Category: 5. Asylum & refugees rights' policies

THE UK IMPLEMENTS EU FREE MOVEMENT LAW – IN THE STYLE OF FRANZ KAFKA

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EU LAW ANALYSIS 

Thursday, 19 March 2015

By Steve PEERS

Most laws are complicated enough to start with, but with EU Directives there is an extra complication – the obligation to transpose them into national law. A case study in poor transposition is the UK’s implementation of the EU’s citizens’ Directive, which regulates many aspects of the movement of EU citizens and their family members between EU Member States. Unfortunately, that defective implementation is exacerbated by a further gap between the wording of this national law and its apparent application in practice, and by the unwillingness of the EU Commission to sue the UK (or other Member States) even for the most obvious breaches of the law.

It’s left to private individuals, who usually have limited means, to spend considerable time and money challenging the UK government in the national courts. One such case was the recent victory in McCarthy (discussed here), concerning short-term visits to the UK by EU citizens (including UK citizens living elsewhere in the EU) with third-country (ie, non-EU) family members.  The UK government has just amended the national rules implementing the EU citizens’ Directive (the ‘EEA Regulations’) to give effect to that judgment – but it has neglected to amend the rules relating to another important free movement issue.

Implementing the McCarthy judgment

The citizens’ Directive provides that if EU citizens want to visit another Member State for a period of up to three months, they can do so with very few formalities. However, if those EU citizens are joined by a third-country family member, it’s possible that this family member will have to obtain a short-term visa for the purposes of the visit. The issue of who needs a short-term visa and who doesn’t is mostly left to national law in the case of people visiting the UK and Ireland, but it’s mostly fully harmonised as regards people visiting all the other Member States.

Although the EU’s citizens’ Directive does simplify the process of those family members obtaining a visa, it’s still a complication, and so the Directive goes further to facilitate free movement, by abolishing the visa requirement entirely in some cases. It provides that no visa can be demanded where the third-country family members have a ‘residence card’ issued by another EU Member State. According to the Directive, those residence cards have to be issued whenever an EU citizen with a third-country family member goes to live in another Member State – for instance, where a British man moves to Germany with his Indian wife. Conversely, though, they are not issued where an EU citizen has not left her own Member State – for instance, a British woman still living in the UK with her American wife.

How did the UK implement these rules? The main source of implementation is the EEA Regulations, which were first adopted in 2006, in order to give effect to the citizens’ Directive by the deadline of 30 April that year. Regulation 11 of these Regulation states that non-EU family members of EU citizens must be admitted to the UK if they have a passport, as well as an ‘EEA family permit, a residence card or a permanent residence card’. A residence card and permanent residence card are creations of the EU Directive, but an ‘EEA family permit’ is a creature of UK law.

While the wording of the Regulation appears to say that non-EU family members of EU citizens have a right of admission if they hold any of these three documents, the UK practice is more restrictive than the wording suggests. In practice, having a residence card was usually not enough to exempt those family members from a visa requirement to visit the UK, unless they also held an EEA family permit. Regulation 12 (in its current form) says that the family member is entitled to an EEA family permit if they are either travelling to the UK or will be joining or accompanying an EU citizen there. In practice, the family permit is issued by UK consulates upon application, for renewable periods of six months. In many ways, it works in the same way as a visa requirement.

An amendment to the Regulations in 2013 provided that a person with a ‘qualifying EEA State residence card’ did not need a visa to visit the UK. But only residence cards issued by Germany and Estonia met this definition. This distinction was made because the UK was worried that some residence cards were issued without sufficient checks or safeguards for forgery, but Germany and Estonia had developed biometric cards that were less likely to be forged.

In the McCarthy judgment, the CJEU ruled that the UK rules breached the EU Directive, which provides for no such thing as an EEA family permit as a condition for admission of non-EU family members of EU citizens with residence cards to the territory of a Member State. The UK waited nearly three months after the judgment to amend the EEA Regulations to give effect to it.

The new amendments cover many issues, but to implement McCarthy they simply redefine a ‘qualifying EEA State residence card’ to include a residence card issued by any EU Member State, as well as any residence card issued by the broader group of countries applying the EEA treaty; this extends the rule to cards issued by Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. Presumably this brings the rules into compliance with EU law on this point (the new rules apply from April 6th). That means that non-EU family members of EU citizens will not need a visa to visit the UK from this point, provided that they hold a residence card issued in accordance with EU law, because they are the non-EU family member of an EU citizen who has moved to another Member State. However, this depends also on the practice of interpretation of the rules, including the guidance given to airline staff.

‘Surinder Singh’ cases Continue reading “THE UK IMPLEMENTS EU FREE MOVEMENT LAW – IN THE STYLE OF FRANZ KAFKA”

DENMARK AND EU JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS LAW: DETAILS OF THE PLANNED REFERENDUM

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EU LAW ANALYSIS

Tuesday, 17 March 2015

by STEVE PEERS 

Danish participation in cross-border criminal law measures is symbolised by ‘The Bridge’, the ‘Nordic Noir’ series about cross-border cooperation in criminal matters between Denmark and Sweden. But due to the changes in EU law in this field, that cooperation might soon be jeopardised. As a result, in the near future, Denmark will in principle be voting on whether to replace the current nearly complete opt-out on EU Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) law with a partial, selective opt-out. I have previously blogged on the implications of this plan in general terms, but it’s now clear exactly what this vote will be about.

First of all, a short recap of the overall framework (for more detail, see that previous blog post). Back in 1992, Denmark obtained an opt-out from the single currency, defence and aspects of JHA law (it’s widely believed that it also obtained an opt-out from EU citizenship, but this is a ‘Euromyth’). These opt-outs were formalised in the form of a Protocol attached to the EU Treaties as part of the Treaty of Amsterdam. The JHA opt-out was then amended by the Treaty of Lisbon.

At present, Denmark participates in: the EU policing and criminal law measures adopted before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon; measures relating to the Schengen border control system (as  matter of international law, not EU law); the EU rules on visa lists (as a matter of EU law); and the EU’s Dublin rules on allocation of asylum applications, ‘Brussels’ rules on civil jurisdiction and legislation on service of documents (in the form of treaties with the EU). In contrast, Denmark does not – and cannot – participate in other EU rules on immigration and asylum law or cross-border civil law, or policing and criminal law rules adopted since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.

The Protocol on Denmark’s legal position either allows it to repeal its JHA opt-out entirely, or selectively. If it chooses to repeal the opt-out selectively, it would then be able to opt in to JHA measures on a case-by-case basis, like the UK and Ireland, although (unlike those states) it would remain fully bound by the Schengen rules. Indeed, those rules will then apply as a matter of EU law in Denmark, not as a matter of international law. Continue reading “DENMARK AND EU JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS LAW: DETAILS OF THE PLANNED REFERENDUM”

The Iraq war and EU asylum law: the CJEU’s answers are blowin’ in the wind

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED HERE 

by Steve Peers

Nearly twelve years since the conflict began, the Iraq war is still controversial, with many believing that Tony Blair and George W. Bush launched an ‘illegal war’. For these critics, the only satisfying result would be the trial of Bush and Blair on war crimes charges. I think this will happen one day – on the condition that the jury consists of flying pigs. (Perhaps they flew off with the mythical weapons of mass destruction).

For now, then, in light of the mysterious death of a scientist and the dubious delay in a planned investigation of the war, critics of the conflict have to litigate these issues indirectly. There is a link to EU law here – as set out in February 26, Shepherd judgment of the CJEU. Unfortunately that judgment is highly problematic, not because the Court avoids the key issue of the war’s legality, but because of its unconvincing interpretation of some key issues concerning the status of deserters in EU asylum law.

Background

The Geneva Convention on refugee status defines a refugee as a person outside his or her country of origin, who is unwilling or unable to return to that country due to a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, particular social group or political opinion. But it excludes refugee status from those who have committed particularly heinous acts, including war crimes.

These rules are set out again, and further elaborated, in the EU’s Qualification Directive. In particular, there is a further definition of the concept of ‘persecution’, which (among other things) includes legal or policing measures, or prosecution or punishment, which is ‘disproportionate or discriminatory’ (the ‘unfair punishment’ rule), and ‘prosecution or punishment for refusal to perform military service in a conflict’, if ‘performing military service would include crimes or acts falling under the exclusion clauses’ (the ‘military service’ provision).

The Shepherd case concerns an American soldier who developed doubts about the legitimacy of the Iraq war. Although he was not in combat, but rather carried out maintenance work on helicopters, he feared that he was contributing to the commission of war crimes. So he deserted from the US army, but expected that he would be prosecuted in the USA as a result. To avoid this, he applied for asylum in Germany, and the German courts sent questions to the CJEU to clarify the interpretation of the Qualification Directive.

Judgment

The Court began by confirming that it would only interpret the rules in the Directive on the concept of persecution, although the Advocate-General’s opinion had also examined the rules on the grounds of persecution and exclusion. As a result, the Court’s judgment says nothing (for instance) about the definition of ‘war crimes’.

Next, the Court made four main points about the interpretation of the ‘military service’ provision. First of all, the definition of ‘military service’ included support staff, and the circumstances surrounding enlistment in the military were irrelevant. Implicitly it doesn’t matter whether the soldier was conscripted or volunteered. However, the Court stated that being part of the military was a ‘necessary but not sufficient’ condition for the rule to apply.

Secondly, the Court elaborated upon the conditions for applying the provision, setting out four elements to be considered: there must be a relationship with an actual conflict; the rule can apply even to indirect participation in a conflict, if the soldier’s tasks could ‘sufficiently directly and reasonably plausibly, lead them to participate in war crimes’ (the possibility of prosecution before the International Criminal Court being irrelevant); there must be a likelihood of war crimes being committed in future (again, the possible role of the International Criminal Court is irrelevant); and the past conduct of the unit is not an automatic indicator that war crimes will be committed in future. Overall, the test is whether ‘there is a body of evidence which alone is capable of establishing’ whether it is ‘credible’ that war crimes will be committed.

Thirdly, the Court examined the context of the conflict in question, addressing three issues. If there was a Security Council resolution authorising the conflict, there was ‘in principle, every guarantee’ that war crimes will not be committed, although this was not an absolute rule. This also applied to an ‘operation which gives rise to an international consensus’. And if national law of the country of origin provided for the ‘possibility’ of prosecution of war crimes, then it was ‘implausible’ that such crimes will be committed. Overall, the asylum-seeker has to show that there is ‘sufficient plausibility’ that his unit is ‘highly likely’ to commit war crimes.

Fourthly, the Court looked at the soldier’s individual circumstances. Desertion has to be the only way in which he could avoid participation in war crimes, and the Court pointed out that Mr. Shepherd had enlisted and then re-enlisted in the US armed forces.

Finally, the Court interpreted the ‘the ‘unfair punishment’ rule. The starting point was that Member States are entitled to maintain an armed force, including by means of punishing soldiers who desert. A penalty of up to five years in prison was not disproportionate, in the CJEU’s view. Nor was Mr. Shepherd’s punishment discriminatory, since there was no comparator for him. And the social ostracism that might result from his desertion was legally irrelevant, since it was only a consequence of the punishment.

Comments

Let’s begin with the parts of the judgment which are fairly convincing. The Court’s definition of ‘military service’ makes sense in light of the wording of the Directive, as does its interpretation of the conditions for applying this provision.

Unfortunately, the majority of the Court’s reasoning is not as persuasive. As regards the ‘unfair punishment’ rule, the Court should have made clearer why a lengthy prison sentence is acceptable for a deserter, but not (according to prior case law) an LGBTI refugee. (The obvious answer is that an expression of human sexuality is prima facie an exercise of the human right to a private life). On discrimination, the Court’s failure to find a comparator stems from its unwillingness to look at the grounds of persecution: obviously Mr. Shepherd could claim discrimination as compared to persons in other social groups or holding other political opinions. And as for social ostracism, the Court simply asserts that such ostracism cannot be severed from the punishment for desertion. But this is not necessarily correct. However, it should be noted that the judgment leaves open the possibility that social ostracism can exist in the absence of official punishment in another case.

The Court’s reasoning on the context of military conflict is quite implausible. Why should the mere existence of a Security Council resolution amount to a ‘guarantee’ that war crimes will not be committed? In any event, this begs the enormous question as to whether the Iraq war was indeed authorised by such a resolution. This line of reasoning is inconsistent with the Court’s ruling in the Kadi line of cases that the mere existence of a Security Council process was insufficient to guarantee human rights. Many people start out as naive idealists about international law, but end up as disappointed cynics; the Court seems to have undertaken this journey the other way around.

The idea that an ‘international consensus’ could lead to the same result is baffling. Unlike a Security Council resolution, which is clearly a real thing (leaving aside the question of how to interpret one), there is no reference to ‘international consensus’ in the Directive, and the Court makes no suggestion that such a concept exists in international law. How would it even be defined? The State being invaded clearly does not participate in such a ‘consensus’, and if there were such widespread international agreement, why would it not have resulted in a Security Council resolution anyway? The only plausible explanation for this part of the judgment is that Tony Blair hacked into the Court’s computer system, integrating his beliefs about liberal intervention into the heart of EU law. Let’s hope he didn’t charge the Court his usual fee.

Nor is it convincing that the ‘possibility’ of national prosecution for war crimes is sufficient. If it were, why has the international community spent decades building an international criminal court system? The Advocate-General’s opinion gives several examples (such as My Lai) where such a possibility was clearly insufficient.

Finally, as regards the soldier’s individual circumstances, the Court failed to consider the possibility that the conduct of the war changes, that facts about war crimes come to light, or that the solider simply changes his mind. The latter possibility is clearly relevant, since public opinion hardened against the Iraq war as it went on, and the Advocate-General spells out how Mr. Shepherd came to change his own mind. But the final word on this point should go to Bob Dylan:

Yes, how many times can a man turn his head Pretending he just doesn’t see?

 Yes, how many ears must one man have Before he can hear people cry?

Yes, how many deaths will it take till he knows That too many people have died?

The answer my friend is blowin’ in the wind The answer is blowin’ in the wind.

THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD IN IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CASES: THE CJEU MOVES TOWARDS A DEFINITION

Original Published HERE on EU LAW ANALYSIS on Friday, 16 January 2015

by Elspeth Guild, Kingsley Napley

An essential element of a legal challenge is the right to be heard. It is often characterised as a component of rights of the defence but it has a wider ambit requiring state authorities to provide an individual with an opportunity to state his or her case before taking a decision. By and large in EU law, the right to be heard has been bundled into national procedural rights but it began to make guest appearances in CJEU judgments from 2008 and recently has taken central stage in two judgments on the Return Directive.

The starting place, however, is in a judgment about post clearance recovery of customs import duties (C-349/07 Sopropé), where the CJEU held that when state authorities take decisions within the scope of EU law they must provide the entity with the right to be heard. This is the case even in the absence of such a procedural requirement in EU law. Two conditions must be fulfilled: the right must be the same as that to which individuals or undertakings in comparable situations under national law are entitled (the principle of equivalence) and secondly the procedural rules must not make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the right (the principle of effectiveness). These principles laid out in the 2008 judgment are having a considerable impact on EU law on third country nationals both in the context of asylum and return decisions.

Where does the right to be heard come from?

First, the source of the right: the CJEU found in 2008 (a year before the Charter became legally binding via the Lisbon Treaty) that there was an EU principle of the right to be heard. But note, in subsequent judgments it has been reluctant to embed the right in the Charter. Although the Charter has a right to good administration (Article 41(1)) which includes the right to be heard, the CJEU has held, most recently in two judgments (Mukarubega and Boudjlida, discussed here) on the Return Directive (Directive 2008/115), that this right only applies to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the EU (not to Member State bodies – a finding not entirely consistent with a previous ruling on an asylum matter see below).

So the right to be heard, for instance regarding a residence permit under the Return Directive, cannot be founded on Article 41 Charter. Further, Articles 47 and 48 Charter ensure respect for the rights of the defence and fair legal process in all judicial proceedings, but while the CJEU refers in its recent judgments to these two provisions in conjunction with Article 41, it has not expressly excluded them from applicability to Member State action (as to do so would limit them to really few situations).  Instead, the Court has chosen to determine that the right is inherent in respect for the rights of the defence which is a general principle of EU law (see Boudjlida).

There is an oddity here which the CJEU does not attempt to explain. On the one hand the right to be heard is critical for the individual or entity before the state authority reaches a decision. On the facts of the cases before the CJEU which were about the decisions of a national authority that individuals were unlawfully residing on the territory and therefore the consequence was a return decision (or expulsion order), this matters a lot. The individuals had to have an opportunity to explain why their residence was lawful or why it should be regularised on the basis of their personal circumstances in order to avoid a return decision being pronounced against them.

On the other hand, the rights of the defence apply after the state authority has made its decision and the individual seeks to appeal against it. It may be a ground of the defence that the individual was never provided an opportunity to make his or her case before the decision was reached but this is an ex post argument. It is a stretch of interpretation to push the rights of the defence backwards into an administrative obligation. Further Article 47 Charter, the fair trial provision, applies in respect of any right or freedom guaranteed by EU law. But Article 48 Charter, the rights of the defence, apply when the individual is charged (a criminal charge). There are a number of nuances here regarding the right to be heard.

In MM – an asylum case – the CJEU held that the right to good administration (Article 41 Charter) includes the right of every person to be heard before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken. It went on to state that Article 41 Charter from its very wording is of general application. On this basis, and also after a consideration of the generally applicable principle of the right to be heard, the CJEU held that an asylum applicant must be heard by the national authorities responsible for determining the claim pursuant also to the rules of the Common European Asylum System. This seems to indicate that in the asylum context the CJEU was tempted to apply Article 41 Charter to national authorities but in the later decisions on the Return Directive it drew back from that position.

Nonetheless, in the Return Directive context (Boudjlida), the CJEU found that the right to be heard guarantees every person the opportunity to make known his or her views effectively during an administrative procedure and before the adoption of any decision liable to affect his or her interests adversely.

What does the right mean?  (continue reading …)

S.PEERS : 2014 in review . Free Movement, Immigration and Asylum Law

Original Published HERE

Introduction

The issue of the free movement of EU citizens, as well as immigration and asylum from non-EU countries, has in recent years become one of the most contested issues in EU law. This blog post reviews the large number of legal developments over the last year in these two fields, assessing firstly the controversies over EU citizens’ free movement rights and secondly the tensions in EU immigration and asylum law between immigration control and human rights and between national and EU powers. It’s the second in a series of blog posts reviewing aspects of EU law in the last year; the first in the series (on criminal law) can be found here.

Free Movement Law

The case law of the CJEU on EU citizens’ free movement in 2014 was dominated by the themes of the limits to economic migration and equal treatment, in conjunction with EU citizens’ right to family reunion. On the first point, the most prominent judgment of 2014 was the Dano ruling (discussed here), in which the CJEU took a more stringent approach than usual in ruling that an EU citizen who had not worked or looked for work had no right to insist upon a social assistance benefit in the Member State that she had moved to.

As for the basic rules on qualification for EU free movement rights, the CJEU was not asked to rule in 2014 on the definition of EU citizenship. However, a pending case in the UK Supreme Court (discussed here) raises important questions about the extent of EU rules on the loss of national (and therefore EU) citizenship. The acquisition of EU citizenship also proved controversial, in the context of Malta’s sale of national (and EU) citizenship (discussed here).

Furthermore, EU free movement rights usually only apply to those who have moved between Member States. In two linked judgments this spring (discussed here), the CJEU clarified some important exceptions to that rule, as regards EU citizens who have moved to another country to be with their family members and returned, or who are cross-border workers or service providers. Next year, the CJEU will further clarify another important exception to that rule: the Ruiz Zambrano scenario when the non-EU parent of an EU citizen child is expelled to a third country, and the EU child has to follow, resulting in a de facto loss of their EU citizenship. The CS and Rendon Marin cases both ask the Court whether that case law applies to cases where the non-EU parent has been expelled following a criminal conviction.

For those EU citizens who do move between Member States, the CJEU delivered an important judgment in the case of Saint-Prix (discussed here), extending the concept of ‘former workers’ beyond the categories listed in the EU’s citizens Directive, to include also (under certain conditions) cases of pregnant women who gave up their jobs before the baby’s birth.

This judgment concerned the continued access to equal treatment in welfare benefits which former workers enjoy. Indeed, a new Directive on workers’ equal treatment (discussed here) was adopted in 2014, aiming to ensure the effective implementation of such equal treatment rights in practice. Next year, the CJEU will be called upon in theAlimanovic case to clarify whether the limits on EU citizens’ access to benefits set out inDano also impact upon work-seekers, who have previously had limited access to benefits linked to labour market access. The Court will also soon rule on students’ access to benefits again in the case of Martens, where there has already been an Advocate-General’s opinion.

The issue of EU citizens’ right to family reunion was repeatedly addressed throughout the year, with the CJEU taking a consistently liberal view. It ruled for a generous interpretation of ‘dependent’ family members in Reyes (discussed here), and confirmed that separated spouses can still qualify for permanent resident status in Ogierakhi (discussed here). It also ruled in McCarthy (discussed here) that non-EU family members of EU citizens could not be subject to a ‘family permit’ requirement to visit the UK, but rather had to be exempt from the need to obtain a visa if they hold a residence card in the country which they live in. This judgment clarified that Member States could only claim that EU citizens were abusing free movement rights in individual cases. On this topic, the Commission produced a Handbook on the issue of ‘marriages of convenience’ (discussed here). Next year, the Court will be called upon to clarify the application of EU law to divorces (Singh), and for the first time, to same-sex relationships (Cocaj).

Finally, as regards the issue of derogations, the Court took a less generous view of cases involving criminal convictions, ruling in G and Onuekwere that time spent in prison in the host State did not count toward obtaining permanent residence status or the extra protection against expulsion that comes with ten years’ residence.

Of course, the benefits of EU free movement law are not uncontested. Throughout the year, the debate on the merits of these rules in the UK intensified, to the point where Prime Minister David Cameron insisted that there had to be a major renegotiation of these rules as a key feature in the renegotiation of the UK’s membership of the EU. As I pointed out at the time (see discussion here), many of his demands will be difficult to agree, as they would require Treaty amendment.

Immigration and Asylum law Continue reading “S.PEERS : 2014 in review . Free Movement, Immigration and Asylum Law”

LGBTI ASYLUM-SEEKERS: THE CJEU SENDS MIXED MESSAGES

by Professor Steve Peers

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED HERE
Many countries worldwide still impose severe criminal sanctions and other forms of ill treatment on people who are gay, lesbian, transgender or intersex (LGBTI). Fortunately, according to the CJEU, any non – EU citizen suffering persecution on grounds of sexual orientation can seek asylum in the EU, claiming that they are part of a ‘particular social group’ being persecuted, in accordance with the EU’s qualification Directive.
The Court’s prior case-law (the X, Y and Z judgment of 2013) further clarifies that they do not have to keep their sexuality hidden in their country of origin in order to claim refugee status. But the mere existence of criminal law prohibitions in the country of origin doesn’t necessarily mean that LGBTI asylum-seekers are being persecuted: the crucial question is whether such laws are actually being enforced.
Before getting to the issue of persecution, though, how can the authorities check whether asylum-seekers are gay or lesbian in the first place? In today’s judgment in A, B and C, the CJEU rules out the most obnoxious forms of procedures to determine sexual orientation, but still leaves some leeway for dubious behaviour by national authorities.
The judgment
Asked by a Dutch court to clarify what national authorities can do to establish the sexual orientation of asylum seekers, the CJEU begins by stating that a mere self declaration by the asylum seeker is not sufficient. This is only the starting point of the assessment.
Although EU legislation does not address the issue of the credibility of asylum seekers in much detail, the CJEU states that the process of determining credibility must be consistent with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In principle, the same rules apply to all categories of asylum seekers, but they can be adapted to particular groups.
First of all, the CJEU states that questions ‘based on stereotypical notions may be useful’ to national authorities. But they cannot base their decisions purely on such notions, and the asylum seeker’s inability to answer such questions cannot mean that he or she has no credibility.
Secondly, the CJEU rules against detailed questioning about asylum seekers’ sex life, on the grounds that this would breach Article 7 of the Charter (the right to privacy). (On the questions which are asked in practice, see Colin Yeo’s earlier poston the Free Movement blog).
Thirdly, the CJEU rules that LGBTI asylum-seekers should not perform sex acts, produce films of their sexual activities or undergo medical testing to prove their orientation. This would breach Article 1 of the Charter (the right to human dignity) as well as Article 7.
Finally, the CJEU rules that Member States cannot assume that LGBTI asylum-seekers lack credibility simply because they didn’t raise the issue of their sexuality as soon as possible, in light of the sensitivity of the topic. However, the Court does not rule on some additional procedural issues considered in the Opinion of the Advocate-General.
Comments
The Court’s judgment frees LGBTI asylum-seekers from many particularly obnoxious forms of testing and questioning. In particular, it frees them from phallometric testing. The Court didn’t mention the details of this process, but suffice it to say that it involves examining men’s physical reaction to viewing pornography. The judgment should have added that this process is also a breach of Article 4 of the Charter, as a form of degrading treatment.
As for producing films or engaging in sex acts, the Court was right to rule out implicitly the possible waiver of privacy rights on the grounds that other asylum-seekers would be pressured to do the same thing.
The ruling also usefully clarified that LGBTI asylum-seekers do not need to declare their sexual orientation as soon as possible. This takes account of the social reality for people who have just fled countries where their personal identity is taboo.
On the other hand, today’s judgment is unhelpful to the extent that it refers to the possibility of ‘useful stereotypes’ when questioning LGBTI asylum-seekers. Although the Court only refers in this context to questions about the existence of NGOs supporting LGBTI individuals, many other stereotypes exist. The Court ruling might be interpreted to endorse assumptions that (for instance) gay men don’t like sports, or that lesbians have short hair. Such stereotypes might be only mildly annoying on a day – to – day basis. But if they are used in order to reject an asylum claim, they could be fatal to the person concerned.
Admittedly, the Court rules out relying on the answers to such questions as the sole basis for denying asylum. Nor is it possible to decide that an asylum seeker who can’t answer such questions has no credibility. But it is still possible that an asylum seeker will lose credibility if he or she gives the ‘wrong’ answer to these questions; and those answers can form part of the assessment of credibility.
More broadly, the Court’s approach fails to take sufficient account of the wide diversity of the expression of human sexual identity, especially in countries where homosexuality is taboo.
While some questions relating to LGBTI asylum-seekers’ credibility must be acceptable, given that the Court ruled out self – declaration as an automatic route to establish such credibility, the Court could surely have found a better form of words than ‘useful stereotypes’. It could, for instance, have endorsed the relevant UNHCR guidelines discussed in the Advocate-General’s opinion.
Although there are many positive aspects of today’s judgment, the CJEU’s unjustified aversion to human rights soft law may cause problems for many LGBTI asylum-seekers in practice.

Unaccompanied minors: the Meijers Committee criticizes the Council Presidency amendments to the Dublin III Regulation

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED HERE

The Meijers Committee (*) is of the opinion that the judgment in case C-646/11 on the position of unaccompanied minors should be implemented fully. This would be in conformity with both the political agreement reached by the co-legislators upon the adoption of the Dublin III regulation and the requirements of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Accordingly, the original Commission proposal should be adopted, without the changes made in the Council Presidency compromise text. In addition, the Meijers Committee believes that it is in the best interest of the child to extend these provisions to unaccompanied minors who do not lodge an application for international protection. Finally, the Meijers Committee suggests that effective remedies should also be ensured against decisions not to transfer an asylum applicant.

Introduction

The Meijers Committee has taken note of the proposal1 of the European Commission of 26 June 2014 to amend Regulation 604/2013 (the Dublin III Regulation) and the changes made to this proposal in the Presidency compromise text of 20 November 2014.2

The proposal seeks to revise Article 8(4) of the Regulation in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in case C648/11 MA and Others vs. Secretary of State for the Home Department. In this judgment the Court of Justice ruled that ‘where an unaccompanied minor with no member of his family legally present in the territory of a Member State has lodged asylum applications in more than one Member State, the Member State in which that minor is present after having lodged an asylum application there is to be designated the Member State responsible’.

Article 8(4a) of the proposal reflects this judgment. However, Articles 8(4b and c) of the Presidency compromise text of 20 November 2014 state that, by way of derogation from Article 8(4a), the Member State which has already taken a decision at first instance on the basis of an adequate and complete examination of its substance is responsible under the Dublin Regulation. This does not conform with the judgment in Case C-648/11.

The proposal also addresses the situation of unaccompanied minor asylum applicants who are present in the territory of a Member State and who do not lodge an application there.  Such a situation was not covered by the judgment in case C-648/11. Article 8(4b) of the proposal provides that in that case the unaccompanied child should be transferred to the Member State where he has lodged his or her most recent application, unless this is not in his best interest. The Meijers Committee welcomes the fact that the proposal ‘takes highest account of the Court of Justice’s ruling in case C-648/11’. However, the Committee also wishes to put forward several comments, in particular with regard to Articles 8(4b and c) of the compromise text and Article 8(4d) of the proposal.

A full implementation of the judgment in Case C-648/11

Case C-648/11 concerned the interpretation of Article 6 of Regulation 343/2003 (the Dublin II Regulation). Some Governments contend that this judgment therefore does not require the Union legislator to bring the Dublin III Regulation into conformity with the Court’s judgment. In fact, the Dutch Government put forward the counterargument that such a rule promotes asylum shopping.3 It therefore argues that the rules for transferring asylum seekers pursuant to the Dublin III Regulation should be the same for children and adults alike.4

The Meijers Committee is of the opinion that the Union Legislator cannot but implement the judgment in case C-648/11. It is true that the Court of Justice in case C-648/11 pertained to the old Dublin II regulation. However, the Meijers Committee recalls that upon adoption of the final text of the Dublin III regulation, the co-legislators attached a declaration in which they committed themselves to amending Article 8, once the judgment in C-648/11 was delivered. The Meijers Committee understands this to mean that the Council and Parliament settled their differences by seeking guidance from the Court. Moreover, as explained below, the Court in its ruling explicitly addressed concerns about so-called ‘asylum shopping.’

There are sound legal reasons to implement the Court’s ruling. The Court took into account the objectives of Article 6 (i.e. to make separate provisions for unaccompanied minors) and the Dublin II regulation as a whole (i.e. to guarantee effective access to an assessment of the applicant’s refugee status). The Court held that ‘[s]ince unaccompanied minors form a category of particularly vulnerable persons, it is important not to prolong more than is strictly necessary the procedure for determining the Member State responsible, which means that, as a rule, unaccompanied minors should not be transferred to another Member State.’ The protection of (unaccompanied) minors and effective access to the procedures for granting international protection are also important objectives of the Dublin III regulation.5

Further, the Court of Justice held that Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter) requires that the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration in decisions concerning the transfer of unaccompanied minors. According to the Court of Justice it is in the interest of unaccompanied minors ‘not to prolong unnecessarily the procedure for determining the Member State responsible, and to ensure that unaccompanied minors have prompt access to the procedures for determining refugee status’. Therefore an unaccompanied minor who lodges an asylum claim in a Member State and is present there should not be transferred to the Member State where he first lodged an asylum claim.

Article 8(4) of the current Dublin III regulation should also be interpreted in conformity with Article 24(2) of the Charter and thus, in principle, prevent the transfer of an unaccompanied minor.6

Legality of the derogation provisions laid down in Article 8(4b and c) of the compromise text

The principles set out by the Court of Justice in its judgment in Case C-648/11 apply to all unaccompanied minors. The question whether these minors still have an asylum procedure pending or completed in another Member State was irrelevant to the Court. However, Article 8(4b and c) of the compromise text provides that an accompanied minor who is present and lodges an asylum claim in a Member State should be transferred to another Member State if that Member State has already taken a final decision on the basis of an adequate and complete examination of its substance. Article 8(4c) contains short time limits in order to guarantee a relatively swift completion of the Dublin procedure. However, it may still take several months (six weeks for the decision in first instance and the time necessary to lodge an effective remedy and obtain a court decision) before the unaccompanied minor will be transferred.

This is not in conformity with the requirement following from the judgment in case C-648/11 that the Dublin procedure must not be prolonged unnecessarily and prompt access to the procedures for determining refugee status must be ensured.

Therefore these provisions violate Article 24(2) of the Charter. There is a clear risk that Articles 8(4b and c) of the compromise text will be declared invalid by the Court of Justice, should they be adopted by the Union legislator. In this respect, it is important to note that the Court of Justice found that a rule as laid down in Article 8(4a) as originally proposed does not entail a risk of asylum shopping.7 The Court considered that an unaccompanied minor whose application for asylum is substantively rejected in one Member State cannot subsequently compel another Member State to examine an application for asylum. According to the Court, Article 25 of Directive 2005/85/EC (asylum procedures directive) allows Member States to declare an asylum application inadmissible (and thus avoid examination of the substance of the application), if the asylum applicant has lodged an identical application after a final decision has been taken against him in another Member State.

The Member State which becomes responsible under Article 8(4) of the proposal needs to inform the Member State with which the first application has been lodged accordingly. In the reasoning of the Court therefore, there is no risk of asylum shopping, because a Member State may declare inadmissible an asylum application that is identical to an application on which another Member State has already finally decided. This possibility is maintained in the recast asylum procedures directive 2013/32/EU (Art. 33(1)(d)).

The Meijers Committee recommends deletion of paragraphs 4b and 4c (I – IV) in their entirety, as they do not comply with the Charter and the case law of the Court of Justice.

Taking back unaccompanied minors who have not claimed asylum

Article 8(4b) of the Commission proposal (Article 8(4d) of the compromise text) provides that Member States should inform unaccompanied minors who are present on their territory of their right to make an application and give them an effective opportunity to lodge an application in that Member State. If the unaccompanied minor does not lodge such application, he will as a general rule be transferred to the Member State where he has lodged his most recent asylum claim. Member States should refrain from transferring the minor if the transfer is not in his best interests.

The Meijers Committee finds that Article 24(2) of the Charter requires that the best interest of the child is a primary consideration in all decisions concerning the transfer of unaccompanied minors to another Member State. Unaccompanied minors belong to a category of particularly vulnerable persons, whether or not they have applied for asylum.8 It follows from the Court of Justice’s judgment in case C-648/11 that extensive procedures for determining the responsible Member State are not in a child’s best interest. This should therefore also apply to unaccompanied minors who did not lodge an application in the Member State in which they are present, as referred to in Article 8(4b) of the proposal.

The Meijers Committee is concerned that the rule laid down in the proposed Article 8(4b) will place the burden on the unaccompanied minor to prove that transfer is not in her or his best interest. Member States may be inclined to apply the general rule rather than performing a full best-interest determination before taking a decision to transfer or not. Furthermore, the proposed Article 8(4b) will encourage unaccompanied minors who do not wish to be transferred to another Member State to lodge an application, even if such an application has no chance of success. This would not be in the interest of the Member States nor in the best interest of the unaccompanied minor.

The Meijer Committee proposes that when the unaccompanied minor makes an informed decision not to apply for asylum, the Member State in which he is present shall perform a best interest determination before taking a decision on his transfer to another Member State. The duty to perform such a best interest determination should be included in Article 8(4b) of the proposal. The rule that the minor should be transferred to the Member State where he has lodged his most recent asylum claim should be deleted.

Legal protection in case the Member State decides not to transfer

The position of unaccompanied minors also highlights an anomaly in the Dublin Regulation in the sphere of effective remedies. Article 27 of the Regulation only ensures the right to an effective remedy ‘against a transfer decision’. Presumably this means that decisions not to transfer an applicant cannot be challenged before a court pursuant to the Regulation. The Meijers Committee has been informed of a number of cases in which an unaccompanied minor has expressly stated a preference to be transferred to another Member State, because a family member is present there, but where no take-charge request is submitted, or where the requested Member State refuses to accept such a request. The Regulation presumes that this a matter for the Member States to settle among themselves. Where, however, a decision not to transfer affects the asylum applicant in the enjoyment of his or her fundamental rights, such as the right to family life or the child’s best interests, an effective remedy against such a decision must be available. This follows clearly from Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which lays down that ‘[e]veryone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy’.

The Meijers Committee therefore proposes to change the text of Article 27(1) of the Regulation in such a way that an effective remedy is also open to decisions not to transfer an applicant:

Article 27 Remedies

The applicant or another person as referred to in Article 18(1)(c) or (d) shall have the right to an effective remedy, in the form of an appeal or a review, in fact and in law, [before a court or tribunal, against a transfer decision, a failure to submit a take-charge or take-back request as referred to in Articles 21, 23 and 24, or a decision on the request to take charge or to take back as referred to in Articles 22 and 25] before a court or tribunal.…

NOTES

1 COM(2014) 382 final.

2 Council Document No 15567/14 of 20 November 2014.

3 Case C-648/11 MA and Others vs. Secretary of State for the Home Department, para 63.

4 TK 2013-2014, 22 112, nr. 1895.

5 See recitals 5, 13 and 16 and Art. 8 of the Regulation.

6 Case C-648/11 MA and Others vs. Secretary of State for the Home Department, para 58.

7 Case C-648/11 MA and Others vs. Secretary of State for the Home Department, para 63.

8 ECtHR 4 November 2014, Tarakhel v Switzerland, Appl. no. , para 119.

 

 

 

 

(*) About: The Meijers Committee is an independent group of legal scholars, judges and lawyers that advises on European and International Migration, Refugee, Criminal, Privacy, Anti-discrimination and Institutional Law. The Committee aims to promote the protection of fundamental rights, access to judicial remedies and democratic decision-making in EU legislation. The Meijers Committee is funded by the Dutch Bar Association (NOvA), the Dutch Refugee Council (VWN), Forum Institute on Multicultural Affairs, the Dutch Section of the International Commission of Jurists (NJCM), Art. 1 Anti-Discrimination Office, and the Dutch Foundation for Refugee Students UAF. Contact info:

Louis Middelkoop Executive secretary l.middelkoop@commissie-meijers.nl +31(0)30 297 4328

Please visit http://www.commissie-meijers.nl for more information.

Tarakhel v Switzerland: Another nail in the coffin of the Dublin system?

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED HERE

by  Professor Steve Peers (FREE Group Member)

Introduction

Despite the EU’s purported adherence to high standards of human rights protection, the EU’s Dublin system, which allocates responsibility for each asylum-seeker’s application to a single Member State, has repeatedly run foul of human rights standards. Yesterday’s judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’, or ‘Strasbourg Court’) in Tarakhel v Switzerland, and the recent judgment of the same court in Sharifi v Italy and Greece, have further confirmed the problems in making this system compatible with ECHR obligations.

In fact, the Tarakhel judgment goes further than the prior judgments, which had merely exposed the lack of sufficient human rights protection in the EU legislation, as applied by Member States. Rather, it is now clear that the approach of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in interpreting the Dublin rules is also incompatible with the ECHR.

Background

The Dublin rules initially appeared as part of the Schengen Convention, which bound only certain Member States. They were then set out in the form of the Dublin Convention,signed in 1990. This Convention was replaced by an EC Regulation (known as the ‘Dublin II Regulation’) from 2003. That Regulation was in turn replaced by the Dublin III Regulation, adopted in 2013, which applies to all applications made after 1 January 2014. Furthermore, the Dublin rules have been extended to the non-EU countries associated with the Schengen system, by means of treaties with Norway and Iceland on the one hand, and Switzerland and Liechtenstein on the other.

The previous leading cases on the compatibility of the Dublin regime with human rights were (for the Strasbourg court) the 2011 judgment in MSS v Belgium and Greece, and (for the CJEU) the judgment in NS, delivered later that same year. In MSS, the ECtHR ruled that Greece had violated Article 3 ECHR (the ban on torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment) in three ways: its treatment of the Afghan asylum-seeker in question in detention; its failure to secure adequate living conditions for him after release from detention; and its highly deficient asylum procedure. The evidence of these violations was found in numerous reports by NGOs and international bodies. The Court also ruled that Belgium had violated Article 3 ECHR because it had returned the same asylum-seeker to Greece (in accordance with the Dublin rules), even though it must have known of the situation there. For good measure, the Court also ruled that Belgium had violated Article 13 ECHR (the right to an effective remedy), since Belgium did not provide for sufficient reviews of the merits in cases such as this one.

Subsequently, the CJEU ruled in NS that asylum-seekers could not be returned to Greece, pursuant to the Dublin rules, because of systematic deficiencies in the asylum system in that country. Removals in such cases would constitute a breach of Article 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (the equivalent of Article 3 ECHR). However, the Court distinguished such major breaches of fundamental rights from minor violations of EU or international rules relating to refugees, which would not require Member States to refrain from applying the Dublin rules.

Before the ECtHR could rule in Tarakhel, the CJEU clarified its position in its judgment in Abdullahi, delivered late in 2013. The Court started out by emphasising the presumption that all EU Member States protected human rights, noting that there was now second-phase legislation establishing the Common European Asylum System. It then characterised the Dublin rules as essentially regulating the relationship between Member States, referring in particular to the optional ‘sovereignty’ and ‘humanitarian’ clauses in the Dublin II Regulation, as well as the possibility of conciliation or separate arrangements between Member States. It followed that when two Member States agreed which of them was the Member State of first authorised entry (triggering responsibility under the Dublin rules), an asylum-seeker could ‘only’ challenge that decision by ‘pleading systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the conditions for the reception of applicants for asylum’ in the Member State which was deemed responsible for the asylum application.

Finally, the recent Sharifi judgment pf the Strasbourg Court established that Italy’s interception of asylum-seekers from Greece in the Adriatic, and their forced return to Greece, violated Article 3 ECHR as well as the ban on collective expulsions in the Fourth Protocol to the ECHR. In doing so, it confirmed a key corollary of the MSS ruling: Member States breach the ECHR if they stop asylum-seekers fleeing an unsafe country directly from crossing their borders. Although the rules on freedom to travel for third-country nationals in the Schengen Convention do not give asylum-seekers the right to move between Schengen States (unless, improbably, they have a visa or residence permit, or the visa requirement is waived for their country of origin), the ECHR nevertheless gives asylum-seekers the freedom to travel between Schengen countries (or any States) in such circumstances. Also, the right to move to another country extends beyond the three-month time limit on intra-Schengen travel, since asylum-seekers can in principle stay until their claim is finally rejected.

The Tarakhel judgment

Yesterday’s judgment concerned a family of eight Afghans, who entered the EU by crossing the Italian border first. This made Italy responsible for their applications under the Dublin rules. However, the family soon left the asylum-seekers’ reception centre which they were assigned to in Italy, on the grounds that conditions there were inadequate for families. They moved to Austria, which triggered the Dublin rules, asking Italy to take charge of them. Italy agreed, but before their transfer to Italy could be carried out, they moved on to Switzerland. That country in turn asked Italy to take charge of the family; Italy tacitly accepted.

However, they challenged their removal to Italy on the grounds that their treatment in that country, if they were removed there, would violate Article 3 ECHR. They lost their case in the Swiss courts, so asked the ECtHR to rule that their removal to Italy would constitute a breach of Article 3, as well as Article 8 ECHR (the right to family life). They also alleged a breach of Article 13.

The ECtHR rejected the Article 13 claim on the merits, since the Swiss courts had examined the merits of their legal arguments and they were allowed to stay on Swiss territory in the meantime. It held that it was not necessary to examine the Article 8 argument. Most importantly, by a majority of 14-3, it found that there was a breach of Article 3 ECHR.

Yet there are important differences between the MSS judgment and the Tarakheljudgment. Yesterday’s judgment does not state that Italy’s asylum system has effectively collapsed, as was the case in Greece. In particular, there were no allegations in Tarakhelrelating to flaws in Italy’s asylum procedures, or as regards detention. The argument instead was solely about living conditions in Italian detention centres.

The ECtHR began by reiterating its case law from MSS about reception conditions for asylum-seekers. While Article 3 ECHR did not guarantee a home or financial assistance, in cases involving EU Member States the Court took account of their specific obligations in that respect under the EU’s reception conditions Directive. Also asylum-seekers were an ‘underprivileged and vulnerable group’, and it was possible that extreme poverty could raise issues under Article 3. The Court also referred to other prior case law on the need to ensure that child asylum-seekers, who were in a position of ‘extreme vulnerability’, enjoyed ‘protection and humanitarian assistance’.

Next, the Court reiterated the usual rule that Article 3 prevents removal if ‘substantial grounds have been shown for believing’ that there is a ‘real risk’ of treatment contrary to Article 3 in the state of destination. The same rule could be used to rebut the assumption that countries applying the Dublin system were all safe. In this context, the ECtHR referred to the CJEU’s ‘systemic deficiencies’ test set out in the judgment in NS, but made no reference to the ruling in Abdullahi that this was the ‘only’ ground for challenging the application of the Dublin rules. However, the ECtHR also ‘notes’ the recent EM judgmentof the UK Supreme Court, which expressly stated that ‘systemic deficiencies’ were not the only ground for such challenges. Overall, the Court stated that these tests had to be applied by examining ‘the applicant’s individual situation in light of the overall situation prevailing’ in the state of destination.

Applying these rules to this case, the applicants had made three complaints about the situation of the Italian reception system. The first complaint, about the slowness of identification procedures, was dismissed out of hand, since the applicants had in fact been identified quickly. As for the second complaint, the Court accepted the evidence that there were not enough places for all asylum applicants. Thirdly, as for the reception conditions within the available facilities, a number of problems had been identified by the UNHCR and the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner.

Taken as a whole, then, the Court ruled that the ‘current situation in Italy can in no way be compared to the situation in Greece at the time of the MSS judgment’, where only a small fraction of asylum-seekers could be accommodated and ‘the conditions of the most extreme poverty…existed on a large scale’. So there could not be ‘a bar to all removals of asylum seekers to that country’. Having said that, the Court accepted that there was some risk that asylum-seekers might not get accommodation, or that the accommodation would be inadequate.

As for the individual position of the applicants, that was not comparable to the facts of theMSS case either.  The family in this case were taken care of immediately by the Italian government, rather than detained and then left to fend for themselves. But again, having said that, the Court was concerned that, in light of the vulnerability of asylum-seekers, and children in particular, there was no guarantee of (adequate) accommodation for families seeking asylum in Italy. So Switzerland could not send the family to Italy unless they obtained sufficient assurances on this point. This alone constituted a breach of Article 3 ECHR.

Interestingly, the majority judgment makes no reference to the alternative possibility of asylum-seekers obtaining private family housing at the expense of the State, which the CJEU developed in its recent Saciri judgment on the reception conditions Directive.

Comments

With great respect, there are many flaws with the CJEU’s judgment in Abdullahi. That judgment confuses Regulations (directly applicable in national legal systems) with Conventions (essentially governing relations between States). It places undue reliance on provisions of the Dublin II Regulation which were never applied in practice (conciliation) or were irrelevant to the case at hand (separate arrangements between Member States). It ignores the CJEU’s own case law on the ability to challenge Member States’ application of the Dublin II rules as regards unaccompanied minors (MA), humanitarian situations (K) or withdrawn applications (Kastrati). Its scope is unclear: does it only apply when Member States agree that the criterion regarding irregular entry is applicable, or in other cases as well? In any event, the judgment needs to be rethought in light of the Dublin III Regulation, which considerably expanded the procedural rights of asylum-seekers in the Dublin context. Why do that, if they can only challenge their transfer if there is a complete breakdown in the asylum system of the State responsible for their application?

But the most fundamental flaw in the Abdullahi judgment is exactly that: the CJEU’s statement that at least in some cases, the determination of the responsible Member State can ‘only’ be challenged if there are ‘systemic deficiencies’ in the asylum system of that State. Is that statement still correct after Tarakhel?

Certainly the statement is wrong if the CJEU meant (as it appeared to say) that both the asylum procedure and the reception conditions systems have to have failed in the responsible Member State, before a transfer to that State can be challenged. In Tarakhel, there is no issue raised regarding the asylum procedure in Italy. More generally, the Italian reception system is not in complete breakdown: the Tarakhel family faces neither extreme poverty nor vile detention conditions, but merely some risk that accommodation will either not be available or that it will be somewhat unpleasant. Accordingly, the Swiss obligations are nuanced: there is no ban on transfers, merely a procedural obligation to make arrangements with the Italian authorities.

It isn’t clear whether Tarakhel abandons the CJEU’s assumption that only ‘systemic deficiencies’ in the asylum system of a responsible State can justify a challenge to a Dublin transfer, or whether the judgment merely modifies the notion of ‘systemic deficiencies’ considerably, lowering the threshold for its application. On the first hypothesis, ‘systemic deficiencies’ are just one example of a situation that could lead to rebuttal of the assumption that another Dublin State is safe. Uncertainty about adequate reception conditions for families is another. But surely this cannot be an exhaustive list.

On the second hypothesis, a ‘systemic deficiency’ would not exist only where an asylum system had entirely collapsed, but where some particular aspect of the system was malfunctioning regularly to some extent. By analogy, a car needs to be fixed not only when the brakes entirely fail to work, but also when the windshield wipers occasionally malfunction. The risk is far greater in the first case, but the second case shouldn’t be ignored either. Again, the problems in Tarakhel cannot be the only example of a flaw in the asylum system of a responsible Member State that needs to be fixed before asylum-seekers can be transferred there.

There isn’t much difference between these two possible interpretations of Tarakhel. Although the first interpretation is in principle more open-ended than the second one, it shouldn’t take too much imagination to argue that any particular problem an asylum-seeker might face in the responsible Member State is ‘systematic’ in this very broad sense. The second interpretation does give the CJEU more leeway to back down from its head-banging judgment in Abdullahi, and explain that this was also what it had meant by ‘systemic deficiencies’ all along.

Of course, given the strong insistence on the efficiency of the Dublin system in theAbdullahi judgment, this is obviously not what the Court had meant at the time. Yet the clear message from the Tarakhel case is that there is not a simple binary distinction between cases when all Dublin transfers should stop, on the one hand, and cases when all Dublin transfers should go ahead at full speed, on the other. Instead, like a traffic light, yesterday’s judgment creates an intermediate category of cases in which national administrations must proceed with caution. This will undoubtedly make the Dublin system more costly and complex to administer, but that is often the only way to ensure that human rights are protected effectively.

Barnard & Peers:  chapter 9, chapter 26

La nouvelle Commission Juncker et la JAI : que tout change pour que rien ne change ?

by Henri LABAYLE (CDRE)

Original published HERE

La composition de la nouvelle Commission a suscité nombre de commentaires dans les médias, souvent bienveillants sinon flatteurs. L’a priori favorable dont bénéficie son Président, Jean Claude Juncker, n’empêche pas de douter de leur bien-fondé en matière de Justice et d’affaires intérieures, à supposer d’ailleurs que ces commentaires se vérifient dans les autres domaines d’action de l’Union.

Après des discours encourageants semblant indiquer que les thèmes des valeurs de l’Union et de l’urgence migratoire avaient été pris en considération par le programme du candidat à la Présidence, le retour à la réalité est moins enthousiasmant. Sans procès d’intention, il faut se résoudre à penser que, non seulement le changement ici aussi n’est pas pour maintenant, mais qu’il n’est pas davantage dans l’esprit des dirigeants de l’Union.

On fera litière d’abord des éléments de communication habilement distillés dans les rédactions des grands médias européens, notamment via un document de presse intelligemment construit. En résumé, la nouvelle Commission serait aujourd’hui un animal « politique », par opposition à sa composition technocratique précédente. Cette option est résumée ainsi par son président : « les commissaires ne sont pas des fonctionnaires ». Est-on bien certain que l’inverse n’est plus vrai ?

Soit, même si à l’examen il est aisé de se rendre compte que nombre de ces politiciens ont plutôt leur avenir politique derrière eux (5 anciens premiers ministres, 4 vice-premiers ministres, 19 anciens ministres, 7 commissaires sortants, nous dit-on), à supposer parfois qu’ils en aient eu un. Reste alors l’habileté manœuvrière qui, si l’on se penche plus précisément sur la JAI, réclamera vraisemblablement davantage de solliciter celle de Jean Claude Juncker que de compter sur le dispositif proposé.

Quelle délimitation des composantes de l’Espace de liberté ?

Continue reading “La nouvelle Commission Juncker et la JAI : que tout change pour que rien ne change ?”

The new Juncker  Commission: an “Echternach procession” for the freedom security and justice agenda ?

by Emilio DE CAPITANI

Text Updated on September 11, 2014 

1. Jean-Claude Juncker, President-elect of the European Commission which should start working from November 1st has unveiled today its team, its main priorities and its new method. As far as the Freedom security and justice area related policies are concerned there are some interesting and some worrying messages arising notably from the “mission” letters sent to the vice-president and to the two Commissioneers which will be in charge of this sensitive domain.

Vice President Timmermans :the “right hand” of the King ?

2. The most interesting (and promising?) is the fact that the respect for the rule of law and of the Charter will be the main mission of the first vice President (M. Timmermans) who will be the “right hand”  of the Commission President and who will have a veto power on the legislative initiatives presented by anyone of the members of the College.

3. The future will tell us if the Vice Presidents coordinating role will be a serious one (as the Juncker formula seems to suggest) or will only be a cosmetic formula as it was when under the Prodi Commission, for the first time this organisational model was launched. For the VP it will not be an easy task as it will not be served by a General Directorate. Within an institution where more than 80% of the decisions are taken by written procedure and where the real coordination/negotiation is done at head of Cabinet’s level the lack of administrative troops could be a serious handicap. That having been said it is more than likely that VP Timmermans will be supported by the Commission Secretary General and by the Legal Service (even if both are directly linked to Mr Juncker). Again who between them will be the real leader is still to be verified.

Three steps forward…

4. Unlike his predecessor Sefcovic in the Barroso Commission who was also in charge of the “Better Regulation” policy Vice President Timmermans should ensure that every Commission proposal or initiative will comply with the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Moreover the mission letter fix a six months deadline to revise the consistency of the current legislation and states that  the new Vice President should “ensure that every Commission proposal or initiative complies with the Charter of Fundamental Rights”. Maybe this is a positive consequence of the fact that the Court of Justice does no more hesitate from striking down EU legislation when in contrast with the Charter (as it has been the case for the recent Data Retention Ruling). However some hot potatoes are already on the table such as the EU-PNR or the Smart Border package (Entry-Exit and registered traveller program) which will be hard to consider compliant with the principles of non discrimination and of data protection as outlined by the CJEU.

5. Moreover the mission letter establish a six months term to revise the legislation to be “RE-FITTED” in compliance with the new criteria set by President Juncker. Again, it will not be easy as already one month after the envisaged entry into force of the new Commission will end the transitional period for hundred measures in police and judicial cooperation adopted before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty (European Arrest Warrant, Prum Decisions and several framework decisions…) without any serious impact evaluation on fundamental rights.

6. VP Timmermans will also be in charge the accession of the EU to the ECHR and of the coordination of the Commission’s work related to the Rule of Law as well as on the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism for Bulgaria and Romania. These tasks in the previous Barroso Commissions were very often treated only at the legal service level and raise at political level only in very exceptional cases (as it has been the case with Hungary). The fact that the Juncker  Commission does not intend to hide under the carpet the tensions which could arise with some Member States when the rule of law is at stake (even if  this “..is also an area where we need to be sensitive to the diversity of constitutional and cultural traditions in the 28 Member States”) should then be welcome.

7. Again, unlike his predecessor Sefcovich, the new first vice president  Timmermans will also “.. guide the work of the Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality and the Commissioner for Migration and Home Affairs” and will “manage and coordinate the participation of the Commission in the Justice and Home Affairs Council“ which means that coordination will not be avoid formula. Let’s hope that thanks  to this coordinating role the tensions which have arisen between the two commissioners on Home and Justice in the previous legislature will remain a thing of the past.

..and two steps back..

8. That having been said the message arising from the missions of the two candidate Commissioners in charge of Justice, Home affairs and migration is more ambiguous.

9. First and foremost the mission of the Justice minister  which was in the previous mandates focused on the core of judicial cooperation in criminal matters (as it is the case in the Member states) is now much more oriented to civil justice, consumer protection and ..the digital market. These are all important issues but not exactly the core of the Justice policy which, in the Juncker vision looks ancillary  even to “…our jobs and growth agenda, including through an assessment of the performance of judicial systems in the context of the European Semester of economic policy coordination.” Is the new Commission afraid (as the European Council in its recent guidelines) of the judicial area of criminal law ?  In theory this should not be the case because the Justice Commissioner will also be in charge of “all the Commission’s work in criminal matters and reinforcing judicial cooperation in this field. Putting an independent European Public Prosecutor’s Office in place by 2016 will be a significant step forward to protect the EU budget from fraud.”

10. However this declaration is contradicted by the mission of the Commissioner in charge of  “Migration and Home Affairs” who should “robustly address the challenge of irregular migration”,  “step up the fight against cross-border crime and terrorism” and focus “… on the fight against crime with a clear link to EU policies, such as human trafficking, smuggling and cybercrime and helping to tackle corruption, also by strengthening police cooperation”.

11. Do all these objectives fall outside judicial cooperation in criminal matters ? Will the Home Commissioner be in charge of the future legislation on euro crimes as it has been the case already in the previous Barroso Commission when the legislative proposal on trafficking of human beings, confiscation , and sexual abuse have been proposed by the Home Commissioner instead of the Criminal Justice commissioner ?

11. Instead of a patchwork of partially overlapping competencies in criminal law would had not been much wiser to link more clearly the competencies of the two “operational” commissioners to the relevant legal basis in the Treaty (where judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters are dealt by articles 81-86 and  police cooperation is dealt with by articles 87-89) ?

12. But the worst suprise is the confirmation of the link between  police cooperation and migration policies. Why migration is still considered a threat for the European Union so that it has to be dealt by the Ministry of interior ? Would not had been better to link the announced “new” portfolio of migration policy within the neighbouring policy or with the social policy or even to a new objective of “human mobility” where as it happens within the Schengen cooperation the right to freedom of movement of EU citizens and third country nationals are de facto coming closer  ?

13. The real outcome of the current configuration is a the growing role of the EU homeland security policy which will not only drive most of the future  legislation in criminal matters but will also drive (or be driven by?) the EU external security policy which still remain the main intergovernamental policy area after the Treaty of Lisbon. Last but ,ot least DG Home will now  manage some hundreds of millions of euros of research in the security domain.

14. Would had not been more logic (and compliant with the EU Charter) bringing together police and judicial cooperation under a rule of law perspective (as it is the case in the European Parliament with the LIBE committee) instead of creating spurious links between consumers policy with criminal justice and police cooperation with migration.

15. Moreover is the latter still considered a threat for the European Union to continue to be dealt by the Ministry of interior ? Would not had been better to link the announced “new” portfolio of migration policy with the neighbouring policy or with the social policy ?

16. Even the best of the Vice president will not be able to right up something which has been so badly designed and which mirror a typical Luxembourg procession in Echternach where people advance by making three step forward and …two step back.

———————-

ANNEX (text emphasized by me)

First Vice-President Frans Timmermans(150 kB)

10 September 2014

Jean-Claude Juncker, President-elect of the European Commission

Mission letter for  Frans Timmermans: First Vice-President, in charge of Better Regulation, Inter-Institutional Relations, the Rule of Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights

Dear Frans,

You are becoming a Member of the new European Commission at a particularly challenging time for the European Union. With the start of the new Commission, we have an exceptional opportunity, but also an obligation, to make a fresh start, to address the difficult geo-political situation, to strengthen economic recovery and to build a Europe that delivers jobs and growth for its citizens.

I want the new Commission to be a strong and political team. And I want you, with your political skills and experience, to fully play your part in this team.

We will have a lot to do in the years to come and we will have to show a united and clear sense of purpose from our very first day in office. In the Political Guidelines for the new European Commission that I presented to the European Parliament on 15 July, I set out a new Agenda for Jobs, Growth, Fairness and Democratic Change, focused on ten priorities.

I had discussed and developed this Agenda in detail in meetings with all the political groups in the European Parliament. The Political Guidelines are, therefore, somewhat akin to a political contract that I concluded with the European Parliament to mark the beginning of a new mandate and to prioritise the work of the new Commission.

I will be looking for your support, creativity and action to help deliver concrete results.

Following our recent discussions, I would like you to be my first Vice-President, in charge of Better Regulation, Inter-Institutional Relations, the Rule of Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

In this mission letter, I set out what I expect from you as a Member of the Commission as well as specific goals for which you will be responsible for reaching during our mandate.

A new way of working

Delivering the priorities of the Political Guidelines will require a reform of the way the Commission has operated up until now. Reform means change. I want us all to show that we are open to change and ready to adapt to it.

I want the Commission as a whole to be more than the sum of its parts.

I therefore want us to work together as a strong team, cooperating across portfolios to produce integrated, well-grounded and well-explained initiatives that lead to clear results.

I want us to overcome silo mentalities by working jointly on those areas where we can really make a difference. We cannot and should not do everything: I want the European Commission to be bigger and more ambitious on big things, and smaller and more modest on small things.

I also want us to focus our energy and efforts on ensuring effective implementation and follow-up on the ground. I count on you to play your part in this new collaborative way of working.

To facilitate this, I have decided to organise the new Commission differently from its predecessors.

I will entrust a number of well-defined priority projects to the Vice-Presidents and ask them to steer and coordinate work across the Commission in the key areas of the Political Guidelines.

This will allow for a better focus and a much stronger cooperation amongst Members of the College, with several Commissioners working closely together as a team, led by the Vice-Presidents, in compositions that may change according to need and as new projects develop over time.

To empower them to deliver on their priority projects, the Vice-Presidents will act on my behalf and will help exercise my rights and prerogatives in their area of responsibility.

In particular, the Vice-Presidents will be in charge of:

  • Steering and coordinating work in their area of responsibility. This will involve bringing together several Commissioners and different parts of the Commission to shape coherent policies and deliver results.
  • Assessing how and whether proposed new initiatives fit with the focus of the Political Guidelines. As a general rule, I will not include a new initiative in the Commission Work Programme or place it on the agenda of the College unless this is recommended to me by one of the Vice-Presidents on the basis of sound arguments and a clear narrative that is coherent with the priority projects of the Political Guidelines.
  • Managing and organising the representation of the Commission in their area of responsibility in the European Parliament, the Council, national Parliaments and other institutional settings as well as at international level.
  • Promoting a proactive and coordinated approach to the follow-up, implementation, and communication of our priority policies across the Union and internationally.

Respect for the principles of subsidiarity, proportionality and better regulation will be at the core of the work of the new Commission. We will concentrate our efforts on those areas where only joint action at European level can deliver the desired results. When we act, we will always look for the most efficient and least burdensome approach. Beyond these areas, we should leave action to the Member States where they are more legitimate and better equipped to give effective policy responses at national, regional or local level.

I will therefore pay particular attention to your opinion as my first Vice-President, in charge of Better Regulation, Inter-Institutional Relations, the Rule of Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, before including any new initiative in the Commission Work Programme or putting it on the agenda of the College. You will also be entrusted with the regular monitoring of procedures linked to the preparation of delegated and implementing acts to ensure full political ownership.

I will also pay particular attention to the opinion of the Vice-President for Budget and Human Resources as regards the impact of our activities on the financial resources and staff of the European Commission. We will have the privilege of being supported by an excellent, highly motivated European civil service and a professionally well-run administration, but its resources are limited and have to be used to best effect. This is also why I will want resources to be allocated to our priorities and to make sure that every action we take delivers maximum performance and value added.

I also want all Commissioners to ensure sound financial management of the programmes under their responsibility, taking all necessary measures to protect the EU budget from fraud.

Under my supervision, Vice-Presidents will be supported by the Secretariat General in their tasks but will primarily rely on close cooperation with the relevant Commissioners and the services that report to them.

In addition, Vice-Presidents will be able to draw on any service in the Commission whose work is relevant for their area of responsibility, in consultation with the relevant Commissioner.

With regard to the Union’s external action, I have launched a pragmatic partnership with the new High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, who, according to the Treaties, is one of the Vice-Presidents of the Commission.

The new High Representative and I have agreed that she will play her role as a Commission Vice-President to the full. She will notably steer and coordinate the work of all Commissioners with regard to external relations through a Commissioners’ Group on External Action to develop a joint approach.

This Group will meet at least once a month in varying thematic and/ or geographic formats, according to the needs identified by the High Representative/Vice-President or by me.

The High Representative/Vice-President will regularly report back to me and the whole College about geopolitical developments. To liaise more effectively with the other Members of the College, we agreed that she will have her Headquarters in the Berlaymont, and that the Commission will put a Cabinet of an appropriate size at her disposal, about half of which will be Commission officials.

We also agreed that, whenever she sees the necessity to do so, she will ask the Commissioner for European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations and other Commissioners to deputise in areas related to Commission competence.

Working together in this new way across the Commission should help ensure that the final decisions we take as a College are well-prepared and focused on what is important and that we are all equipped to explain and defend them. We will have to show a team spirit to make the new system work. Our success will depend on each and every one of you: on the team leadership of the Vice-Presidents and on the readiness of Commissioners to be strong team players. I would ask you all to work together to ensure that this new system works well.

The portfolio of the first Vice-President, in charge of Better Regulation, Inter-Institutional Relations, the Rule of Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights

As my first Vice-President, you will steer and coordinate the Commission’s work in the areas of Better Regulation, Inter-Institutional relations, the Rule of Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

You will work closely with the other Vice-Presidents, and all Commissioners will liaise closely with you when it concerns the implementation of our better regulation agenda.

In addition, for initiatives requiring a decision by the Commission in their area of responsibility, you will guide the work of the Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality and the Commissioner for Migration and Home Affairs.

You will drive the Commission’s work on better regulation in order to maximise its contribution to our jobs and growth agenda, both by coordinating the Commission’s work and by promoting the principles of better regulation in the EU institutions and at national level.

You will also be responsible for strengthening and deepening the Commission’s relations with the other institutions and national Parliaments.

During our mandate, I would like you to focus on the following, in your role as Vice-President:

  • Coordinating the work on better regulation within the Commission, ensuring the compliance of EU proposals with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and working with the European Parliament and the Council to remove unnecessary “red tape” at both European and national level. This includes steering the Commission’s work on the “Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme” (REFIT) of EU legislation and ensuring the quality of impact assessments underpinning our activities. I will ask you to take stock of experience and report to the College within twelve months on how our approach to better regulation could be strengthened.
  • Ensuring that the special partnership with the European Parliament, as laid down in the Framework Agreement of 2010, is pursued with full commitment, and coordinating, on behalf of the Commission, the inter-institutional work on policy programming and better law-making.

I will ask you to discuss, within the first three months of the mandate, with the European Parliament and the Council, the list of pending legislative proposals and to determine whether to pursue them or not, in accordance with the principle of “political discontinuity”.

  • Coordinating and strengthening the interaction of all Commissioners with national Parliaments as a way of bringing the European Union closer to citizens and forging a new partnership with national Parliaments.
  • Ensuring that every Commission proposal or initiative complies with the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
  • Leading the dialogue between the European Commission and churches and religious associations or communities, as well as with philosophical and non-confessional organisations, in a transparent and regular manner.
  • Concluding the process of accession of the EU to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe.
  • Coordinating the Commission’s work related to the Rule of Law.
  • Coordinating the Commission’s work on the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism for Bulgaria and Romania.
  • Coordinating the work on transparency and preparing a proposal for an Inter-Institutional Agreement creating a mandatory lobby register covering the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council.

You will represent the Commission in the General Affairs Council and in negotiations on institutional issues. You will also manage and coordinate the participation of the Commission in the Justice and Home Affairs Council.

You will be responsible for the Commission’s relations with the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, as well as with the European Ombudsman.

You will coordinate the work on audit and chair the Audit Progress Committee (APC). To help you fulfil these responsibilities, the Internal Audit Service (IAS) will report to you. The IAS should be gradually reinforced through the integration of the Internal Audit Capacities of individual Commission services.

Our principles: ethics and transparency

We must abide by the highest possible professional and ethical standards at all times. I want the European Commission to lead the way as a modern, efficient and transparent public administration, open to all input that helps us deliver work of a consistently high quality, in full independence and impartiality. Our conduct must be unimpeachable. You have received the Code of Conduct of the Members of the European Commission. I expect all of us to honour both the word and the spirit of the Code.

You will have seen that the Political Guidelines include a new commitment to transparency. Transparency should be a priority for the new Commission and I expect all of us to make public, on our respective web pages, all the contacts and meetings we hold with professional organisations or self-employed individuals on any matter relating to EU policy-making and implementation. It is very important to be transparent where specific interests related to the Commission’s work on legislative initiatives or financial matters are discussed with such organisations or individuals.

Working in partnership for Europe

The Commission’s partnership with the other EU institutions and the Member States, as defined in the Treaties, is fundamental. The Union only succeeds when everyone is pulling in the same direction: this is why we should work in the months to come to forge a common understanding between the institutions about what we want to achieve and how we will go about it.

The Commission’s relationship with the European Parliament is the source of our democratic legitimacy. This must, therefore, be a political and not a technocratic partnership. I expect all Commissioners to invest in this relationship and to make themselves available for and to take an active part in plenary sessions, committee meetings and trilogue negotiations.

The meetings with the parliamentary committees over the weeks to come will be an opportunity for you to lay the foundations for a productive working relationship, to explain how your work will contribute to joint political priorities, and to demonstrate your commitment and suitability for your broader role as a Member of the College.

Effective policy-making also requires a deep understanding of every one of the Member States, of their common challenges and of their diversity. While fulfilling your obligation to participate in Commission meetings and engage with the European institutions, I want you all to be politically active in the Member States and in dialogues with citizens, by presenting and communicating our common agenda, listening to ideas and engaging with stakeholders.

In this context, I want all Commissioners to commit to a new partnership with national Parliaments: they deserve particular attention and I want, under your coordination as my first Vice-President, in charge of Better Regulation, Inter-Institutional Relations, the Rule of Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, important proposals or initiatives to be presented and explained in national Parliaments by Members of the Commission. This should also allow us to deepen the country-specific knowledge within our institution and to build mutual understanding and effective channels of communication between the national and the European level.

***

The European Union has come through one of the most testing periods in its history.

The effects of the economic and financial crisis are still causing great hardship in many parts of Europe. We live in a Union with a 29th state of unemployed people, many of them young people who feel side-lined. Until this situation has changed, this 29th state must be our number one concern, and we have to be very determined and very responsible in carrying out our work as Members of this Commission.

I am looking forward to working with you on the new start that our European Union needs now.

Jean-Claude JUNCKER

Annex: Table of allocation of portfolios and supporting services 

As first Vice-President, in charge of Better Regulation, Inter-Institutional relations, the Rule of Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Mr Timmermans will work closely with the other Vice-Presidents, and all Commissioners will liaise closely with him when it concerns the implementation of the better regulation agenda. In addition, for initiatives requiring a decision by the Commission in their area of responsibility, he will guide the work of the Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality and the Commissioner for Migration and Home Affairs.

Internal Audit Service (IAS)

————————————————

Jean-Claude Juncker, President-elect of the European Commission

Mission letter  for Vêra Jourová Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality

(EXCERPTS)

Dear Vêra,

You are becoming a Member of the new European Commission at a particularly challenging time for the European Union. …(see  general part of VP Timmermans letter)…

The Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality portfolio

You will be the Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality.

You will, in particular, contribute to projects steered and coordinated by the first Vice-President, in charge of Better Regulation, Inter-Institutional Relations, the Rule of Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as the Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness and the Vice-President for the Euro and Social Dialogue.

For other initiatives requiring a decision from the Commission, you will, as a rule, liaise closely with the first Vice-President, in charge of Better Regulation, Inter-Institutional Relations, the Rule of Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

In the Political Guidelines, I underlined that our shared values are the foundation of the EU.

These are spelled out in the Treaties and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which underpins all our work. The EU needs to consistently respect and uphold the rule of law and fundamental rights. This is also an area where we need to be sensitive to the diversity of constitutional and cultural traditions in the 28 Member States.

A strong EU justice and consumer policy can build bridges between national legal systems and be a key part of reaping the full benefits of the Single Market, cutting red tape and facilitating cross-border business.

A sound and predictable justice system is also a prerequisite for economic growth and a business friendly environment.

During our mandate, I would like you to focus on the following:

  • Supporting the first Vice-President, in charge of Better Regulation, Inter-institutional Relations, the Rule of Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in concluding the process of accession of the EU to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe, in making sure that all Commission proposals respect the Charter of Fundamental Rights and in consolidating the Commission’s role in protecting the Rule of Law. You will also work with the High-Representative for the Union’s Foreign Policy and Security/Vice-President to promote our values in our external relations.
  • Ensuring that, within the scope of EU competences, discrimination is fought and gender equality promoted, including by exploring how to unblock negotiations on the Commission proposal for the Horizontal Anti-Discrimination Directive.
  • Contributing, as part of the project team steered and coordinated by the Vice-President for the Digital Single Market, to the realisation of a connected digital single market by ensuring the swift adoption of the EU data protection reform and by modernising and simplifying consumer rules for online and digital purchases.
  • Concluding negotiations on a comprehensive EU-U.S. data protection agreement which provides justiciable rights for all EU citizens, regardless of where they reside, as well as reviewing the Safe Harbour arrangement.
  • Reinforcing, as part of the project teams steered and coordinated by the Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness and the Vice-President for the Euro and Social Dialogue, the contribution of EU justice policies to our jobs and growth agenda, including through an assessment of the performance of judicial systems in the context of the European Semester of economic policy coordination.
  • Coordinating all the Commission’s work in criminal matters and reinforcing judicial cooperation in this field. Putting an independent European Public Prosecutor’s Office in place by 2016 will be a significant step forward to protect the EU budget from fraud.

To help you to fulfil these responsibilities, the Directorate-General for Justice (DG JUST) will report to you, with some adjustments, as indicated in the table annexed to this letter.

Our principles: ethics and transparency… (see correspondent chapter of Timmermans mission letter)…

———————–ANNEX

DG Justice (JUST)

The relevant parts of the Consumer, Health and Food Executive Agency (CHAFEA)

Responsible for relations with: The EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) The European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) The European Union Judicial Cooperation Unit (EUROJUST)

Changes for DG JUST: – Unit MARKT F2 (Corporate Governance, Social Responsibility) moves from DG Internal Market and Services (MARKT) to DG JUST. – Directorate SANCO B (Consumer Affairs) moves from DG Health and Consumers (SANCO) to DG JUST, except for Unit SANCO B2 (Health Technology and Cosmetics), which moves from DG Health and Consumers (SANCO) to DG Enterprise and Industry (ENTR). – Unit JUST B3 (Anti-Drugs Policy) moves from DG JUST to DG Home Affairs (HOME). – Unit JUST D3 (Rights of Persons with Disabilities) and the part of Unit JUST D1 (Equal Treatment Legislation) dealing with the Directive establishing a general Framework for Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation, move from DG JUST to DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (EMPL

—————————————–

Mission letter for Dimitris Avramopoulos Commissioner for Migration and Home Affairs

Dear Dimitris,

(see first part of  mission letter to Vice President Timmermans )

The Migration and Home Affairs portfolio

You will be the Commissioner for Migration and Home Affairs. You will, in particular, contribute to projects steered and coordinated, in particular, by the first Vice-President, in charge of Better Regulation, Inter-Institutional Relations, the Rule of Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as to the work of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President. For other initiatives requiring a decision from the Commission, you will, as a rule, liaise closely with the first Vice-President, in charge of Better Regulation, Inter-Institutional Relations, the Rule of Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Migration is one of the pressing challenges I have highlighted in my Political Guidelines. Europe needs to manage migration better, in all its aspects. A successful migration policy is both a humanitarian and an economic imperative. We need to show that the EU can offer both a compelling case to attract global talent, and a vision of how to robustly address the challenge of irregular migration. We need a new policy on migration that will address skill shortages and the demographic challenges the EU faces and that will modernise the way the EU addresses these challenges.

The other priority of your portfolio will be to help the Member States to manage and secure Europe’s borders. The Common Asylum EU framework needs to be fully applied and operational.

We also need to step up the fight against cross-border crime and terrorism. The EU can make a key contribution to citizens’ security in an area with clear ramifications for freedom of movement and fundamental rights.

The focus should be on concrete operational measures where the action of the EU can have an impact – and where we can show that this does not compromise our commitment to fundamental rights and values.

During our mandate, I would like you to focus on the following:

  • Developing a new European policy on regular migration. Such a policy should help Europe address skills shortages and attract the talent that it needs. A first step will be to address the shortcomings of the “Blue Card” Directive: I would ask for a first review to be concluded within six months of the start of the mandate. Further steps will require reflection on the best ways to make the EU an attractive place for migration destination, on the basis of other existing models.
  • Boosting the effectiveness of the European border agency FRONTEX by developing a system to pool resources from Member States. We need to be able to put European Border Guard Teams into action quickly, with the participation of all Member States as a rule.
  • Working to ensure the full and consistent implementation of the Common European Asylum System. We should look at an extended role for the European Asylum Support Office, with a particular focus on working with and in third countries. We should also develop a strategy for improving our response to emergency situations.
  • Working with the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/VicePresident and the Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development on ways to improve cooperation with third countries on these aspects, including on readmission.
  • Focusing on the fight against crime with a clear link to EU policies, such as human trafficking, smuggling and cybercrime and helping to tackle corruption, also by strengthening police cooperation.
  • Identifying where the EU can make a real difference in fighting terrorism and countering radicalisation, ensuring the respect of fundamental rights. We should be able to define operational measures which can have a concrete impact on issues such as “foreign fighters”.
  • Working closely with the High-Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President, the Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development and the Commissioner for Trade to strengthen the EU’s strategic partnership with Africa.

To help you fulfil these responsibilities, the Directorate-General for Home Affairs (DG HOME) will report to you, with some adjustments, as indicated in the table annexed to this letter.

Our principles: ethics and transparency …(see third part of the general letter)…

 ANNEX – (Administrative adjustments)

DG Home Affairs (HOME) The relevant parts of the Research Executive Agency (REA)

Responsible for relations with: The agency for the management of large IT systems (EU-LISA) The European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (FRONTEX) The European Asylum Support Office (EASO) The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) The European Police Office (EUROPOL) The European Police College (CEPOL)

Changes for DG HOME: – Unit ENTR G4 (Policy and Research in Security) moves from DG Enterprise and Industry (ENTR) to DG HOME. – Unit JUST B3 (Anti-Drugs Policy) moves from DG Justice (JUST) to DG HOME.