised several questions as to whether the more recent agreements fall entirely within EU competence and, consequently, whether ratification at national level is required. Moreover, growing criticism and political debate at national level have raised some procedural issues, such as whether an individual EU Member State can stop EU negotiations, and what happens if one Member State does not ratify a trade agreement.
The procedures for concluding international agreements are mainly set out in Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). In the case of trade agreements, rules are also to be found in the specific provisions of Article 207 (TFEU) dealing with common commercial policy and any other article mentioned as a legal basis in the Council decisions to sign and to conclude a given trade agreement.

Figure 1: State of play of EU trade relations

eu-trade

Source: European Commission, DG Trade, 2016.

EPRS      EU procedures for conclusion of international trade agreements

treatiesworkflow1

Negotiations

 TTIP negotiations: can a single Member State stop the negotiations?

The negotiating directive establishing the Commission negotiating mandate for TTIP was adopted by the Council on 17 June 2013, launching the negotiations. The EU and the USA concluded the 15th round of negotiations in October 2016.

At the end of August 2016, the French minister for foreign trade expressed his government’s wish to request a halt in the TTIP negotiations at the informal Council meeting of 22-23 September. Member States are divided on the issue and 12 Member States clearly expressed their opposition to the French proposal. After the meeting on 23 September, the Slovak Prime Minister declared that the TTIP negotiations would continue but that it was unrealistic to finalise an agreement before the end of US President Barack Obama’s term in office.

The Council can withdraw or suspend the negotiating mandate for a trade negotiation but only on the basis of Article 218 TFEU, which requires a qualified majority (see below for details of the Council’s voting procedure). In general, the Council always tries to take decisions by consensus (i.e. with the agreement of all parties) if the decision concerns shared competences.

Before negotiations begin, the Commission first holds a public consultation and conducts what is known as a scoping exercise. The scoping exercise is a series of informal dialogues with the other country (or countries, if the agreement is inter-regional) on what could be the broad lines of the content of the negotiations between the parties.

If after the scoping exercise the Commission considers it appropriate to open negotiations on a trade agreement with the country/countries, it then makes recommendations to that end to the Council on the basis of Article 207(3) TFEU. The Council must give a green light to the start of the negotiations by adopting a decision on the basis of Articles 207(3) and 218(2) TFEU. The Council also issues a negotiating mandate detailing the area in which the Commission is authorised to negotiate.

Under Article 207(3) TFEU, the Commission is in charge of conducting negotiations, reporting to the Council’s Trade Policy Committee (TPC). The negotiating team is led by a chief negotiator and includes experts covering all the topics of the negotiation. While the Commission’s DG Trade takes the lead, experts may come from other DGs within the Commission. Negotiations are conducted in rounds, but meetings and contacts between lead negotiators and experts continue outside these. In its guide to trade negotiation procedures, the Commission considers the duration of negotiations to be two to three years on average. The negotiations are conducted on the basis of multiple and specific negotiating directives that the Council issues on the basis of Articles 207 and 218 TFEU. These frame the position that the EU must hold during the negotiations.

With TTIP, the Commission began publishing the EU’s text proposals online; these are the EU’s proposals for the drafting of concrete provisions within the various chapters of the agreement. The text proposals that the Commission drafts must be agreed with the Council before they can be tabled for discussions with the other party (parties) to the negotiations.

Often forgotten but fundamental, Article 207(3) makes the Council and Commission jointly responsible for ensuring that the agreement negotiated is compatible with internal EU policies and rules.

The European Parliament’s role in negotiations

While the European Parliament has no formal role in starting and conducting trade negotiations, the TFEU imposes a duty of information: the European Parliament must be informed immediately and fully at all stages of the procedures. Moreover, the fact that the European Parliament has to give its consent at the end of the negotiations, has made it necessary to discuss some EU positions in the negotiations with the European Parliament first, in order for the Commission to verify the existence of political support. The Commission therefore reports regularly to both the European Parliament and the TPC. While it has no legal obligation to do so, Parliament will often signal its political position by issuing a resolution. In the past, the European Parliament has adopted resolutions on the opening of negotiations, either prior to or after the issuing of the negotiating mandate These resolutions give an initial sense of Parliament’s political stance on the negotiations, and set out the main concerns that Parliament wants the Commission to include or exclude from the scope of the negotiations (e.g. the resolution adopted on TTIP in 2013). EP resolutions can be issued during the negotiations in order for Parliament to give the Commission recommendations on the future development of the negotiations (e.g. the resolution adopted on TTIP in 2015). The Commission is not legally bound to follow the EP’s recommendations but given that EP consent is needed to adopt the agreement, it does take them into account when devising the EU positions and discussing them with the Council or the other party.

Ex ante sustainability impact assessments during the negotiations have become the norm for all major multilateral and bilateral EU trade negotiations since 1999, when the EU began incorporating the concept of sustainable development into the definition and planning of its trade policy. Sustainability impact assessments (SIAs) comprise a consultation process and analysis by independent organisations (think-tanks or universities) to assess the potential economic, social, human rights and environmental impacts that a trade agreement could have. SIAs are carried out after the scoping exercise, as the latter defines the scope of the negotiations and will indirectly define the SIA’s coverage.

When negotiations reach the final stage, i.e. parties have agreed in principle on a single text, the European Parliament and Council are informed and legal scrubbing starts to ensure that the text is legally coherent. Some minor changes may still occur at this stage. Once legal scrubbing is complete, the text is initialled, i.e. the chief negotiators from each party place their initials on every page of the agreement to signify that this is the agreed text. Initialling does not amount to the text being legally binding. In order to enter into force an agreement must be signed and ratified. To start such a procedure, the EU needs to define the legal basis for the trade agreement, which determine who has competence in the EU to ratify the treaty.

EU competences, mixed agreements and the legal basis for Council decisions regarding trade agreements

The various types of EU competence and their implications for trade agreements

The EU is based on the principle of conferral; in other words the EU acts within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Treaties. There are different types of competence that can influence the way in which procedures for concluding an agreement unfold. These are: exclusive competences,2 shared competences3 and concurrent competences.4 Whenever an international agreement includes shared competences or concurrent competences or Member States’ competences, then the agreement is said to be ‘mixed’. Whenever a trade agreement also contains provisions belonging to shared competences, it is concluded as a mixed agreement. While for agreements falling under exclusive EU competence the EU ratification procedure (explained below) is sufficient to ensure the entry into force of the agreement, mixed agreements must be ratified by EU Member States in accordance with their domestic ratification procedures. Domestic procedures vary from Member State to Member State. In federal Member States, ratification procedures also involve approval by the chamber of the national parliament representing the regions (such as the Bundesrat in Germany) or the approval of the regional and community parliaments (as in the case of Belgium), whenever competences of sub-federal entities are concerned by the agreement. While mixed agreements concluded by the EU and only some EU Member States (called partial or incomplete mixity) do exist, trade agreements concluded as mixed agreements (such as association agreements) require the participation of all Member States.

The evolution of trade competences and recent EU trade agreements

The common commercial policy (CCP), which defines EU trade policy, has always been an exclusive competence of the EU, however the content of the CCP has evolved over time. While services and intellectual property rights were originally considered shared competences, the Lisbon Treaty includes all services and commercial aspects of intellectual property rights within the CCP’s scope (Article 207(1) TFEU).

Article 207(1) TFEU also introduces foreign direct investment to the list of CCP competences. This evolution in the scope of CCP has led the Commission to consider whether it can conclude that some trade agreements focusing on purely commercial matters (including investment provisions) fall under exclusive EU competence. The argument of the Commission is contested by most Member States who consider that those agreements must be concluded as mixed. The main controversy between the Council and the Commission concerns whether investment now falls under exclusive EU competence. On the one hand, Member States consider that CCP covers only foreign direct investment (FDI) and not portfolio investments. However the Commission derives an implicit exclusive competence on portfolio investments from third countries from a rule in the internal market prohibiting the introduction of barriers at Member State level to capital flows and payments from third countries. For that reason the European Commission asked for an opinion of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) to decide on the nature of the EU competence to conclude the EU-Singapore agreement. A hearing has been held and the opinion is expected for either late 2016 or early 2017. The CJEU opinion will formally only affect the EU-Singapore agreement, but could influence the choice of the competence (exclusive or mixed) for other agreements (such as the EU-Vietnam agreement).

The concept of mixity in EU agreements and the choice of legal basis

The decision with respect to the mixed character of an agreement depends on the legal basis given to that agreement, which also defines the main competences involved. When the Commission proposes a Council decision to sign, conclude or provisionally apply a Treaty, it must also propose a legal basis, which will define the nature of the agreement (exclusive or mixed). The legal basis is usually discussed with Member States and it is normally in the Commission’s interests to agree with the Member States on this point.

The Council can always modify the Commission proposal in accordance with Article 293(1) TFEU, which requires unanimity. A proposal can remain blocked if the Council decides not to act. This can happen in situations where the Council is divided on the issue of legal basis (i.e. no unanimity is reached to modify the Commission proposal), and it cannot reach a qualified majority (or unanimity, depending on the procedure required by the legal basis in the original proposal) to pass the act as is. In that case, the Commission can modify its proposal at any time in order to unblock the situation (Article 293(2) TFEU).

 Understanding the political and legal implications of the legal basis: the case of CETA

There were divergent opinions on whether the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement negotiated between the EU and Canada should be concluded as a mixed agreement. The Commission considered that CETA fell under exclusive EU competence as in the case of the EU-Singapore agreement. The Commission was reported therefore to favour the idea of submitting a Council decision on CETA as an EU-only agreement with CCP as the sole legal basis. However, after discussing the matter informally with the Member States, the Commission ultimately decided to submit it as a mixed agreement. (See also: W. Schöllmann, Is CETA a mixed agreement?, EPRS ‘at a glance’ note, July 2016)

Signature and provisional application

Once the Council has adopted the decision to sign the treaty, a date for its signature can be chosen. In practice, for mixed agreements, the EU and the Member States sign the treaty simultaneously. Signature signals the intention to conclude, it does not conclude the agreement as such.

The possibility for an international treaty to apply provisionally under EU law is set out under Article 218(5) TFEU, which provides for the Council decision on provisional application to be taken simultaneously with the Council decision to sign the treaty.

In theory, under Article 218(5) TFEU, the decision on provisional application can take place even before the treaty is concluded at EU level, i.e. before the EP gives its consent and the Council adopts the decision to conclude the treaty in accordance with Article 218(6). However, in practice (since the South Korea FTA),5 provisional application is enforced only after hearing the European Parliament’s position on the agreement or even only after the European Parliament has given its consent to conclusion. Consequently, the Commission normally submits the draft decisions to the Council simultaneously: the draft decision to sign, that to provisionally apply the treaty and one for the conclusion of the treaty.

CETA: provisional application

Provisional application of CETA will be effective from the first day of the month after the parties have notified each other that they have completed the domestic procedures necessary for provisional application. The procedure in the EU is contained in Article 218(5) TFEU. In line with EU practice, the decision on the provisional application of CETA, if adopted by the Council, will be applied only after the EP has taken a position on the agreement.

The main discussions in Council concerning the provisional application of CETA focus on its scope. The draft Council decision on provisional application of CETA, submitted by the Commission, does not refer to any specific provisions, thus provisional application would refer to the whole treaty.

In order to modify the scope of this decision, the Council needs to act by unanimity (pursuant to Article 293(1) TFEU) or has to agree with the Commission that it submit a new proposal for a Council decision. Furthermore, partial provisional application requires the agreement of Canada. Indeed under Article 30(7)(3)(b) CETA, Canada can object to partial provisional application of the treaty and either decide not to allow provisional application of the treaty or to propose unilaterally to exclude equivalent provisions from provisional application.

While a decision on the matter is yet to be reached, a proposal was circulated in the Council on 5 October 2016. This would exclude, inter alia, part of the investment and financial services chapters. It also requires provisional application of sustainable development chapters, as only provisions falling under EU competences, as these do, can be provisionally applied.

The provisional application of mixed agreements negotiated by the EU takes place, however, before the completion of ratification procedures at the Member State level. This makes sense as the entire rationale of provisional application is to allow for application while waiting for the completion of the ratification procedure. However provisional application under Article 218(5) TFEU can only be granted for provisions relating to EU competence and cannot include Member State competences unless all the Member States have agreed to it separately. Decisions on the provisional application of a mixed agreement in its entirety usually include a statement clarifying that Member States have given their agreement with respect to their competences.

Conclusion of trade agreements

For trade agreements, the special procedure under Article 218(6) TFEU is applied. This procedure requires the European Parliament’s consent.6 Once Parliament has given its consent, the Council can then adopt a decision to conclude the agreement following the procedure and voting rules set out in Article 218(6) and Article 218(8) TFEU respectively. As mentioned above, mixed agreements also require the agreement to be ratified at national level by Member States. In the case of mixed agreements, the treaty enters into force only when the non-EU trade partner, the EU and all Member States have exchanged ratification instruments.

Voting procedure in the Council

Voting procedure in Council under Article 218(8) TFEU

EU-Ukraine Association Agreement: provisional application and ratification procedure

The EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, negotiated between 2007 and 2012, has been partly provisionally applied since 2014, while the provisional application of the commercial part of the Association Agreement began on 1 January 2016. The provisional application currently applies only to EU competences. In order to enter fully into force, the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, being a mixed agreement, requires the ratification procedure to be complete at EU and also at Member State level. At EU level, the EP has given its consent for the Council to conclude the agreement in two different resolutions (one covering treatment of third-country nationals and one covering the other provisions). The Council is waiting for the Member States to finalise the ratification process in order to formally adopt its decision on the conclusion of the agreement. All Member States, with the exception of the Netherlands, have ratified the Treaty.

The Netherlands held an advisory referendum on the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement on 6 April 2016, which yielded a negative result (over 61 % of the voters rejected the ratification of the Association Agreement (AA) between the EU and Ukraine, though turnout was low, at only 32 %). The referendum was an advisory referendum and as such has not put an end to the ratification procedure in the Netherlands. However, should the Netherlands notify its intention not to ratify the agreement, this would then signify that the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement could not enter into force in its present form. Under Article 25 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, provisional application can only remain pending the entry into force of a treaty. If ratification fails and entry into force of the treaty becomes impossible, provisional application would also have to be lifted. Suspension of the provisional application would have to be carried out in accordance with Article 218(9) TFEU and the notification procedure under Article 486(7) of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement. As has been done in the past, the Commission could argue on the basis of the duty of cooperation that the provisional application, which concerns EU competences only, should be maintained in order to allow renegotiation and to find a mutually acceptable solution.

The voting rule for Council decisions is contained in Article 218(8) TFEU. It refers to the Council voting procedure throughout the entire process of negotiating and concluding international agreements under Article 218 TFEU. These voting rules therefore apply equally to Council decisions taken pursuant to Article 218(5) TFEU in order to sign and provisionally apply a treaty, and to Council decisions taken pursuant to Article 218(6) TFEU to conclude an agreement. Although in practice the Council tries to take all decisions regarding shared competences on the basis of the ‘common accord’ of all Member States (i.e. by consensus), the voting procedure under the TFEU does not depend on the nature of the agreement but on the competences and legal basis upon which the agreement is adopted.

Article 218(8) TFEU states that qualified majority must be used throughout international agreement negotiation and conclusion procedures. There are some exceptions to this qualified majority rule; these include the following situations or agreements.

  • Fields for which unanimity is required for the adoption of a Union act: Any measure which requires unanimity for the purpose of EU internal legislation, will also require unanimity for any decisions taken under Article 218 TFEU. In practice, this rule provides for parallel decision-making on external policy and EU internal legislative procedures. This rule on parallelism ensures that the EU internal legislation procedure requiring   unanimity   for   certain   measures   is   not circumvented by the conclusion of similar measures within an international agreement under Article 218 TFEU.
  • Association agreements
  • Agreements referred to in Article 212 TFEU (i.e. economic, financial and technical cooperation arrangements) with states that are candidates for accession
  • Accession of the Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.7

The parallel internal and external decision-making provided for under Article 218(8) TFEU requires analysis of all fields mentioned in the legal basis chosen for the decisions to sign and conclude the agreement in order to understand which voting rule applies.

The trade legal basis under Article 207 TFEU and its voting procedure

The relevant rules for common commercial policy agreements and measures always include Article 207(4) TFEU (in addition to other legal bases, such as the transport legal basis in CETA). Article 207(4) TFEU normally requires qualified majority but it specifies that the Council must take its decision by unanimity for the following measures.

  • In the field of trade in services and the commercial aspects of intellectual property, as well as foreign direct investment, where such agreements include provisions for which unanimity is required for the adoption of internal rules: this is another formulation of the parallelism between internal and external decision-making procedures in order to avoid circumvention of unanimity in the internal rules via external relations agreements. However, the impact of this provision may be rather limited. There are few internal legal bases requiring unanimity in these fields. Article 118 TFEU requires unanimity only for regulations establishing language arrangements for European intellectual property rights, whereas qualified majority remains the rule under the same Article 118 TFEU for measures establishing the creation of measures for the ‘uniform protection of intellectual property rights throughout the Union and for the setting up of centralised Union-wide authorisation, coordination and supervision arrangements’.8 Other internal market provisions requiring unanimity include: Article 113 TFEU on tax harmonisation, Article 115 TFEU on approximation of laws and Article 64(2) TFEU on the introduction of restrictions to capital movements.9 If the agreement in question incorporates provisions covering one of these types of measure then unanimity will be required.
  • Unanimity is also required for EU actions in the field of trade in cultural and audiovisual services where there is a risk of prejudicing the Union’s cultural diversity. Again this provision has a rather limited impact on the conclusion of trade agreements. Unanimity only applies if there are measures related to trade in cultural and audiovisual services and where there is risk of prejudicing the Union’s cultural The EU has sometimes omitted the field of cultural and audiovisual services from negotiations in its entirety (exception culturelle) as is the case for TTIP (where the audiovisual sector is excluded from the negotiating mandate). Other agreements include a protocol on cultural cooperation aiming for instance to implement, in the context of those agreements, the Unesco Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. Still, even in those agreements where provision is made for cultural cooperation, cultural and audiovisual services are carved out from the services commitments or are included in specific reservations so that there can be no risk of prejudicing cultural diversity.
  • Unanimity is also required for EU actions in the field of trade in social, education and health services where there is a serious risk of disturbing the organisation of these services at national level. These social, education and health services are subject to several reservations in the Treaties so as to prevent trade agreement commitments from having any negative impact on them.

Main references

Devuyst, Youri, ‘European Union Law and Practice in the Negotiation and Conclusion of International Trade Agreements’, Journal of International Business and Law, 12: 259 (2013)
Eeckhout, Piet, EU External Relations Law, Oxford University Press, 2011
Hillion, Christophe, Koutrakos, Panos, Mixed Agreements Revisited, Hart Publishing, 2010
Koutrakos, Panos, EU International Relations Law, Hart Publishing, 2015Endnotes
1 WTO+ commitments are commitments in trade agreements that go beyond those made at the WTO. In some literature a distinction is made between commitments in trade agreements that extend liberalisation commitments already existing at WTO level (WTO+) and commitments that deal with issues not covered by WTO law (WTO extra).
See: H. Horn, P. C. Mavroidis and A. Sapir, ‘EU and US Preferential Trade Agreements’, in Preferential Trade Agreements: A Law and Economics Analysis, Kyle W. Bagwell, Petros C. Mavroidis (eds), Cambridge University Press, 2011.
2 Exclusive competences of the EU signify a complete transfer of competences from the Member States to the EU; the existence of an EU exclusive competence means that Member States cannot act on their own unless an EU regulation allows for Member State actions.
3 Shared competences are competences that fall within the remit of both the EU and the Member States. EU action in these competences pre-empts any action on the part of the Member States, in other words, Member States cannot act unilaterally if action is being undertaken at EU level.
4 Concurrent competences are EU competences to support, coordinate or supplement Member States’ action; these EU competences co-exist with Member States’ competences.
5 Youri Devuyst, ‘The European Parliament and International Trade Agreements: Practice after the Lisbon Treaty’, in The European Union in the World: Essays in honour of Marc Maresceau, I. Govaere, E. Lannon, P. Elseweghe and S. Adam (eds), Martinus Nijhoff Publisher, 2014.
6 Parliament gives its consent in accordance with Rules 108 and 99 of its Rules of Procedure.
7 The Court of Justice of the European Union issued an opinion in 2014 on the draft agreement for EU accession to the ECHR, considering it not in line with EU law.
8 On the relevance or not of this provision to the decision-making procedure under Article 218(8) TFEU, see C Pitschas, ‘Economic Partnership Agreement and EU trade policy: objectives, competences, and implementation’, in J. Drexl, EU bilateral trade agreements and intellectual property for the better or worse, H. Grosse, R. Khan, S. Nadde-Phlix (eds)
Springer, 2013, p. 222.
9 See also: Panos Koutrakos, EU International Relations Law, Hart Publishing, 2015, p. 135.

Disclaimer and Copyright The content of this document is the sole responsibility of the author and any opinions expressed therein do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. It is addressed to the Members and staff of the EP for their parliamentary work. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the European Parliament is given prior notice and sent a copy.
© European Union, 2016. Photo credits: © gustavofrazao / Fotolia.
eprs@ep.europa.eu
http://www.eprs.ep.parl.union.eu (intranet) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank (internet) http://epthinktank.eu (blog)

INVESTMENT COURT SYSTEM IN CETA TO BE JUDGED BY THE ECJ

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EU LAW BLOG  ON OCTOBER 31, 2016 (EMPHASIS ARE ADDED)
By Laurens Ankersmit

 

Last Thursday, the leaders of the Belgian federal government and the regional and community governments reached a compromise deal  over the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). One of the key outcomes is that the Belgian federal government will seek the Opinion of the European Court of Justice on the compatibility of the Investment Court System (ICS) in Chapter Eight of CETA with the Treaties. As soon as the Belgian federal government makes the request for an Opinion, the Court will be able to express itself on this contentious legal issue. In this post, I will provide some background on the origins of the Walloon request before explaining why ICS could potentially pose a legal problem for the EU.

Wallonia’s longstanding resistance against CETA and the resolution of 25 April of 2016

To insiders, the resistance put up by Wallonia in particular should have been no surprise. Over the past few years, the Walloon and Brussels parliaments have had extensive debates on the merits of CETA and have been increasingly critical of the deal. One of the main and more principled sources of opposition was the inclusion of ICS in CETA, a judicial mechanism that allows foreign investors to sue governments over a breach of investor rights contained in the agreement.

In the Walloon parliament this resulted in the adoption of a resolution on the 25thof April of this year (6 months ago) listing the key problems Wallonia has in relation to CETA. In that resolution the very first request by the Walloon government was to ask the Belgian federal government:

“de solliciter l’avis de la Cour de justice européenne (CJE) sur la compatibilité de l’accord avec les Traités  européens  sur  la  base  de  l’article  218  (11)  du TFUE  pour  éviter  qu’un  accord  incompatible  avec  les Traités européens soit conclu et de ne pas procéder à la ratification de cet accord tant que la CJE ne s’est pas prononcée.”

In other words, the Walloon parliament wanted to know whether ICS is compatible with the EU Treaties, and asked the Belgian federal government to make use of the procedure of Article 218 (11) TFEU to request the CJEU’s opinion on the issue. In the words of the Court, that procedure ‘has the aim of forestalling complications which would result from legal disputes concerning the compatibility with the Treaties of international agreements binding upon the European Union’. In particular, the advantage of the procedure was to avoid ‘serious difficulties’ for both the EU internally and for third parties that would result from a successful challenge of the agreement after its entry into force (paras. 47-48 Opinion 1/09).

Wallonia could not make this request itself, as this power is reserved to the federal level of the Belgian government. However, Belgium is in many ways a ‘little Europe’ as its regional governments need to authorize federal action at the international level in a number of fields, including trade. As a result, Wallonia had to broker a deal with the federal government of Belgium in exchange for authorising Belgium’s signature to CETA.

 Is ICS compatible with the Treaties?

The Walloon request did not come out of the blue. The issue of the compatibility of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) and ICS (a form of ISDS) with the Treaties has been a contentious issue among EU law insiders for a while. Recently 101 law professors objected to ICS in an open letter because ICS is

“in strong tension with the rule of law and  democratic  principles  enshrined  in  national  constitutions  and  European  law.  Additionally, [ICS is] likely to affect the autonomy of the European Union’s legal order, as the investment tribunals’ binding and enforceable decisions on state liability threaten the effective and uniform application of EU law.”

An increasing number of academic contributions have also raised this issue (see here, here, here, here and here for instance). Even ISDS’s staunchest supportershave recognized that there is a serious legal issue when it comes to the compatibility of ISDS with EU law. The European Association of Judges(representing 44 national associations of judges) and the German Association of Judges (representing 16 0000 German judges and public prosecutors) have opposed ICS inter alia on the ground that the system might not be compatible with EU law.

Within the EU institutions and bodies, the compatibility of ISDS/ICS has clearly also been an issue. The European Parliament in its TTIP resolution of 8 July of last year called upon the Commission to ensure that the “jurisdiction of courts of the EU and of the Member States is respected.” In a praiseworthy feat of transparency, the opinion of the Legal Service of the European Parliament on the issue of compatibility was published this summer (see for a critical assessment of that opinion here).

The European Economic and Social Committee in an Opinion adopted on 27 May 2015 also stated that:

“[There] are considerable EU treaty-related and constitutional law concerns regarding the relations of ISDS ruling with the EU legal order. Private arbitration courts have the capacity to make rulings which do not comply with EU law or infringe the CFR [Charter of Fundamental Rights]. For this reason, the EESC feels that it is absolutely vital for compliance of ISDS with EU law to be checked by the ECJ in a formal procedure for requesting an opinion, before the competent institutions reach a decision and before the provisional entry into force of any IIAs, negotiated by the EC.”

The legal service of the European Commission has itself been busy fighting intra-EU bilateral investment treaties containing ISDS. In addition to a number of ongoing infringement proceedings, the legal service also wrote several amicus curiae briefs contesting the jurisdiction of the investment tribunals. In the Achmeacase, for instance, the Commission wrote:

There are some provisions of the Dutch-Slovak BIT that raise fundamental questions regarding compatibility with EU law. Most prominent among these are the provisions of the BIT providing for an investor-State arbitral mechanism (set out in Art. 8), and the provisions of the BIT providing for an inter-State arbitral mechanism (set out in Art. 10). These provisions conflict with EU law on the exclusive competence of the EU court[s] for claims which involve EU law, even for claims where EU law would only partially be affected. The European Commission must therefore […] express its reservation with respect to the Arbitral Tribunal’s competence to arbitrate the claim brought before it by Eureko B.V.’ (see para. 193 of the award)

The autonomy of the EU legal order and the preliminary reference procedure as the keystone of Europe’s judicial system

 So what are the main legal issues underlying ICS and EU law? It is clear that the Treaties in principle permit international agreements providing for state-to-state dispute settlement between the EU and third countries (such as the WTO’s dispute settlement body). Such state-to-state dispute settlement mechanisms do not encroach on the powers of the ECJ, because TFEU Part Six, title 1, chapter 1, section 5 does not grant the EU courts the power to hear such disputes.

However, when it comes to claims by individuals involving questions of EU law, the situation is radically different. The preliminary reference procedure in article 267 TFEU gives the courts of the Member States and the European Court of Justice important powers to resolve such cases. In fact, the ECJ itself refers to this procedure as the ‘keystone’ of the EU’s judicial system. It is perhaps important to recall that Article 267 TFEU was central to the ECJ’s reasoning when it found that the Treaties constituted ‘a new legal order’ that gives individuals, not just the Member States, rights and obligations whose uniform interpretation the European Court of Justice oversees.

The ECJ has made clear in no uncertain terms that it has the exclusive power to give definitive interpretations of EU law and therefore ensure the uniform interpretation of EU law across Europe (See Opinion 2/13, paras. 244-248).However, as a fundamental purpose of ICS in CETA is to enable investors to challenge not only EU acts and decisions based on these acts, but also national acts which might involve EU law somehow, an ICS tribunal would have to interpret and give meaning to EU law. Similarly to the context of human rights law, ICS will therefore encroach on the powers of the EU courts to rule on questions of EU law. Furthermore, ICS in CETA does not require the exhaustion of domestic remedies, which would soften the risk of divergent interpretation as well as respect the powers of the courts of the Member States to hear claims by individuals involving questions of EU law. ICS in CETA also does not require prior involvement of the ECJ for questions of EU law faced by these ICS tribunals.

CETA’s safeguards

 To be sure, the Commission has implicitly admitted and sought to address this problem in CETA. In contrast to the EU – Singapore FTA, article 8.31 (2) CETA states that tribunals ‘may consider’ domestic law ‘as a matter of fact’. The provision continues by stating  that in ‘doing so, the Tribunal shall follow the prevailing interpretation given to the domestic law by the courts or authorities of that Party and any meaning given to domestic law by the Tribunal shall not be binding upon the courts or the authorities of that Party.’

The question is whether these provisions are sufficient. For one, it is hard to see how law can be considered ‘as a matter of fact’ since law is a social construction. This approach likely derives from international law circles to make international law more acceptable to domestic legal systems. However, as CETA will become an integral part of the EU legal order this concept will find its way into EU law with potentially problematic consequences. What if the highest courts in the Member States no longer feel required to make preliminary references because they can consider EU law as a matter of fact, as these tribunals are allowed to do?

For another, following the prevailing interpretation given to EU law, begs the question what happens if no such interpretation exists. CILFIT makes clear that this is anything but an exceptional situation.

Lastly, one may wonder whether stipulating that interpretation of domestic law is not binding is sufficient, considering the considerable financial consequences of the awards that are themselves binding and the fact that ICS contains an appeal mechanism, in which the appeal tribunal can further solidify a particular interpretation of EU law.

 Potential negative consequences for the EU’s Internal market

 ICS in CETA also poses challenges for the proper functioning of the EU’s internal market rules. CETA’s ICS provides for a discriminatory remedy contrary to articles 45, 54, and 56 TFEU, because Canadian investors can bring claims on behalf of their EU incorporated companies. For example, a Canadian-owned Slovak company could be privileged over a Dutch company operating in Slovakia, because the Canadian-owned Slovak company would have recourse to an alternative form of dispute settlement not available to the Dutch company. Moreover, ICS awards can counteract national and EU provisions imposing financial burdens on individuals and corporations (including provisions on fees, taxes, penalties, fines and environmental liability). While the Commission’s view seems to differ, the problem goes beyond mere questions of paying back unlawfully granted state-aid.

An undertaking such as Intel could opt to challenge the Commission’s 1 billion Euro fine for its abuse of a dominant position on the microprocessors market, because it considers the Commission to have violated the principle of presumption of innocence and therefore a breach of due process under the ‘fair and equitable treatment’ standard.

The reader is referred to the academic sources cited above for a more elaborate discussion on the legal pitfalls of ISDS and ICs under EU law.

Conclusion

To me, one of the most astounding aspects of this story is that it took the defiance of the Walloons to get a preliminary check by the ECJ on whether ICS is legal in the first place. The Commission could have easily added the question of compatibility of ISDS in the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement to its request for an Opinion in Opinion 2/15. That opinion was requested in July last year, after the ECJ delivered its Opinion 2/13. It was obvious to informed Court watchers at the time that Opinion 2/13 raised serious questions regarding the compatibility of ISDS and ICS with the Treaties. Indeed, it is quite clear from an access to documents request made that the Commission’s legal service was well aware of the potential negative implications.

Instead of going for a ‘better safe than sorry’ approach (the explicit purpose of the 218 (11) TFEU procedure), the Commission took the political risk of negotiating and concluding an agreement that could potentially be annulled afterwards. That would have not only embarrassed the EU internationally, it could have resulted in serious constitutional law issues, because the EU and its Member States might have faced ICS awards binding under international law that were in conflict with EU law (not least because of CETA article 30.9 (2) ’s so-called ‘sunset clause’ allowing for claims up to 20 years after termination of the agreement). In that sense, it appears that Wallonia did Europe and its trade partners a huge favour by seeking clarity over this issue before the EU enters into binding commitments in international agreements containing investor-state dispute settlement.

 Written by Posted in EU constitutional law, External Relations, International Trade Law Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , ,

EU Judge Dehousse’s Farewell Address to the CJEU

Original published on EU LAW ANALYSIS

Introduction by Professors Alemanno & Pech

Readers of this blog will find below the English translation of Judge Franklin Dehousse’s farewell address, which he had hoped to give on the occasion of his departure from the EU General Court last month having served on its bench since 7 October 2003.
In an apparent break with tradition, no public ceremony was organised for the departing EU judges, and an internal meeting was arranged instead (see this article published in Le Jeudi on 22 September 2016). While regrettable, this is perhaps not surprising. Indeed, Judge Dehousse has been among one of the most outspoken critics of the controversial reform of the EU’s court system, which is now encapsulated in Regulation 2015/2422 and Regulation 2016/1192 (and which we have ourselves critically analysed here and here).
Dehousse’s assessment and alternative recommendations are comprehensively set out in three meticulously researched papers, which he published during the course of his judicial term:
– The Reform of the EU Courts. The Need of a Management Approach, Egmont Paper 53, 2011, December 2011;
– The Reform of the EU Courts (II). Abandoning the Management Approach by Doubling the General Court, Egmont Paper 83, March 2016
– The Reform of the EU Courts (III). The Brilliant Alternative Approach of the European Court of Human Rights, Egmont Paper 86, September 2016
Readers may also find of interest his paper dedicated to the Unified Court on Patents, published in 2013 (Egmont Paper 60), which explores inter alia the impact of the creation of a new European patent court on the EU’s court system.

The address below, which Judge Dehousse kindly authorised us to publish on this blog, contains many valuable insights into the internal workings of the EU courts and, at times, the testing relationship between its (then) three constitutive judicial entities, particularly with respect to the controversial doubling in size of the General Court, and the recent dissolution of the Civil Service Tribunal. His address also offers some sound advice on how any structural reform of the EU’s court system ought to be conducted in the future. Last but not least, the address explains how the CJEU should seek to better manage and conduct itself, failing which its authority may be fatally undermined, with potential negative consequences on the legitimacy of the EU as a whole. As such, this farewell address undeniably deserves, in our view, to be made easily accessible to EU scholars and interested readers. It is our pleasure to share it with you via this blog.

Alberto Alemanno, Professor of Law, Jean Monnet Chair of EU Law and Risk Regulation at HEC Paris and Global Professor of Law, New York University School of Law (Twitter: @alemannoEU)
Laurent Pech, Professor of Law, Jean Monnet Chair of EU Public Law and Head of the Law and Politics Department at Middlesex University London (Twitter: @ProfPech)

Judge Dehousse’s Farewell Address to the Court of Justice of the European Union

Ladies and gentlemen,

Dear colleagues,

To me, any holder of public office must always present a report at the end of her or his function. This seems all the more necessary than those years were sometimes fraught with conflict. It must be acknowledged honestly in an Institution whose mission is to ensure the transparency of all other Institutions. Continue reading “EU Judge Dehousse’s Farewell Address to the CJEU”

OPINION 1/15: AG MENGOZZI LOOKING FOR A NEW BALANCE IN DATA PROTECTION

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EUROPEAN LAW BLOG (OCTOBER 18, 2016)
By Maxime Lassalle
On 8 September 2016, Advocate General (AG) Mengozzi delivered his much awaited opinion on the agreement between Canada and the European Union on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record (PNR). It follows the European Parliament’s resolution seeking an Opinion from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the compatibility of the agreement with the Treaties. Even though the opinion concludes that the agreement has many loopholes, it could disappoint those who were expecting a strong condemnation of PNR schemes as such.

This blogpost intends to present the context of this procedure and the main elements of the AG’s opinion before analysing them. The question of the appropriate legal basis for the agreement, also raised by the Parliament, will not be addressed. However, before turning to the AG’s opinion, we need to briefly sketch the background of the proposed agreement.

The context

Today, in the absence of a PNR agreement with the EU, Canadian authorities apply their own PNR system unilaterally to air carriers established in the European Union (EU) which provide flights to Canada. This means that air carriers have to transfer PNR data (para. 7 of the AG’s opinion) to the extent that it is collected and contained in their automated reservation systems and departure control systems (para. 19). According to the Commission, the adoption of PNR systems is necessary to balance the legitimacy of the requests for PNR data in the fight against terrorism and the need to protect personal data of EU citizens from abusive access. As a result of the Lisbon Treaty, the adoption of PNR agreements now also requires the consent of the European Parliament (EP) (Article 218(6)(a)(v) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)), and it is no secret that the EP is quite reluctant to adopt data retention schemes.

For a long time the EP has been requesting the Commission to provide for evidence that PNR schemes are necessary and in particular that the processing of Advance Passenger Information (API) would not be sufficient to reach the same objective of fighting terrorism and serious crime (for example here andhere). API are one of the 19 categories of PNR data and are limited to the identification of the travelers (name, date of birth, gender, citizenship, and travel document data) while PNR data encompass a much broader range of information (food habits, seating information etc.).

Nevertheless, the Commission ignored this request for evidence and proposed in 2013 a Council decision on the conclusion of a PNR agreement with Canada. This proposal was seriously criticized by the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), also questioning the necessity of PNR schemes. Even though in the past, the Parliament had, albeit reluctantly, given its consent to similar PNR agreements (see the EU-US Agreement and the EU-Australia Agreement), this time it persisted and on 25 November 2014 it decided to refer the proposal on the agreement with Canada to the CJEU for it to assess the compatibility of this proposed agreement with the provisions of the TFEU and the Charter. Clearly, this move of the Parliament was inspired by the activism of the CJEU which had proved to be extremely demanding on the protection of personal data in the framework of the fight against terrorism in its famous Digital Rights Ireland case (DRI, commented on this blog).

The AG’s general considerations on PNR schemes

Let us now have a closer look at the (lengthy) opinion of the AG. Before analyzing the agreement, the AG assesses the intrusiveness of the PNR schemes as such, in relation to the right to data protection and the right to privacy. PNR data consist of 19 categories of personal data including data which ‘might provide information concerning, in particular, the health of one or more passengers, their ethnic origin or their religious beliefs’ (para. 169). The processing of these data therefore constitutes an interference which is of a ‘considerable size’ and ‘a not insignificant gravity’ (para. 176). This system is ‘capable of giving the unfortunate impression that all the passengers concerned are transformed into potential suspects’ (para. 176). However, the interference does not reach a level where the essence of the fundamental rights is harmed, because the PNR data do not permit to draw precise conclusions concerning ‘the essence of the private life of the persons concerned’ (para. 186). To justify the interference caused by the processing of PNR data, PNR schemes, should be properly provided for by law, such as an EU agreement adopted by the Council and approved by the EP (paras. 191-192), and meet an objective of general interest, namely the objective of combating terrorism and serious transnational crime (para. 194).

The AG’s general considerations on the standard to be applied to this unprecedented case

Following a classical reasoning on the assessment of the proportionality of the interference (see for example Schwarz, C‑291/12, para. 53), the AG explains that the proposed agreement ‘must also consist of the measures least harmful […] while making an effective contribution to the public security objective pursued by the agreement envisaged’. Provided that there are alternative measures which would be less intrusive, ‘those alternative measures must also be sufficiently effective’ in order to be considered as serious alternatives (para. 208). However, the definition of what is “sufficiently effective” is not given by the previous case law, neither that of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) nor that of the CJEU. For the AG, the effectiveness of these alternative measures must ‘be comparable […] in order to attain the public security objective pursued by that agreement’ (para. 208). This standard of comparability is set by the AG himself. This was not evident as he could also have considered that less effective measures are still sufficiently effective. Requesting comparable effectiveness is a first. Usually in the reasoning, it is easy to decide whether there alternative measures are sufficiently effective or not (see for example Saint-Paul Luxembourg S.A. v. Luxembourg, para. 44). For measures of secret surveillance, it seems more difficult. The comparability criteria may be a way not to address a difficult question.

The AG acknowledges the ability of the interference to achieve the public security objective based on statistics communicated by the United Kingdom Government and the Commission concerning the Canadian authorities’ best practices (para. 205). Between April 2014 and March 2015, thanks to PNR data, 9,500 targets were identified, among them 1,765 persons were subjected to more thorough checks and 178 were arrested for a serious transnational criminal offence, connected in particular with drug trafficking (para. 262). However, the AG does not take into account that the statistics which were presented to the Court do not indicate the amount of data which was necessary to identify these targets. Moreover, one could note that according to the statistics no terrorist was identified, which is quite surprising for a scheme whose main purpose is precisely to identify people related to terrorism. The AG was obviously satisfied with the fact that PNR schemes are effective against organized crime.

The AG goes on addressing the specificity of PNR schemes, namely that it is their very nature to be based on profiling methods, by a comparison of the PNR data with scenarios or predetermined assessment criteria and that PNR data processing can lead to ‘false positive “targets” being identified’ (para. 255). This specificity of PNR schemes, which have never been assessed by the CJEU, made it necessary for the AG to detail the conditions under which PNR schemes could be considered as proportionate. In order to do so, he suggests to adapt a standard used by the ECtHR in Zakharov v. Russia, namely the standard of ‘reasonable suspicion’. For the AG, these procedures should manage to target ‘individuals who might be under a ‘reasonable suspicion’ of participating in terrorism or serious transnational crime’ (para. 256). The application of this standard is ambitious. Indeed, Judge Pinto de Albuquerque, in his dissenting opinion in Szabò and Vissy v. Hungary, had feared that this standard would be replaced by an ‘individual suspicion’, a lower standard, for surveillance measures whose purpose is to fight terrorism. However, this standard is used to limit the access to personal data by law enforcement authorities (an idea also present in the DRI case, para. 60-62). And yet the purpose of PNR schemes is not to create a pool of information available under strict conditions to law enforcement authorities, but to allow the Canadian competent authority, namely the Canada Border Services Agency, to use data mining procedures in order to discover new persons who were not previously suspected. Hence, the application of the standard of the ‘reasonable suspicion’ seems impossible as such: the limitation of the access to the data is not compatible with the idea, accepted by the AG, that PNR schemes need to process all the data that are available. The AG nevertheless tries to adapt the standard by proposing three principles.

The first principle is that the assessment criteria used to analyse the PNR data should not ‘be based on an individual’s racial or ethnic origin, his political opinions, his religion or philosophical beliefs, his membership of a trade union, his health or his sexual orientation’ (para. 258). The AG obviously fears discriminatory measures based on the processing of PNR data. The second principle, which is in line with the new principles proposed by Directive 2016/680 (i.e., the new Directive on data protection for police and criminal justice sector) is that the result of the automatic processing of data must be examined by non-automatic means (para. 259). The third principle is that the functioning of the automatic means should be checked regularly by an independent public authority (para. 259).

The AG’s proportionality test

After these general considerations, the AG starts his proportionality test. In the opinion nine points are considered separately (para. 210). From this analysis, three main elements deserve to be emphasized.

The first important point is that the AG accepts PNR schemes as a matter of principles. He considers that, excluding sensitive data, all categories of PNR data are considered relevant for the purpose of the envisaged agreement. Sensitive data are defined in Article 2 (e) of the envisaged agreement as ‘information that reveals racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade-union membership, or information about a person’s health or sex life’. The processing of sensitive data is allowed by the envisaged agreement but, for the AG, this is not acceptable as it creates a risk of stigmatization (para. 222). What is more, the fact that these data are excluded from the PNR agreement with Australia shows that the transfer of sensitive data is not necessary to pursue the objective of the scheme (para. 222). This appreciation of the AG is a direct consequence of the first of the three principles he established.

Still on the categories of data, the opinion brushes away the criticism of both the EP and the Article 29 data protection Working Party requesting evidence that the transfer of less data, for example only of API, is not sufficient to meet the objective of the proposed agreement. According to the AG, ‘data of that type does not reveal information about the booking methods, payment methods used and travel habits, the cross-checking of which can be useful for the purposes of combating terrorism and other serious transnational criminal activities. Independently of the methods used to process that data, the API data […] are therefore not sufficient to attain with comparable effectiveness the public security objective pursued by the agreement envisaged’ (para. 214).

Even though all these data are transferred to the Canadian authority irrespective of any indication that the persons concerned may have a connection with terrorism or serious transnational crime (para. 215), the purpose of PNR schemes is to identify persons who were ‘not known to the law enforcement services who may nonetheless present an ‘interest’ or a risk to public security’ (para. 216). For the AG, bulk transfers of data are then necessary. However, he considers the definition of certain categories of data as too vague. For example, heading 17 of the annex, on ‘general remarks’, covers all ‘supplementary information apart from that listed elsewhere in the annex to the agreement envisaged’ (para. 217). Consequently, it is likely that air carriers will transfer all the data that they own, and not only the data that are necessary for Canadian authorities (para. 220).

In addition, the AG’s opinion considers that the scope ratione personae of the agreement envisaged is not too broad and that the massive and indiscriminate transfer of personal data is necessary. If, in theory, it could be possible to imagine a PNR data transfer system which distinguishes passengers according to specific criteria, these systems would never be as effective as PNR data schemes in combating terrorism and serious transnational crime (para. 243). The AG also underlines that consumers of commercial flights voluntarily use a mode of transportation ‘which is itself, repeatedly, unfortunately, a vehicle or a victim of terrorism or serious transnational crime, which requires the adoption of measures ensuring a high level of security for all passengers’ (para. 242).

These first considerations are very important as they show that in principle, for the AG, massive transfer and processing of PNR data is not disproportionate as such. If the undifferentiated and general nature of the retention of the data of any person using electronic communications in the Union was one of the main reasons why Directive 2006/24/EC was considered as going beyond what was strictly necessary (para. 59 of the DRI case), such data retention schemes are possible as long as they respect strict conditions (see the opinion of AG Saugmandsgaard Øe on the joined cases Tele2 Sverige AB and Secretary of State for the Home Department, commented on this blog). The fact that AG Mengozzi accepts the principle of large scale transfer of PNR data is thus not so surprising.

Once this step was made and given the specificity of the case, he needed to create specific conditions under which PNR schemes are proportionate. In addition to the loopholes already explained, these conditions are further elaborated in the two remaining important points of the opinion.

The second important point is that the agreement envisaged should justify the duration of data retention. The AG regrets that the agreement envisaged ‘does not indicate the objective reasons that led the contracting parties to increase the PNR data retention period to a maximum of five years’ (para. 279). He adds that such a long period of retention of the data exceeds what is necessary, particularly because all the data are retained for the same duration (para. 284) and because the masking procedure is incomplete and does not fully ensure the depersonalization of the data (para. 287).

This point is significant as this is the only element in the AG’s opinion which is very critical of PNR schemes in general and which puts the PNR directive at risk. This question was also a key issue in the DRI case. In Directive 2006/24/EC the data retention period of a maximum of two years without distinguishing categories of data on the basis of their usefulness was not based on objective criteria and was therefore excessive (para. 64 of the DRI case). This threatens the validity of the PNR Directive. Indeed, Article 12 (1) of this Directive provides for a duration of five years, without distinguishing categories of data and explaining the reasons for such a long retention. Noticeably, its depersonalisation procedure seems more in line with the assessment of the AG, particularly because more data elements are masked (Article 12 (2) of the Directive, para. 287 of the AG opinion).

The last important point relates to the serious doubt of the AG concerning the level of protection granted by Canada. The opinion is indeed the most critical when it comes to the international nature of the agreement. This is not that surprising given that the Court recently adopted a very demanding position on bulk transfers of data to third countries (in the case Schrems, commented on this blog here). The AG acknowledges that the Court ‘cannot express a view on the legislation or the practice of a third country’ (para. 163). However, the terms of the agreement themselves should have been formulated in such a way that no discretion would be left to Canadian authorities as for the applicable level of protection (para. 164).

For the AG, the access to the data and the use of the transferred data by Canadian authorities is not sufficiently regulated in the envisaged agreement. It leaves to Canada the entire discretion to determine what officials and what competent authorities are allowed to access the data (paras. 250 and 267). Similarly, the envisaged agreement does not stick to a strict principle of purpose limitation as the processing of PNR data is not strictly limited to the fight against terrorism and serious crime (paras 236-237). This is aggravated by the fact that the offences which belong to the categories of terrorism and serious crime are not exhaustively listed (para. 235). Concerning the use of the data, the AG considers that the possibilities of disclosure and subsequent transfer of the PNR data is not sufficiently framed. Indeed, Articles 18 and 19 of the agreement envisaged allow the disclosure and subsequent transfer of the PNR data to other government authorities in Canada and could be used to circumvent the level of protection afforded in the EU (para. 296). As a matter of fact, no independent authority or judge would check the appreciation of the Canadian competent authority that the authority to which the data are transferred can afford an equivalent level of protection (para. 300). The AG concludes that all these points need to be more detailed in the agreement in order to make sure that the level of protection of data ensured in Canada is equivalent to the level of protection ensured in the European Union. Following the previous case law of the Court, particularly the DRI case, the level of protection ensured in the EU is quite demanding and the respect of same level of protection has to be ensured before transferring personal data to third countries (see in particular para. 96 in Schrems).

Finally, the AG points out that the mechanism for detection and review of any violations of the rules of the agreement envisaged affording protection of passengers’ privacy and personal data is not effective because it does not belong to a fully independent and impartial supervisory authority (para. 315). This last point reminds the Commission that the mechanisms of control in the third country must be insured by a sufficiently independent body. This reminder is interesting as the new ‘privacy shield’ replacing the safe harbor is criticized for providing a right to review only through an ombudsman whose independence and powers are questionable.

Some comments

In his reasoning, the AG addresses issues linked to the very nature of PNR schemes and the solutions he proposes do not threaten the principle of PNR schemes. Even though this opinion could seem at first disappointing for those who were expecting the AG to condemn PNR schemes, it appears that this ‘implicit acceptance’ of PNR schemes follows the general principles created by the Court but simply innovates and addresses the new issues that had not been addressed so far with more consideration for the necessity to provide for effective tools to fight terrorism and serious crime.

Even though a lot of questions had to be addressed by the AG, there is one which is of paramount importance. Ever since its DRI case, the Court has developed a strong focus on the guarantees concerning the access to personal data by law enforcement authorities and the AG had to adapt the requirements of the Court to PNR schemes. The attempt of the AG to adapt the standard of the ‘reasonable suspicion’ shows that the applicability of guarantees to law enforcement authorities’ access to data from different data retention schemes is a question which would deserve more attention. Generally speaking, the ECtHR considers that to assess the existence of a reasonable suspicion, it is necessary to check ‘whether there are factual indications for suspecting that person of planning, committing or having committed criminal acts or other acts that may give rise to secret surveillance measures, such as, for example, acts endangering national security’ (para. 260 of the case Zakharov v. Russia). The problem with PNR schemes is that the suspicion is not prior to the collection and processing of PNR data but discovered as a result of this collection and processing.

This question differs from the ones the Court has previously addressed in its case law, in particular in the DRI case. However, such an issue also exists in other areas. For instance, based on the European system of prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing, financial institutions have to monitor the transactions of all their clients and have the duty to report suspicious transactions. The control of suspicious transactions by these financial institutions also relies on mechanisms of data mining. The processing of personal data is made by private parties, namely financial institutions. Law enforcement authorities can in theory only obtain these data once financial institutions have reported a suspicion (this is, however, something that the Commission would like to change in order to facilitate the access to the data for the Financial Intelligence Units, see its proposal). Consequently, only the financial institutions, which collect anyways these data for the purpose of their economic activities and are subjected to the data protection framework provided for by Directive 95/46/EC, can access these data. This appears to be a safeguard against abusive access from law enforcement authorities. As a matter of fact, when law enforcement authorities access the personal data, after a report from a financial institution, there is already a degree of suspicion. This is probably more in line with the standard of ‘reasonable suspicion’. However, in this field, too, there is a massive collection of personal data which are analysed mainly through data mining procedures in order to discover suspicious transactions.

For PNR data, according to the agreement with Canada as well as for the new PNR Directive, air carriers companies do not have to analyse the data by themselves, but have to transfer all the data respectively to the Canada Border Services Agency or to the new ‘Passenger Information Units’ which will analyse all these data, through data mining procedures. From this data processing suspicions will then emerge which will be further analysed by law enforcement authorities.

Those two examples show that personal data are not only used a posteriori, once criminal investigations are open when a suspicion already exists but are also used for data mining processes with the purpose of discovering new suspicions. It might be that there is a difference based on whether private parties or public authorities are in charge of the data mining procedures. However, in both cases there is no previous ‘reasonable suspicion’; suspicions emerge following a massive monitoring of personal data.

At the end of the day, once the principle of massive surveillance schemes based on data mining mechanisms is considered to be acceptable as such, the standard of the ‘reasonable suspicion’ is overrun and has to be replaced by principles and other guarantees preventing any abuse, provided that this is possible. Are the three principles proposed by the AG sufficient? Hopefully the Court will address this key issue in a clear and detailed way.

Continue reading “OPINION 1/15: AG MENGOZZI LOOKING FOR A NEW BALANCE IN DATA PROTECTION”

National Courts and EU Trade Policy Powers: the EU/Canada trade deal and the German Constitutional Court

by Douwe Korff,

Emeritus Professor of International Law, London Metropolitan University; Associate, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford

One of the big issues on the EU’s agenda at present is whether to sign and provisionally apply the Canada/EU free trade agreement, known as ‘CETA’. The division of power between the EU and its Member States determines whether Member States can veto some or all of this deal, potentially complicating this process – frustrating supporters of the deal, but emboldening its critics.

Moreover, the dispute over CETA has broader implications, most notably for the controversial EU/US trade deal under negotiation (‘TTIP’) and any trade deal between the EU and UK after Brexit. While the EU’s Court of Justice will soon rule on the division of powers between the EU and its Member States as regards the EU/Singapore free trade agreement (for the background to that case, see here; for the CJEU hearing, seehere), the immediate question is signing and provisionally applying CETA.

For the moment, the parliament in the Belgian region of Wallonia has held up the EU/Canada deal, but my focus here is the legal angle. While we await the CJEU’s ruling on the similar EU/Singapore deal, national courts have got involved in this issue. Last week, the German Constitutional Court refused to issue an interim order prohibiting the German Government from signing the CETA Agreement (BVerfGE of 13 October 2016; English summary here). The judgment sets a precedent for the legal issues that might arise with TTIP and Brexit, and so is worth further examination.

The decision

The decision was not about the issue of whether CETA (as initialled by Canada and the EU) was compatible with the German Constitution, but about whether the German Constitutional Court (“the Court”) should issue an interim order or injunction (einstweilige Anordnung) prohibiting the German Government (“the Government”) from even signing the Agreement. The Court emphasised that it was the Court’s standing practice to only issue such an injunction in relation to a proposed treaty if it was obvious that the treaty would irreversibly violate the Constitution (or constitutionally-protected rights of individuals) and if it was imperative that this be stopped immediately. On the other hand, possible but as-yet-not-materialised or reversible risks to such rights should be balanced against the importance of the matters to be covered by the treaty; and the Government in principle had a very wide margin of discretion in such matters. (Paras. 34 – 36)

The Court refused to issue the injunction for the following reasons in particular (my selection):

– The signing of CETA by Canada, the EU and the Member States would only result in the provisional application of the Agreement; it would only come into full force upon ratification by the parties – and crucially, the German Government (like any other Member State Government) could, until and unless the Agreement was ratified by all parties, terminate the application of the Agreement at any time, by means of a simple declaration to that effect to the other parties. The signing of CETA by the Government therefore did not irreparably risk any violation of constitutional rights. (Para. 38; cf. the last bullet-point under the last indent, below)

– The Court clearly has serious doubts as to whether the EU has competence in relation to investor protection in various areas, in particular also as concerns workers’ health and safety regulations. (Para. 54 – 57)

– The Court clearly also has serious doubts as to whether the EU can lawfully transfer “sovereign rights [Hoheitsrechte] in relation to judicial and quasi-judicial dispute resolution systems [Gerichts- und … Ausschusssystem]” to other systems (i.e., to the proposed investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) “court” mechanism). (Para. 58) It was “not completely inconceivable” that the proposed (revised) ISDS mechanism could be held to violate the principle of democratic legitimacy (das Demokratieprinzip). (idem; see also para. 65)

– However, according to the Court, the above risks can be prevented in practice by various means (which, the Court implies, the German Government therefore must employ), i.e.:

  • According to the Court, some of the risks can be prevented by means of the declarations already issued by the European Council, which (the Court tentatively accepts) ensure that with the signing of the Agreement only parts of that agreement will enter into (even provisional) force. The Court held that in many respects “reservations” (Vorbehalte) are already in place as concerns the application of certain parts of the Agreement. (Para. 69: see there for a list of these areas).
  • The Court “assumes” (read: effectively demands) that the German Government will ensure, by these same means, that certain parts of CETA “in particular” “will not be included in the provisional application [of CETA, upon signature by the parties]”. In these not-to-be-applied matters, the Court expressly includes “the rules on investment protection, including the [investment dispute resolution] court system.” (Para. 70)
  • The Court suggests that, at least while CETA would be only provisionally in force, Germany can demand that any decisions by the investment dispute resolution “court” will have to have the unanimous agreement of the EU Council – i.e., that Germany is given a right of veto over any such decisions. (Para. 71)
  • If those measures were to not suffice, Germany can “as a last resort” use its right to terminate the Agreement (see the first indent, above). However, the Court feels that the interpretation of the Agreement to the effect that a State Party has this right (to terminate it in respect of that state while it is still only provisionally in force) “is not binding”, even though the Government has made a convincing case for it.

The Court therefore demands of the Government that it (the Government) “must clarify this interpretation of the Agreement in an international-legally appropriate way” and “inform its Treaty Partners of this [interpretation].” (Para. 73)

Comments

It would seem to me that the signing of CETA subject to the conditions imposed by the German Constitutional Court, would address many of the issues raised by activists:

– The contentious investment dispute resolution “court” would not become operational;

– If it ever were to become operational, Germany (and if other Member States were to adopt the same approach, those other Member States too) would have a veto over any decisions of that (quasi-) “court” that would impinge on rights and interests protected by its (their) constitution(s); and

– If in spite of these safeguards, those constitutionally-protected rights and interests were to still be unduly affected by the dispute resolution system (or any other aspect of the Agreement), Germany (and any such other Member State) could still exit the Agreement (even if that meant it would altogether have to end functioning).

Perhaps current opponents of CETA could live with it operating forever on such a “provisional” and conditional basis?

Establishing the European Border and Coast Guard: all-new or Frontex reloaded?

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EU LAW ANALYSIS (NB emphasis are added)

by Herbert Rosenfeldt, (Research Assistant and PhD candidate, University of Passau)

Introduction

Attending a birthday party at a remote checkpoint at the Bulgarian external border with Turkey does not sound like fun. Unless you are the adventurous type, you would probably hesitate to join in if it was not for someone special. Indeed, last Thursday high ranking EU and Member States’ officials visited Bulgaria’s Kapitan Andreevo Border Checkpoint to inaugurate the new European Border and Coast Guard Agency a.k.a. Frontex.

This is so far the most visible sign of the coming into force of the European Border and Coast Guard Regulation on the same day. Not lacking pathos or high expectations (Donald Tusk: “To save Schengen, we must regain control of our external borders. A new European Border and Coast Guard Agency is being created”), the new EBCG seeks to reinforce external border control against the background of last year’s migratory pressure put on the southern and south-eastern EU Member States with external Schengen borders. According to EU officials’ analyses, national border guards had been unable or unwilling to “protect” the Schengen area effectively by stopping the influx of irregular migrants. Frontex, on the other hand, was held to have been too ill-equipped in terms of powers, personnel and equipment to render sufficient support or remedy the situation. There is a simple, perhaps simplistic, rationale behind the new EBCG – one that gathered broad consensus among Member States and EU institutions resulting in a fast track legislative procedure of less than a year. The stronger EU external border control, the less permeable borders are for migrants; the smaller the number of migrants arriving, the smaller the problems within the Schengen area. Those problems comprise allocating asylum seekers and processing their claims, providing food and shelter, or safeguarding internal security and freedom of movement. The focus on external borders has been accurately criticised, inter alia, here and here.

Is the new EBCG truly a “milestone in the history of European border management”, as suggested by birthday guests but contested by others? Is the new agency something special at all? Hence is it worth joining the congratulants (if belatedly)? What birthday wishes should be made? Surely only time and further in-depth analysis can tell. Steve’s earlier post here gave the broader picture of last year’s legislative proposals on border control and migration. For now, and after two preliminary thoughts, I would like firstly to make some observations on the changing concept of EU external border management. Secondly, I highlight some institutional changes. Thirdly and fourthly, I will focus on two much debated novelties in external border control: emergency interventions and the complaints mechanism in the context of Fundamental Rights accountability.

Towards Securitisation

The drafters of the new regulation were discernibly concerned by the loss of control at Europe’s southern and south-eastern borders. Adapting to the ongoing political discourse, the wording of the Regulation (Article 1, see also Articles 4 and 15) gives top priority to regaining and keeping control of the migration situation and to efficient border management. Migration challenges and potential future threats are mentioned in succession, followed by serious cross-border crimes. The aim to be achieved is a high level of internal security within the Union while safeguarding the free movement of persons within it. In a subtle way, this almost equates migratory pressure through irregular migration with potential threats to internal security and cross-border crime. In further construing Article 1 of the Regulation, it appears that affording international protection and protecting human rights are clearly no objectives of European border management. Rather, they are perceived as restrictions to securing EU borders.

Another feature of this security-orientated approach is new migration management support teams to be deployed in hotspot areas (Article 18). Support in processing asylum claims and returning third country nationals does not help to protect the Schengen area from migrants at first sight. However, if it is done rapidly in hotspot areas, migrants are effectively not entering the Schengen area, hence apparently more security. Along the same line of reasoning, increased capacities to support return operations (Article 18, 28 et seq.) reflect political demand for enforcing third country nationals’ returns.

Legal instruments rearranged

The law of EU external border control is no role model for legal clarity and certainty. Legal acts such as the Frontex Regulation have frequently been amended, and they are intertwined with various other EU legal acts. The new Regulation at least partly smoothes this scattered landscape by merging the Frontex Regulation and the Regulation on Rapid Border Intervention Teams into one. Furthermore, the Schengen Borders Code has been amended (see below). Although based on the same EU competence (Article 77 (2) (d) TFEU), applied at the external Schengen borders and closely related to the work of Frontex and the national external border guards, Regulations on EUROSUR and surveillance of the external sea borders remained untouched. Hence the legislator missed the opportunity to create a single comprehensible piece of legislation apart from the SBC, the latter covering other subject matters such as entry conditions of third country nationals and internal border controls anyway.

New concept of external border controls

Before, States with external Schengen borders were exclusively tasked with policing those borders. Under the Frontex Regulation, border control fell into the sole competence of the Member States. Frontex’s main task then was to render border control more effective by coordinating Member States’ joint activities and providing surveillance data, technical support and expertise. The common conceptual framework informing border controls, called “integrated management system for external borders” (now Article 77 (1) (c) TFEU), only featured in strategy papers and policy recommendations of the Commission and the Council such as the non-binding Updated Schengen Catalogue 2009.

The new EBCG consists of the EBCG Agency and the national border and coast guards. Although Member States retain primary responsibility for border management, there is a clear shift towards responsibility shared with the Agency (Article 5 of the Regulation). On scrutiny, the new system arranges the Agency and the Member States in a hierarchical order. It is the Agency’s task to establish a technical and operational strategy for integrated border management. All national strategies will have to comply with it. Although co-operation outside the Agency’s remit remains possible, this is limited to action compatible with the Agency’s activities. Therefore, there is not just well-known supremacy of EU law at work in this area of shared competences, but supremacy of the Agency’s strategies, broadly phrased tasks and objectives. On paper (see the eighth and eleventh recitals), the political development of integrated border management is left to the EU organs, whereas technical and operational aspects will be clarified by the Agency. The dividing line is of course far from clear. As a result, the Agency will almost inevitably assume a more proactive role.

In my view, shared responsibility serves as a chiffre to justify taking away Member States’ discretionary powers in border control. In practice, the Agency gains greater impact and tools of supervision and coercion, as will be seen below. Still, the new Regulation has to be given credit for legally defining components of European integrated border management for the first time ever.

Institutional changes

In short, Frontex becomes … erm … Frontex! Despite last week’s “all-new” rhetoric, little will change in the constitutional setting of the Agency. As a decentralised (i.e. regulatory) agency it remains an independent EU body with legal personality. Its headquarters will remain in Warsaw. The Agency’s official name, which nobody used before, changes to a shorter name, which probably nobody will use going forwards – and that is alright because it reflects that the Agency is not founded anew but continues all its activities, albeit with expanded tasks and more resources.

To this end, the Agency’s staff grows from 309 in 2015 to 1,000 in 2020. The number of Member States’ border guards deployed in EBCG teams remain subject to annual bilateral negotiations. At the same time, a rapid reaction pool of 1,500 European border guards as a standing corps operational within 5 days has been inscribed in the Regulation. The Agency continues to maintain a technical equipment pool composed of equipment owned by either the Agency itself or by the Member States. With an increase in budget to more than twice the amount of 2015 (€143.3 to €322 million in 2020), the Agency might actually start acquiring equipment on its own in the future.

Of the Agency’s tasks (see the long list in Article 8 (1) of the Regulation), most have been assigned to Frontex before. Characteristic of the new supervisory role are vulnerability assessments carried out by the Agency to evaluate the capability and readiness of Member States’ border guard to act in emergencies. The assessment might lead to binding recommendations by the Executive Director. To disregard them can eventually result in a situation requiring urgent action as described further below. Moreover, Frontex shall deploy liaison officers in the Member States monitoring and reporting on national external border management. It is true that command and control in EBCG operations remains with the host Member State. However, from now on, the host Member State has not only to consider the Frontex coordinating officer’s views, but also to follow them as far as possible.

Another noteworthy development concerns the Agency’s support rendered to Member States coping with migratory pressure at so-called hotspots. The existing provisions on hotspots in EU Decisions on relocation of asylum-seekers have been codified in Article 18 of the Regulation, which now assigns a supportive role to Frontex in migration management. This includes screening, registering and providing information to third country nationals on their right to apply for international protection. It further includes facilitating their return right from the hotspot area.

One might argue that the European Asylum Support Office is better placed to do all that. However, in my opinion the crucial question is to what extent any EU agency involved influences or determines the Member States’ decisions on entry, to afford international protection or to return migrants. Such executive powers have not been granted to EU institutions and therefore – at least by law – they remain firmly within the Member States’ jurisdiction. The provisions provide for tailor-made support teams coordinated by all relevant Union agencies under the auspices of the Commission. Thus, the new Regulation acknowledges the role of agencies and the significance of hotspots without clarifying much. It remains to be seen how the agencies will delineate their respective contributions. If you have always been looking for a legal definition of hotspot area, at least you will find one in the new Regulation (Article 2 (10)).

Situations requiring urgent action – right to intervene?

How to deal with emergency situations at the external borders of Member States unwilling to act – that was the only matter of serious contention during the legislative process. In normal operation and as before, a Member State at first formally requests the Agency’s support and the launch of EBCG operations (Articles 14 (1), 15 (1) and (2), 18 (1) et al). At the second stage, the Member State and the Executive Director agree on the operational plan (Article 16 (2)). Lastly, the host Member State itself retains command for the whole operation (Article 21 (1)). The Commission proposal for the Regulation challenged those safeguards for the Member States’ sovereign right to border protection. The Commission envisaged itself initiating emergency interventions conducted by the Agency and supported by the Member State concerned. Boldly, this was labelled the Agency’s “right to intervene”. Understandably, it stirred criticism among Member States.

The subsequent trilogue put things in order again: Now it is an implementing act of the Council (proposed by the Commission) which substitutes the Member State’s request at the first stage if (a) the State did not follow the recommendations resulting from vulnerability assessments or (b) it faces specific and disproportionate challenges at his external borders without requesting or supporting joint EBCG operations (Article 19 (1)). The implementing act of the Council authorises the Agency to take various measures. It is binding upon the Member State. In turn, it becomes evident that the Member State’s formal request in accordance with the normal procedure might no longer be as voluntary as the wording suggests. Because if joint European action is deemed necessary, there is always the possibility that an emergency intervention will eventually be initiated.

Yet, at the second stage, the Member State still has to agree on the operational plan submitted by the Agency (Article 19 (5)). This might be interpreted as linking emergency interventions to the Member State’s consent after all. However, in the light of the purpose of emergency interventions, I submit that the duty to fully comply with the Council decision and to this end cooperate with the Agency entails the duty to consent to the operational plan. Otherwise, it would always be possible for reluctant Member States to impede the whole procedure depriving it of much of its force.

For the implementation of the measures prescribed by the Council, the Member State concerned still acts as host state. As a consequence, that State retains command and control of the operations and can be held liable as in normal operations. It can be questioned whether an unwilling State should be forced to lead a joint operation in times of emergency. At the same time, however, it is most likely that different entities will be engaged in the process. The decision not to conduct operations or to request assistance is often taken at a high political level, whereas operational command is exercised within the national border guard authorities.

Lastly, Article 19 (10) most remarkably links the Member State’s non-compliance with the Council decision and failure to cooperate with the Agency to prospective national measures taken within the Schengen area. According to newly amended Article 29 of the Schengen Borders Code, the Council upon proposal by the Commission may recommend to Member States the reintroduction of controls at their internal borders if the Member State’s behaviour (a) puts the functioning of the area without internal borders at risk, and (b) leads to a serious threat to public policy or internal security. This mechanism can be triggered only 30 days after the Council takes its (urgent?!) decision. As a result, Member States that do not – for whatever reason – cooperate at their external borders in emergencies can de facto be temporarily excluded from the area of free movement. The much-stressed concept of solidarity (Article 80 TFEU) hence turns into its evil twin: showing solidarity means complying with the EBCG activities à la EU. It becomes the prerogative of the EU institutions to determine who is in solidarity, and the lack thereof entails serious consequences.

In sum, the new Regulation establishes a legal obligation to cooperate in situations requiring urgent action of the Member State concerned. If the State does not comply, there is no way to enforce this duty or to deploy EBCG teams on his territory against his will. The only sanction seems to urge other Member States to close their internal borders instead.

Human Rights complaints mechanism and accountability

When Frontex was established in 2004, the Fundamental Rights (FR) implications of its work had been completely overlooked. The founding Regulation did not contain any specific references to FR. Over the following years through a piecemeal approach, largely affirmative and declaratory FR obligations found their way into the Regulation. More importantly, Frontex drew up an FR strategy (followed by an action plan) in 2011. At the same time, a consultative forum and an FR officer were established to give advice on FR matters and strengthen FR compliance. With the new Regulation, there are minor improvements on the human rights record. Article 1 now mentions FR, they form part of compulsory reporting and evaluation schemes as set out in the operational plan, and there is a single comprehensive provision spelling out FR obligations (Article 34).

The Regulation finally introduces a FR complaints mechanism (Article 72, discussed here) as demanded by European Parliament, EU Ombudsman and Council of Europe since 2013. Any person directly affected by actions of staff during EBCG operations can file a complaint about FR violations with the FR officer. The FR officer is responsible for setting up the complaints mechanism, administering complaints and deciding on their admissibility. He or she then directs them to either the Executive Director or the competent national authority for them to decide on the merits and an appropriate follow-up. The FR officer then again monitors this decision as well as the follow-up.

In my view, the effectiveness of the mechanism depends on two preconditions. Firstly, the FR officer’s resources should increase significantly to stem the Herculean tasks ahead of him. Secondly, his institutional independency within the Agency has to be reinforced, bearing in mind that he is a member of staff and dependent on good working relationships with other members of staff. Several open questions remain. For example, the provision leaves open how the FR officer will enforce the appropriate follow-up by the Agency or the Member States. It does not make clear that the complaints mechanism does not affect other remedies, nor does it foresee an appeals procedure with an independent body. The FR officer and ultimately the Executive Director or the Member States authorities will have to answer difficult legal questions on who is “directly affected” by an action and who is responsible for it (see below). For the development of the law, it would have been better if a court or tribunal had had subsequent jurisdiction. So far, actions for annulment or damages (Articles 263, 268 TFEU) have not generated any EU case law regarding Frontex, and except for its judgment in Hirsi Jamaa, the ECtHR was not able to fill the gap neither.

“The extended tasks and competence of the Agency”, the 14th recital of the Regulation reads, “should be balanced with strengthened fundamental rights safeguards and increased accountability”. But does the new Agency live up to the claim? Apart from the complaints mechanism, the FR framework largely stays the same, and so does the general liability framework: The home Member State takes disciplinary action whereas the domestic laws of the host Member State determine criminal liability. It is also the host Member State incurring civil liability for the EBCG teams. The Agency itself incurs non-contractual liability according to the general principles of EU law (Article 340 (2) TFEU). There are no provisions determining which acts or effects of external border control are attributed to the Agency or to the Member States involved (a problem of multi-actor scenarios, where the 2011 ILC Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations might be of help). Following recent revelations on the frequent use of firearms in joint operations, MEPs wrote to Executive Director Fabrice Leggeri asking for more information and general guidance on responsibilities in certain operational scenarios. The ignorance displayed by Frontex’s designated watchdogs (see Article 7 of the Regulation) is further evidence for the need of more transparency and legal clarity in this regard.

Outlook

On the 6th of October 2016 the landscape of EU external border control did not change dramatically, but it did change. To repeat: No new agency has been founded, no EBCG under EU command and control was established, no right to intervene at Member States’ external borders against their will has been introduced. In fact and most notably, the Member States’ external border guard is placed under increased scrutiny of the EBCG Agency. Failure to comply with integrated border management standards could eventually lead to reintroducing internal border controls to the detriment of the disobedient Member State. At the same time, the Agency’s enhanced tasks and powers will go hand in hand with more responsibility and accountability, but the latter has yet to be improved. Although the complaints mechanism is a step in the right direction, its design could have been more effective. This holds true especially for the follow-up mechanism. In practice, much will depend on the Fundamental Rights officer’s assertiveness on the one hand, and the Executive Director’s responsiveness on the other hand.

After all, the distinguished guests to the celebrations at Kapitan Andreevo Border Checkpoint last week did not witness birth or rebirth, but rather Frontex’s coming of age both in terms of leverage and responsibilities. Frontex, I wish you well indeed.

Scotland and Brexit: Brave Heart or Timorous Beastie?

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EU LAW ANALYSIS (13/10/16)

by Steve Peers

At the Scottish National Party (SNP) party conference yesterday, Scotland’s First Minister (Nicola Sturgeon) announced that the Scottish Government would issue a draft of a second independence referendum bill next week. She also announced that the Scottish government would soon table an alternative plan “to protect Scotland’s interests in [the EU] and keep us in the single market – even if the rest of the UK decides to leave”. This would entail “substantial additional powers for the Scottish Parliament”, namely all the Scottish powers that “currently lie with the EU – and significant new powers”, namely the power to negotiate international treaties and “greater powers over immigration”.

Implicitly the Scottish government is offering the UK government a choice: negotiate to ensure that Scotland stays in the single market as a distinct part of the UK, or face another independence referendum. I’ll examine the legal issues arising from these two options in turn, and conclude with some broader observations about the Brexit process compared to the prospect of Scottish independence.

Scotland in the UK – and the single market

Is EU single market participation possible if a) Scotland stays in the UK, and b) the UK as a whole is not in the single market anymore? Some people have called this prospect a ‘reverse Greenland’, referring to the deal whereby Greenland left the EU but Denmark stayed in. Given the huge differences between Greenland and Scotland, I suggest we call this idea by a different name: say the ‘Scottish Economic Area’. I have written about this prospect separately in iScot magazine, but I will summarise my points again here.

Only independent countries which are EU members can fully participate in EU membership. But in theory at least, a part of a non-EU country could participate in the internal market, even if the rest of that non-EU country did not. Of course, the EU and the UK’s Westminster government would have to consent to this in as part of their post-Brexit treaty, and it could only work if there was significant related devolution to Scotland, as the First Minister suggested.

What would it mean in practical terms? The ‘single market’ consists of the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital, which includes the freedom of establishment of companies and the self-employed. To facilitate all this, there’s extensive EU legislation setting common standards for many industries. The single market also includes common rules on competition law and state aid to industry. But a number of rules on other matters (such as trade with non-EU countries) are not necessarily part of it. Full participation in the single market goes further than a free trade agreement with the EU which the Westminster government currently seems likely to prefer, as it will abolish more non-tariff barriers to the trade of goods and services. For instance, most free trade agreements don’t give as much access to financial services markets as single market participation does. So if Scotland is in the single market and the rest of the UK is not, more financial services businesses may stay in Edinburgh, or move from London to Edinburgh rather than to the EU.

Is this feasible in practice though? The easy part would be applying EU laws in Scotland which only have domestic effect, like consumer, environmental and labour law.  When it comes to laws with a cross-border effect on trade between Scotland and the EU, such as financial services market access, it would be necessary to define exactly when a firm was based in Scotland (benefitting from single market participation in the Scottish Economic Area), and when it was based in the rest of the UK (subject to a less favourable trade agreement).

The most difficult issues relate to movement of goods and people. Would different rules on Scottish/EU relations compared to the relations between the EU and rest of the UK mean that there would need to be border controls between Scotland and the rest of the UK? On this point, the Westminster government has promised there will be no border controls between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, even though that border will become an EU/non-EU border.  Surely whatever deal is reached to this end could be adapted for use at the Scotland/England land border too.

The Scottish government would not have a direct role in EU decision-making. But it could be given the same role as Norway and Iceland have in their single market treaty with the EU (discussed further below): consultation on proposed EU laws, the power to reject them (although that’s subject to the risk of retaliation), and participation in the EFTA Court that decides on single market disputes as regards Norway and Iceland.

The suggestion above is undeniably complex, although the whole Brexit process is complex anyway. However, the idea isn’t all or nothing: it would be possible in theory for Scotland to participate fully in parts of the single market, rather than all of it like Norway and Iceland.

Independent Scotland Continue reading “Scotland and Brexit: Brave Heart or Timorous Beastie?”

Meijers Committee on EU latest proposals on “Dublin”, Eurodac and European Asylum Agency.

ORIGINAL DOCUMENT ACCESSIBLE HERE

CM1609: Note on the proposed reforms of the Dublin Regulaton (COM (2016) 197), the Eurodac recast proposal (COM (2016) 272 fnal), and the proposal for an EU Asylum Agency (COM(2016)271 fnal)

Comments on the Dublin recast proposal

  1. General observatons

The Meijers Commitee would like to take this opportunity to comment on the proposed reform of the Dublin Regulaton, as set forth in the 6 April 2016 EC communicaton to the EP and Council (COM (2016) 197) and the 4 May 2016 proposal for a regulaton of the EP and Council establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an applicaton for internatonal protecton lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country natonal or a stateless person (recast) (COM (2016) 270). The later proposal will be further referred to here as Dublin III recast.

On page 4 of the 6 April 2016 communication, the Commission succinctly lists the shortcomings of the Dublin regulation: “difficulties in obtaining and agreeing on evidence proving a Member State’s responsibility for examining the asylum application, leading therefore to an increase in the number of rejections of requests to accept the transfer of applicants. Even where Member States accept transfer requests, only about a quarter of such cases result in effective transfers, and, after completion of a transfer, there are frequent cases of secondary movements back to the transferring Member State. The effectiveness of the system is further undermined by the current rules which provide for a shift of responsibility between Member States after a given time. […] A further impediment to the effective functioning of the Dublin system results from the difficulty in transferring applicants to Member States with systemic flaws in critical aspects of their asylum procedure or reception conditions. The effective suspension of Dublin transfers to Greece since 2011 has proved a particularly critical weakness in the system. […] The Common European Asylum System is also characterized by differing treatments of asylum seekers, including in terms of the length of asylum procedures or reception conditions across Member States, a situation which in turn encourages secondary movements.”

The Meijers Commitee wishes to add that Dublin’s ineffectiveness not only results from the difficulty of effectuating transfers but also from a general failure to initiate Dublin procedures, because asylum seekers have not been registered upon entering the EU. It is well known, not only that asylum seekers may seek to avoid registration, but that some Member States also disregard their obligation to register asylum seekers – some even on a large scale. It has been estimated, for example, that only half the persons entering Italy and applying for asylum somewhere in the EU were registered in that country1 In 2014, the proportion of physical Dublin transfers to the number of applicants for international protection in the EU was about 4 %, which suggests that Dublin is applied in far fewer cases than all those to which it is in fact applicable.2

To remedy these shortcomings, the Commission proposes two options: 1. Supplementing the present system with a corrective fairness mechanism, or 2. A new system for allocating asylum applications in the EU based on a distribution key. Because the second option would be difficult to envisage in the short or medium term, the Commission has chosen to pursue the first one.

The Meijers Commitee would frst of all like to point out that none of the shortcomings listed by the Commission will be remedied by the first opton, since it is essentally a contnuaton of the present Dublin system, which is demonstrably a failure. Why contnue with a broken system instead of fixing the shortcomings, even though this may not produce significant results in the short term? Additionally, the Meijers Committee points to the fact that the Dublin regulation was only very recently recast (19 July 2013), so this recast has been undertaken within 3 years of the entry into force of the last recast regulation, while that recast came 10 years after the entry into force of the Dublin II regulation.

The Meijers Commitee points out that at present there are two infringement procedures ongoing with regard to the Dublin regulation (in respect of Italy and Hungary), as well as four infringement procedures regarding the closely related Eurodac regulation (in respect of Croatia, Greece, Italy and Cyprus). Additionally, the Commission has recently sent a second supplementary letter to Greece expressing concerns over the persistence of serious deficiencies in the Greek asylum system, as well as a 10 February 2016 recommendation.

The belief that the Dublin system allocates responsibility unsustainability is widely held and is mentioned on page 3 of the explanatory memorandum to the Dublin III recast proposal. It is no coincidence that the infringement procedures mentoned above concern Member States on the EU’s external borders. These Member States have for a long tme complained that they cannot process the large numbers of asylum seekers entering the EU through their territories. While the suggested corrective fairness mechanism can go some way to remedy this situation, it will not change the fact that it is these Member States who will bear the brunt of new arrivals. The corrective fairness mechanism will not be triggered until a Member State has received 150% of the maximum allocated number of applications deemed fair on the basis of that State’s GDP and population size. This only partly corrects disproportionate burden sharing, without addressing the fundamental shortcomings of the Dublin system, namely that this system wrongly presupposes that the asylum procedures are adequate and up to standard in all Member States. On the contrary, Member States still continue to display systemic deficiencies, which make Dublin transfers impossible. As has been accepted by the ECtHR in several recent judgments, there are significant national differences in the quality of reception and asylum systems, which continue to exist and which encourage secondary movements.3 Additionally, the Commission must take stock of the fact that its similar attempt of September 2015 at such a mechanism has so far not been successful: of the 160,000 asylum-seekers who should have been relocated, only 1,500 (909 from Greece and 591 from Italy) have been relocated. The proposals under Dublin III recast do very little to address this unsustainable burden sharing, focusing instead on the risk of abuse of the rules laid down in the Dublin III regulation by individual asylum seekers, including their absconding.

  1. Detailed observatons

Continue reading “Meijers Committee on EU latest proposals on “Dublin”, Eurodac and European Asylum Agency.”