Category: 5. Asylum & refugees rights' policies

The Missed Opportunity of the “Ypres Guidelines” of the European Council Regarding Immigration and Asylum

Written by Philippe De Bruycker on July 29, 2014.
ORIGINAL Posted in EU, EU Migration Policies

The European Council of 26 and 27 June 2014 had to define the strategic guidelines for the legislative and operational planning within the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice for the next period (2014-2020 in line with the EU financial perspectives). It did so by also adopting a “Strategic Agenda for the Union in times of change” consisting of five priorities among which was a “Union of Freedom, Security and Justice”.

As no other name had been used, we called them the “Ypres Guidelines” because this was the Belgian city chosen by the President of the European Council to hold the summit commemorating World War 1. The Ypres guidelines succeed the Tampere conclusions (1999), The Hague programme (2004) and the Stockholm programme (2009) with which the European Council laid down the foundations and indicated the main directions for the development of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.

The preparatory discussion of these guidelines took place in a climate in which most stakeholders and observers considered that times have changed and a new programme was no longer necessary because the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice had reached a stage of maturity with the adoption of many legal and policy instruments. Following that line, the emphasis had to be put on the correct transposition of EU directives and the effective implementation of the instruments in place. The new guidelines reflect that priority but their added value is extremely limited. They constitute mainly a collection of previous general statements without commitment, as is the case with the guidelines on integration, return, resettlement, Frontex and the link between the internal and external dimensions of the immigration and asylum policy.

Even guideline n°3 on the main priority relating to the transposition and implementation of existing instruments is rather weak as it is silent on the crucial issue of how they should be evaluated and could therefore remain dead letter, which has already been the case in the past (see in particular a Commission Communication of 28 June 2006 followed by Council conclusions of 19 June 2007 , which were never implemented).

Contrary to guidelines n°8 on irregular migration and n°9 on external borders, one will also notice that guidelines n°6 and 7, on legal migration and asylum respectively, are not accompanied by specific requests. This reflects the true priorities of the EU and puts into evidence the disequilibrium between the different components of its migratory policy.

Despite their weaknesses, the Ypres guidelines may generate a lively academic debate as shown by the complete opposition between our own analysis and that of the Ceps, overestimating from our point of view their content considered as “a subversion of (a so-called) Lisbonisation of Justice and Home affairs”.

A quick review of the more specific guidelines leads us to formulate the following remarks:

Guideline n°7 focuses on highly skilled migration without requesting a revision of the so-called “Blue Card” directive on the admission of highly skilled workers like the new President of the Commission rightly did immediately. The implicit consideration that the EU does not need low or unskilled migration is also questionable when looking at the number of illegal migrants working in the European Union;

Guideline n°8 on asylum is characterised by a narrow understanding of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) reduced to the harmonisation process of Member States’ legislations and by the willingness to give asylum seekers the “same procedural guarantees and protection throughout the Union”, which, contrary to the general assumption on which the guidelines are built that no new legislation is necessary, would require legislative changes to the existing norms.

This guideline is however visionary by requiring a reinforcement of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) at the core of the emerging bottom-up approximation process of Member States’ practices, which is indispensable to complete the top-down legislative harmonisation undertaken in order to build a truly Common Asylum Policy. But this will once again require amending regulation 439/2010, which is the legal basis of the EASO… Reference to the mutual recognition of positive asylum decisions has unfortunately been deleted despite the requirements of the Treaties. This actually shows the level of distrust between the Member States;

Curiously, guideline n°8 on irregular migration mixes the root causes approach of migration with cooperation with third countries of origin and of transit of migrants in the field of migration and border management, while it is certainly necessary to prioritise the fight against smuggling and not just trafficking as has been the case. The worst point is the link established between those elements and the diminishing loss of lives of migrants in the Mediterranean. The European Council hopes that, in this way, it will save lives in the future, but for the moment and for many years, if not decades, to come it actually leaves the migrants to drown alone in the sea…

Guideline n°9 on external borders expresses the support of the European Council for the creation of the “Smart Borders” databases (the entry-exit system and the registered traveler programme) – which is not neutral as this is still a controversial issue (in particular with the European Parliament) – as well as support for the reinforcement of Frontex, which shows the contradictions between the European policies because the budget of this agency decreased between 2013 and 2014;
The second part of guideline n°9 on visas reflects the recent change in the perception of this policy in economic terms and requires its modernisation by facilitating legitimate travel. Unfortunately, the European Council only envisages a reinforcement of the local cooperation between the Schengen consulates, while it is the missing European institutional framework of that policy which needs to be invented;

It is difficult not to be disappointed by the Ypres Guidelines, on which it has been easy to build a consensus because they lack real content as noticed by another watchful observer of the EU policies on migration and asylum.

Their lack of ambition is confirmed in comparison with the proposals put forward by the Commission in a Communication entitled “An open and secure Europe: make it happen” of 11 March 2014, envisaging among other elements a platform for the exchange of information between Member States on labour market needs, a single area of migration based on mutual recognition rather than harmonisation and the creation of Schengen Visa Centres. Let us not even speak of future challenges that have been insufficiently taken into consideration, such as the concrete implementation of the principles of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibilities between Member States, or even completely ignored, such as the mobility of third-country nationals.

The Ypres guidelines could be a paradoxical turning point with no guidance given by the European Council at the moment it proclaims the Union of Freedom, Security and Justice as one of the top five priorities of the EU. This draw-down of the European Council is not neutral from an institutional point of view.

The Commission could be seen as the winner of the process because, with such guidelines, its new members will be freer than they have previously been to set the future agenda of the EU. This could, however, be a pyrrhic victory as the Commission may have lost the political support of the European Council it precisely needs in its daily face to face with the Council of Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs, which has until now been the more reluctant institution in the building process of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.

Let us hope that this episode does not announce the beginning of the decline of EU immigration and asylum policies , which could enter into a phase of stagnation focused on daily business despite the twists and turns they may create on the political agenda because of the media coverage of some events.

The fact that the question “What to do now?” came up immediately after their adoption shows not only the absence of real content in these guidelines, but also that the moment chosen for their adoption was not the right one.

Despite the protests of the European Parliament, the European Council decided to maintain its agenda as foreseen, with the consequence that the guidelines were prepared by a Commission and a President of the European Council who were finishing their mandate, and without a Parliament able to contribute to the process because of the elections.

The publication by the EU Italian Presidency on 1 July 2014 of several papers to reflect on the priorities of the Union of freedom, security and justice confirms that the Ypres guidelines will probably be quickly forgotten.

The new Commission, particularly as one of its members will be specifically in charge of migration, could be tempted to present a brand-new and complete programme. It is, however, unlikely that the Member States would appreciate the Commission devising its own programme for the EU just after having been told that such technique was outdated. Therefore, one way out could be to elaborate on the basis of the Ypres guidelines with a much more complete and detailed action plan to be adopted jointly with the Council of Ministers, such has been the case with the action plan implementing The Hague programme. This would also be an occasion to involve more closely the new European Parliament and the members of its Libe Committee in the definition of the agenda in order to build an inter-institutional consensus around sensitive policies that need as much political support as possible.

By Prof. Philippe De Bruycker, Deputy Director of the Migration Policy Centre at the RSCAS/EUI The views expressed by the authors are not necessarily the views of the Migration Policy Centre.

PEERS : Data protection rights and administrative proceedings

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EU LAW ANALYSIS
Thursday, 17 July 2014

Steve Peers

What rights do asylum-seekers have as regards data protection law? This issue was clarified in today’s CJEU judgment in YS and M and S, which could also have broader relevance for any case which involves access to documents in the context of administrative procedures.

Both cases involved asylum-seekers in the Netherlands, who sought access to file notes concerning their case. However, they did not rely on the EU’s asylum procedures Directive, which states that asylum-seekers must be given the reasons for negative decisions and are entitled to access reports about the interviews held with them, but does not make mention of access to any other document. The second-phase procedures Directive, applicable to applications made after 20 July 2015, adds a right of access to country-of-origin information and expert advice which was used in making a decision on the asylum-seeker’s case, but still does not extend to a right to the entire file.

So they invoked the data protection Directive instead. The first question in this respect was whether the legal analysis in the file concerning their case was ‘personal data’ within the meaning of the Directive. According to the CJEU, it was not, for although that analysis ‘may contain personal data, it does not in itself constitute such data within the meaning of’ that Directive. That analysis ‘is not information relating to the applicant for a residence permit, but’ rather ‘information about the assessment and application by the competent authority of that law to the applicant’s situation’, based on the personal data available to the authorities.

The Court further opined that this was consistent with the purpose of the Directive, which was to ensure the right to privacy, including the check on the accuracy of the data and the correction of inaccurate data. A different approach would amount to ‘the right of access to administrative documents’, which was not the point of the Directive. It justified its analysis by analogy with the Bavarian Lager judgment, in which it had ruled that the Directive did not have the purpose of opening up the transparency of EU decision-making.

The second point was the extent of access to the personal data (as defined by the Court) which was being processed. On this point, the CJEU rejected the argument that the entire file document had to be made available, and instead stated that it was sufficient to give data subjects an intelligible summary of the personal data being processed.

Finally, the national court had asked about the possible application of Article 41 of the Charter, which sets out the right to good administration. The CJEU distinguished its prior case law, and asserted that this Charter right applied only to EU bodies, not to national administrations. But the right to good administration could still be invoked against national authorities as a general principle, as distinct from a Charter right.

Comments

The Court’s analysis of the main data protection issues here is not very convincing. There is nothing in the text of either the data protection Directive or the asylum procedures Directive that would suggest a distinction between administrative documents which contain personal data, and other types of collection of personal data. Quite clearly asylum-seekers do have an interest in knowing how their personal data is being processed in respect of an analysis of their application, and of correcting that personal data if it is correct.

To argue that the data protection Directive does not give access to administrative documents is a straw man argument. The question is not whether it aims to give access to all administrative documents, but only whether it gives access to those which contain personal data. The comparison with the Court’s Bavarian Lager judgment makes no sense either, for in that case data protection formed an express exception to the EU legislation on access to documents, and the two rights were in conflict.

The Court’s judgment on the second point is more convincing, in light of the wording of the data protection Directive, which only requires an intelligible summary of the personal data being processed to be made available.

Finally, the Court’s analysis of Article 41 of the Charter is a brave attempt to clear up the prior inconsistencies and confusion on this point, for instance in its recent judgment on procedural rights as regards subsidiary protection applications. Undeniably the Charter provision does only apply to EU bodies, not to Member States, but the Court nevertheless guarantees that the right to good administration can be claimed against the latter by clarifying that the right to good administration is nonetheless a general principle of EU law.

This is, apparently, the first time that the Court has confirmed that some rights are not in the Charter, but are protected as general principles of EU law. This raises important questions as to which other rights might be protected in that way, what the difference between the parallel rights to good administration might be, and whether the general principles have a different legal effect than Charter rights. But in the specific context of asylum proceedings, and more generally in many other areas of EU law, it is useful that the Court confirmed that applicants can still enforce (by a different means) the right to good administration against national authorities.

‘The next Justice and Home Affairs programme: will it be fit for purpose?’

By Henri LABAYLE , Steve PEERS and Emilio DE CAPITANI

“If a man does not know what port is he steering for, no wind is favourable to him” (Seneca)

Soon to be debated by Coreper (the Member States’ representatives to the EU), the Greek Council Presidency proposals (see here) on the future European Council guidelines on the post-Stockholm Programme in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) are quite disappointing , if not even disturbing.
Back in Tampere in 1999, the European Council (the heads of state and government of Member States) succeeded in the double challenge of framing their internal security in a supranational dimension by preserving at the same time the smooth evolution of the EU machinery. That spirit now seems far away.
Quite on the contrary, the perspective proposed by the Council Presidency looks rather surreal, if not disconnected from reality.
This is probably not a coincidence, so we have to consider that such a blindness is a deliberate choice, leading us to wonder , as it happens in any good detective story , to whom the crime will benefit… However what is already clear is that these draft guidelines will hardly be in the interest of the European Union citizens (totally ignored by the text), and not even in the interest of the European Union itself, whose effectiveness will hardly be strengthened.

I – The democratic imperative Continue reading “‘The next Justice and Home Affairs programme: will it be fit for purpose?’”

Steve PEERS: The CJEU secures asylum seekers’ right to family housing

Published on EU LAW ANALYSIS Thursday, 27 February 2014

The CJEU secures asylum seekers’ right to family housing

 

What obligations do Member States have to ensure that asylum-seeking families are housed adequately? The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has today usefully clarified the minimum standards which Member States must observe on this issue, in Case C-79/13 Saciri. Its judgment is a welcome confirmation that whatever the practical difficulties facing Member States in managing their reception for asylum-seekers, families cannot simply be left homeless or forced to live in grossly inadequate conditions by means of the refusal of support for financial assistance to obtain housing.

Judgment

The case concerns a family of asylum-seekers (two parents and three children) who needed accommodation in Belgium while their asylum application was being considered. The Belgian agency responsible for reception of asylum-seekers replied that it could not provide reception, and referred them to the social assistance agency. Since the Saciri family could not pay the rent being charged for private properties, they asked the social assistance agency for financial support.

But there was a ‘Catch-22’: the agency refused to give them support, since the family was not living in accommodation provided for by the reception agency – even though the reception agency had told them that it could not help them. A lower court in Belgium ruled that the reception agency had to pay them financial support, and that agency appealed to the referring court, which asked the CJEU questions about the EU’s first-phase reception conditions Directive.

First of all, the CJEU pointed out that the Directive allows for support for asylum-seekers either in kind (ie providing housing directly) or by providing financial allowances. Then it confirmed its prior case law (Case C-179/11 Cimade and GISTI) to the effect that benefits must be provided as soon as the asylum application is made, in particular in light of the right to human dignity set out in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Next, as for the amount of the financial allowances, regardless of how the aid is provided, the Directive states that it must ensure a dignified standard of living for applicants’ health, as well as subsistence. Member States must also, according to the Directive, take account of those with special needs (including minors), entailing q requirement to preserve family unity as well as the best interests of the child. The CJEU confirmed that these principles meant that applicants must be able to obtain housing on the private market if necessary, although this did not mean that asylum-seekers could make their own choice of housing.

The CJEU then ruled that, although the specific rules in the Directive relating to housing only apply where the housing is provided in kind by Member States, it still followed that any allowances provided to assist with housing had to ensure the unity of the family.

Finally, the Court ruled that where accommodation facilities are overloaded, it was open to Member States to refer asylum-seekers to the authorities responsible for public assistance, provided that the latter authorities ensure that the minimum standards in the Directive are met.

The Court concluded by noting that ‘saturation of the reception networks [is not] a justification for any derogation from meeting’ the standards in the Directive.

Comments

The CJEU’s judgment neatly addresses the ‘Catch-22’ created by national law, which to some extent reflects the structure of the Directive. On the one hand, the Directive lays out general rules on reception support, but then on the other hand, it only lays out detailed rules as regards housing where the State provides such housing in kind. What if the State does not, or cannot, provide for housing in kind?

The Court’s answer to this question takes account of the definition of ‘material reception conditions’ in the Directive, which expressly includes ‘housing’. So it logically follows that such material support must include assistance to obtain housing, where no housing is provided for in kind.

Moreover, it is expressly clear from the Court’s judgment that a family of asylum-seekers is entitled to support to obtain family housing on the private market, although the Court does recognise that the asylum-seekers do not have a fully free choice of where they may be housed. This necessarily means that, if there is no publicly-provided accommodation available, the authorities must ensure that a family of asylum-seekers has enough support to afford to rent a property at market rates, which is big enough to house their family in dignity. But the house need not be palatial. Probably this means that a family of five cannot demand enough financial support to rent a four-bedroom house; but neither can they all be expected to sleep on the same sofa.

The Court’s answer to these questions was not affected by the overloading of the Member State’s reception system. This had practical consequences, in that asylum-seekers can be referred to the social assistance agency instead of the reception agency, and be provided with a financial allowance instead of housing in kind. But the basic obligation to provide enough assistance to ensure a minimum dignified level of accommodation, including family unity, cannot be derogated from.

Finally, it should be noted that the judgment takes a stronger approach to family unity than the wording of the Directive, which states only that family unity shall be ensured ‘as far as possible’, and only where Member States provide for accommodation in kind. The Court’s judgment means instead that families of asylum-seekers must be able to live together in all cases, if necessary in private accommodation, even if this means some additional cost or administrative inconvenience for Member States. This can only be welcomed, as it is an essential step to ensure the protection of the family life of some of the most vulnerable people in the European Union.

Steve PEERS:New EU rules on maritime surveillance: will they stop the deaths and push-backs in the Mediterranean?

by Steve Peers Professor of Law, Law School, University of Essex  

Introduction

When the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights was first adopted, in its initial non binding form, in 2000, many asked what certain of the rights contained in the Charter had to do with the EU at all.

Most notably, why mention the right to life, when the EU did not carry out its own death penalty, or have coercive forces which killed anyone? Of course, it would seem odd to have a human rights charter without including the right to life, and the EU had already developed a detailed foreign policy strategy opposing the death penalty worldwide.

Subsequently the right to life also became relevant to the development of the Common European Asylum System. But more strikingly, the significant death toll of migrants in the Mediterranean has widely been blamed on EU policies – whether those policies are carried out by the Member States’ authorities alone, or by those authorities as coordinated by the EU’s borders agency, Frontex, which began operations in 2005. Moreover, the national authorities and Frontex have often been blamed for ‘push-backs’: the forced return of migrants’ vessels to unsafe countries, which were condemned by the European Court of Human Rights in its 2012 judgment in Hirsi v Italy.

The response to these criticisms was the adoption of rules governing maritime surveillance operations coordinated by Frontex, first of all in the form of a Council measure implementing the Schengen Borders Code. A majority in the European Parliament (EP) voted against this measure, but they did not constitute a majority of the Members of the EP (MEPs), some MEPs being absent. So the EP instead sued to annul the Council’s measure before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), and won its case, on the grounds that a measure concerning human rights and coercive measures had to be adopted by means of the EU’s legislative process.

That meant that the European Commission had to propose a legislative measure, which it did in April 2013. At first, a hard-line group of Member States opposed most of the provisions in this proposal concerning search and rescue and disembarkation (ie the rules on the destination of migrants who were intercepted and rescued), even after the particularly tragic loss of 300 migrants’ lives in autumn 2013.

However, these Member States relented, and the European Parliament also pressed to retain and improve upon the Commission’s proposal. The result was that the EP and the Council (made up of Member States’ ministers) both agreed on their respective positions on the proposal in December 2013, and then both agreed on a joint deal on the legislation by February 2014.

The legislation will therefore be formally adopted in April this year, before the EP elections in May. The crucial question is therefore whether the EU will then be doing enough to address the loss of life and push-backs in the Mediterranean.

The new Regulation

The previous Decision contained binding rules on interception, and non-binding rules on search and rescue and disembarkation. However, the CJEU said that even the latter category of rules was binding.

As noted above, a group of Member States wanted to water down (as it were) most of these rules in the new Regulation, but was ultimately unsuccessful.

There are new rules on search and rescue, which retain (at the EP’s behest) the Commission’s detailed proposal on this issue, including particularly the definition of whether vessels can be considered in a state of alert, uncertainty or distress.

Provided that sinking vessels are detected in time and that these rules are properly applied, the Regulation should therefore ensure that migrants are rescued from drowning wherever possible.

 On the other hand, the situation is more complex as regards the rules on protection of those migrants who are potentially at risk of persecution, torture or other forms of ill-treatment in their country of origin (or another country).

The focus of this analysis is therefore upon those rules – followed by an assessment of the issue of the accountability of Frontex.

Protection and disembarkation rules

Continue reading “Steve PEERS:New EU rules on maritime surveillance: will they stop the deaths and push-backs in the Mediterranean?”

Analysis: EU rules on maritime rescue: Member States quibble while migrants drown…

by Steve Peers Professor of Law, University of Essex

PUBLISHED ON STATEWATCH

22 October 2013

Introduction

For many years now, the death toll of migrants who drown while attempting to reach the European Union in search of a better life has tragically been rising. Most recently, public opinion was particularly shocked when hundreds of migrants drowned when a single vessel sank off the coast of Italy. The Italian government has called for the EU to adopt an action plan to deal with the issue, and the Prime Minister of Malta, calling the Mediterranean a ‘graveyard’, has called on the EU to act.

Yet shockingly, these Member States, along with four others, are blocking an EU proposal on the table that contains concrete rules on the search and rescue of migrants – precisely and solely because it contains rules on search and rescue (along with disembarkation) of migrants. In fact, they describe their opposition to such rules as a ‘red line’, ie they refuse to negotiate on their opposition to any detailed EU rules which concern saving migrants’ lives.

The following analysis examines the background to this issue and assesses these Member States’ objections. It concludes that their legal objections to this proposal are clearly groundless. Furthermore, of course, from a political point of view, the hypocrisy and inhumanity of these Member States’ position speaks for itself.

Background

Due to widespread concerns about the accountability and legality of the actions of the EU’s border agency, known as ‘Frontex’, when it coordinates Member States’ maritime surveillance operations, EU rules on this issue were first adopted in 2010.

These rules initially took the form of a Council Decision implementing the EU legislation on the control of external borders, which is known as the ‘Schengen Borders Code’. The 2010 Council Decision included binding rules on interception at sea, and apparently non-binding rules on search and rescue and disembarkation of migrants.

A majority of those members of the European Parliament (EP) who voted on this Council Decision opposed it, and so the EP decided to sue the Council before the Court of Justice to annul the decision. The EP won its case, when the Court ruled in September 2012 that the Council Decision had to be annulled.

According to the Court, this Decision should have been adopted as a legislative act, because it addressed issues that affected the human rights of the persons concerned, and regulated the coercive powers of border guards; the Court also clarified that the rules in the Decision on search and rescue and disembarkation were in fact binding. However, the Court maintained the 2010 Decision in force until its replacement by a legislative act.

In spring 2013, the Commission proposed such a replacement act, which has to be adopted by means of the ‘ordinary legislative procedure’, ie a qualified majority vote in the Council (Member States’ ministers) and joint decision-making powers of the European Parliament. This proposal took over much of the text of the Council decision, but also added some further details as regards search and rescue and disembarkation, confirming also that these rules were binding. Like the 2010 Council decision, the proposal is limited to cases where Frontex coordinates Member States’ maritime surveillance.

While the European Parliament is broadly supportive of this proposal, suggesting only modest amendments, a group of Mediterranean Member States opposes the idea of any EU measure containing any detailed binding rules on search and rescue and disembarkation – even though such provisions are the most important rules in the 2013 proposal as regards saving migrants’ lives and their subsequent welfare.

The proposed search and rescue and disembarkation rules

The relevant parts of the 2013 proposal are Article 9 (search and rescue) and Article 10 (disembarkation).
Article 9 contains first of all a general obligation to ‘render assistance to any ship or person under distress at sea’. It defines further what is meant by a condition of ‘uncertainty’, ‘alert’ or ‘distress’, and provides for general rules on coordination of operations in such cases.

As for disembarkation, Article 10 contains rules to determine where migrants should be disembarked if they are intercepted or rescued. If they are intercepted in the territorial water or nearby maritime zone of a Member State participating in Frontex operations, they must be disembarked in the territory of that State.

If they are intercepted in the high seas (ie waters which no State has a legal claim to, under the international law of the sea), then they should be disembarked in the State which they departed from – subject to the rules in Article 4 of the proposal, on the protection of fundamental rights. In the case of search and rescue operations, there are no specific rules on which State to disembark migrants in, but Article 4 implicitly applies here as well.

The rules in Article 4 prohibit sending a person to a State ‘where there is a serious risk that such person would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or from which there is a serious risk of expulsion, removal or extradition to another country in contravention of the principle of nonrefoulement’.

This clause reflects the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, in a case called Hirsi v. Italy, where Italy was condemned for ‘pushing back’ boats full of migrants to Colonel Khadafy’s Libya.

Member States’ objections

The group of Member States objecting to Articles 9 and 10 state that the EU has no competence over issues relating to search and rescue or disembarkation.

First of all, as regards disembarkation, this objection is clearly ridiculous.
The admission of a migrant onto a Member State’s territory, or removal to a third State’s territory, is obviously an inherent part and parcel of immigration policy, and the Treaties empower the EU to develop a ‘common immigration policy’. Equally, the Treaties give the power for the EU to adopt rules on border controls, and it would be absurd to adopt rules governing the interception of migrants without addressing the obvious corollary question of what to do with the migrants once the border guards catch them.

Secondly, at first sight, the objections to EU competence as regards search and rescue rules have more force. Certainly, there is nothing in the EU Treaties which gives the EU power to regulate searches and rescues generally. But the 2013 proposal would not do that: it would only regulate searches and rescues in the context of the EU’s border controls policy, and only where maritime surveillance was coordinated by Frontex.

Can the EU regulate searches and rescues in such cases?
The case law of the Court of Justice on public health issues should logically apply by analogy.
The Court has ruled that while the EU cannot regulate public health generally, it can take account of public health concerns when it adopts legislation (for instance, on tobacco advertising, cigarette content or the packaging of cigarettes) which is principally concerned with regulating the EU’s internal market. Similarly, the EU’s General Court has ruled that EU legislation can take account of the life and welfare of seals, if it adopts legislation on the sale of seal products that mainly concerns the internal market.

If EU internal market law can concern itself with the long-term effects of cigarette smoking for smokers, or the immediate effect of clubbing on seals, then surely EU law on border controls can concern itself with the effect of imminent drowning upon migrants, where there is a direct connection with maritime surveillance.
And there is bound to be such a connection: EU rules stepping up maritime surveillance, while they have (and legally must have) the principal purpose of controlling entry onto the territory of the Member States, will in some cases fall to be applied when the persons planning such entry are about to drown. It should be recalled, as explained above, that the proposal only sets out a general obligation to assist vessels in distress and to coordinate action in emergency situations.

Thirdly, it should not be forgotten that the proposed rules will apply only to operations coordinated by Frontex – an EU agency, funded entirely by money from the EU budget.

Why should the EU not have the power to set conditions before its agency (spending its money) assists Member States with maritime surveillance, in the same way that it has the power to set conditions on its financial assistance to its Member States, or third countries?

Another objection of the six Member States is the compatibility of the proposed Regulation with international law. The obvious way to address this problem (if it exists) is to amend the Regulation to ensure that it is consistent with international law. Anyway, the preamble to the legislation (recital 4) states that it must be applied consistently with international law: Member States did not object to such vague references to international law in readmission treaties, or in much of the EU’s legislation on irregular migration orborder controls.

The six objecting Member States seem to be concerned also about the proposal’s mere overlap (as distinct from conflict) with international law – but the EU adopts an enormous amount of legislation (on the environment, for instance) which overlaps with international law, and aims to provide for the detailed and effective implementation of the relevant international law obligations.

More fundamentally, eviscerating the proposed rules on disembarkation would empty the protection of Article 4 of the proposal (on ensuring the safety of persons sent to third countries) of much of its practical content – but, as explained above, this part of the proposal reflects important case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Similarly, removing or weakening the provisions on search and rescue would subtract from the proposal any added value as regards protection of the right to life – another key obligation of human rights law. One can only conclude that the six Member States in question come not to praise international law, but to bury it.

Conclusion

Member States rightly rejected specious and cynical legal arguments made throughout the last decade to justify torture, abduction and indefinite detention without trial in the name of the ‘war on terror’.
Of course, control of immigration is a different issue, but the legal arguments raised by these six Member States are equally specious and cynical – and should equally be rejected. The EU bears its share of responsibility (alongside its Member States) for the deaths of hundreds of migrants – but that must also mean that the Union should be able to make some concrete contribution towards reducing this death toll in future.

Sources

2010 Council Decision
Judgment of Court of Justice – Case C-355/10:
2013 Commission proposal –
European Parliament draft report–
Objections of six Member States –
Presidency proposal –
Positions of Member States on entire proposal

Statewatch does not have a corporate view, nor does it seek to create one, the views expressed are those of the author. Statewatch is not responsible for the content of external websites and inclusion of a link does not constitute an endorsement.© Statewatch ISSN 1756-851X. Personal usage as private individuals/”fair dealing” is allowed. We also welcome links to material on our site. Usage by those working for organisations is allowed only if the organisation holds an appropriate licence from the relevant reprographic rights organisation (eg: Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK) with such usage being subject to the terms and conditions of that licence and to local copyright law.

NEW!! : subscribe to the first summer school on the EAFSJ…

 

LogoSummerSchool2013Rome

Roma, 8-11 July
Sala conferenze Fondazione Basso – via della Dogana Vecchia, 5 – Roma

The European Area of Freedom Security and Justice (EAFSJ): scope, objectives, actors and dynamics.

Night view of Europe

Aim: to take stock of the current state of EAFSJ and of its foreseeable evolution within the next multiannual program 2015-2019 (to be adopted under Italian Presidency at the beginning of the next legislature).
Lenght: 4 one day modules
Subscriptions: on line on the Fondazione Basso internet site : http://www.fondazionebasso.it
Participation fees:
Euro 480,00 (ORDINARY FEE).
Euro 200,00 (FOR STUDENTS / RESEARCHERS) .
(Bank Account of Fondazione Lelio e Lisli Basso – Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Ag. Senato Palazzo Madama: IBAN IT18I0100503373000000002777 ).
Subscriptions should be submitted before June 15th.The Summer School will take place only if a minimum number of subscribers is reached !For further information : tel. 0039.06.6879953 – basso@fondazionebasso.it
 Languages: lessons will be mainly in Italian (some lessons will be in English and French), teaching material will be in Italian and/or English, French.
English/Italian translation will be available.
The programme is on the web-site of Fondazione Basso (www.fondazionebasso.it -Tel. 06.6879953 – email: basso@fondazionebasso.it)

July 8th
A Constitutional and Institutional perspective
09h00 am – 06h30 pm

Opening speeches:
Valerio Onida: Freedom, Security and Justice related policies from a constitutional perspective and in relation with international and supranational dimensions
Stefano Manservisi: After the Stockholm Programme : how to preserve the specificity of the European Area of freedom security and Justice related policies by integrating them in the general EU governance and legal framework?

Debate

Freedom Security and Justice as the core of the common constitutional european heritage
Protecting fundamental rights: the impact of the accession of the EU to the ECHR. A common European Constitutional Heritage arising from the Council of Europe and European Union European Courts. What can be expected from the Strasbourg Human Rights Court in areas related to the FSJ?.
Speaker: Giuseppe Cataldi

Freedom Security and Justice as the core of the common constitutional european heritage
Promoting fundamental rights: the European Charter and its impact on EU policies. Even if the Charter does not extend the EU competencies it is now a constitutional parameter to be taken in account not only by the European judges but also by the EU legislature, even for policies designed with a more limited scope.
Speaker:Ezio Perillo

Debate

Evolution and transformation of the principle of Primacy of EU law. Dialogue and mutual influence of European and national Constitutional Courts.
Fifty years after the landmark case of Van Gend en Loos and four years after the Lissabon-Urteil (Bundesverfassungsgericht judgment of 30.6.2009), the tensions between EU “limits” and national “counter-limits” could arise again notably in the EAFSJ area.
Speaker: Oreste Pollicino

The EAFSJ a cross road of European and national founding values (art. 2), as well as for fundamental and European citizenship rights. How manage the indivisibility of rights and a Member States differentiated integration ?
(Opt-in Opt-out Countries). How far can the EU impact on Member States internal legislation (Towards a “reverse Solange” mechanism)? How the EU and Council of Europe can influence national fundamental rights related policies
Speaker: Nicoletta Parisi

The EAFSJ as supranational constitutional area of democracy. From National State to the European Union: what kind of relation between national and european legal orders ?
Sixty years of EU integration have changed the concept of democracy and sovereignty. There is a metamorphosis in National State’ s traditional role and its constitutional elements such as territory, citizenship and sovereign power. The Kantian vision of a peaceful cosmopolitan project mirrors the category of EU citizenship arising in the EAFSJ. Today Habermas developed the concept of “Constitutional patriottism”, underlying a “constitutionalisation” of the European supranational area. What are the pro and cons of this EU perspective ? The post-Lisbon Treaty stressed that the EAFSJ is becoming the embryo of a European public sphere as well as of a first example of supranational democracy.
Speaker: Francesca Ferraro

Debate

July 9th
Institutional dynamics and EU practices
09h30 am – 06h30 pm

The EAFSJ before Lisbon. The intergovernmental cooperation. From “TREVI” via “Schengen” to Amsterdam. The first phase.
How formerly excluded EAFSJ related policies have been integrated into the EU framework. TREVI cooperation, the Schengen agreement (1985) and its 1990 Implementing Convention as well as the Dublin Convention on Asylum.
The emerging notion of supranational space in the Single European Act (1986). The mutual recognition principle in the Internal Market and in EAFSJ-related policies. The Schengen Acquis in the EU legal framework from Amsterdam to Lisbon. Opt-in and Opt-out Countries: the impact of differentiated integration. Schengen relevance and ECJ jurisprudence on the preservation of the Schengen system consistency. From cooperation to integration.
Speaker: Dino Rinoldi

Debate

The EAFSJ after Lisbon (1). How the EAFSJ specificity has been preserved by progressively integrating it in the ordinary EU (communitarized) legal institutional framework. The impact on the EU institutions and on the MS.
Dynamics and the role of the Institutions in promoting, negotiating and implementing the EAFSJ-related policies. European Council, European Parliament, Council of the European Union, Commission and Court of Justice interplaying in the EAFSJ. The preparatory work conducted behind the scene by the Commission Directorates General, the Council working bodies – COREPER, CATS, COSI – and the EP parliamentary committees
Speaker: Antonio Caiola

The EAFSJ after Lisbon (2) How democratic principles are fulfilled in the EAFSJ. The impact of the EP on legislative procedures.
The interparliamentary dialogue and the way how the EP and national parliaments play their role when verifying the subsidiarity and proportionality principles in the EAFSJ policies. The emerging role at EU level of “political families” represented at national European and international level (European political parties, EP political groups, national parties).
Speaker: Emilio De Capitani

Debate

The EAFSJ after Lisbon (3). How EU policies are framed and implemented at national level. How cooperation, mutual recognition and harmonisation are implemented
How EAFSJ policies are implemented at national level. Problems and opportunities arising notably when implementing the mutual recognition of other EU countries’ measures. How intertwined are the EU and national administration in the EAFSJ related policies. Is there complementarity between EU and National strategies? The EU financial levy as a facilitator of mutual EU-national coordination. The emerging role of EU Authorities and Agencies as a support and meeting space also for national administrations (Ombudsman, FRA, EDPS, FRONTEX, EASO, EMCDDA, EUROPOL, OLAF, CEPOL, EUROJUST, …).
Speaker: Lorenzo Salazar

Debate

July 10th
An European space of freedom and rights
09h30 am- 06h30 pm

The EAFSJ after Lisbon (4) Placing the individuale at the heart of EU activities
How EU legislation implements the principles of equality and non-discrimination. The ECJ jurisprudence and the phenomenon of reverse discrimination. EU citizenship-related jurisprudence. Judicial action at national and European level founded on the EU Charter. Infringement of EU founding values and fundamental rights as possible exceptions to the mutual recognition obligations? Fundamental Rights Agency.
Speaker: Valentina Bazzocchi

The EU evolving framework of Transparency, access to documents, principle of good administration, and of classified information
After Lisbon a more transparent independent and efficient EU administration can be founded on Arts 15 and 298 of the TFEU as well as Arts 41 and 42 of the European Charter. However the close intertwining of the EU and the Member States has created a hybrid system of European Classified Information (EUCI), which is particularly relevant in the EAFSJ policies. How do European and national institutions implement the EU principles? How is the principle of good administration secured? What role should the EU Ombudsman play?
Speaker: Deirdre Curtin

Protection of Personal Data. The EU reform.
After the Lisbon Treaty and the merger of the so-called first and third pillars, protection of personal data can be framed in a globally consistent manner. Informational self determination, protection against possible abuses by the private sector as well as by public sector (law enforcement authorities) can now be framed at European level by taking stock of the lessons learned at national and international level (Council of Europe, OECD). How to preserve the role of national authorities and of the new coordinating body.
Speaker: Vanna Palumbo

Freedom of movement border integrated management
Freedom of movement of European citizens as well as of third country nationals in the EU remains a central and controversial issue. The integrated external border management is progressively framed at legislative level (borders, visas..) and implemented at operational level also thanks to the emerging role of Frontex and of the new European networks (SIS II – VIS). New opportunities as well as risks emerge in the definition of the EU-Member State management of internal and external borders
Speaker: Luisa Marin

Debate

European Migratory policies
Objectives, legal framework and operational setting of the EU-Member State policies. Five years after the European Pact on Asylum and Migration (2008), what lessons can be drawn for the next (2015-2019) multiannual programme? What improvements can be foreseen for the EU migration governance at central and national level? How are the Member States implementing the EU legislation? What are the main external aspects of the EU migration policy?
Speaker: Henry Labayle

The European common asylum system (and of EASO and EURODAC)
After the first generation of EU “minimum” rules the EU has now established the Common European Asylum System foreseen by Art. 18 of the Charter and Art 78 of the TFEU by taking account of the jurisprudence of the Luxembourg and Strasbourg Courts. At national level high standards should be granted to avoid the problems found for instance with Greece when implementing the Dublin system. The principle of solidarity still seems to be underexploited. Attention should be paid to the new role of EASO (Reg. (EU) No 439/2010) as well as to the implementation of the EURODAC system.
Speaker: Patricia Van de Peer

Debate

July 11
An European space of security and justice
09h30 am -06h30 pm

Judicial cooperation in civil matters; complement of the freedom of movement?
Judicial cooperation in civil matters has been one of the most dynamic domains after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. Enhanced cooperation took place in matrimonial matters and intellectual property. Special attention will be reserved for the recently revised Brussels I Regulation (which abolished the “exequatur” procedure) as well as for the new Regulations on succession and wills and on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters.
Speaker: Filomena Albano

Internal security strategy: crisis prevention and management.
Special attention will be paid to the implementation of the 2010 European Internal Security Strategy and its impact on the cooperation between the EU institutions and agencies as framed by the “Policy Cycle” for the 2013-2017 period. There will also be a presentation of the implementation of PRUM cooperation and of the “availability principle” as well as the way how security- and intelligence-related information is exchanged notably within the framework of the so-called “Swedish Initiative”. The role played by COSI, Europol and of the internal security fund will be presented and debated together with the impact of the up-coming “Lisbonisation” of EU measures adopted before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty
Speaker: Sandro Menichelli

Debate

Judicial Cooperation in criminal matters
How judicial cooperation in criminal matters has been developed between countries of different legal traditions (civil and common law). Problems and opportunities arising at each level of cross-border cooperation (open coordination, mutual recognition, legislative harmonisation). The European jurisprudence (Strasbourg and Luxembourg Courts) as well as the impact of the EU Charter. The implementation of the first post-Lisbon measures and impact of the Lisbonisation of former third pillar measures in this domain. Preserving the independence of the judiciary: towards European-wide judiciary quality evaluation systems.
Speaker: Luca De Matteis

The European Public Prosecutor: a pattern also for Member States?
The OLAF Reform and the Eurojust “Lisbonisation” are intermediate phases towards the creation of the European Public Prosecutor’s office (EPPO) (Art. 86 TFEU). The latter will be empowered to bring action also before national courts. The European legislation will determine the general rules applicable to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, the conditions governing the performance of its functions, the rules of procedure applicable to its activities, as well as those governing the admissibility of evidence, and the rules applicable to the judicial review of procedural measures taken by it in the performance of its functions. What will be the impact, the risks and opportunities arising from the creation of this new European Institution?
Speaker: Claudia Gualtieri

How to empower the EU citizens when EAFSJ are shaped and implemented ?
Round Table with the Intervention of Paul Nemitz, Antonie Cahen, Robert Bray Tony Bunyan

Final Debate

PRESENTATION OF THE COURSE

The Treaty of Lisbon and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which entered into force on 1 December 2009, constituted an important step both at the legal level and at the political level in the evolution of the European Union. The aim of the EU now is not only “… to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples”, having presided over, since the end of the Second World War, the longest ever period of peace between European States, but also to achieve “… an area of freedom, security and justice with respect for fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States.”

After the Treaty of Lisbon, the policies already provided for in the Maastricht Treaty within the framework of the so-called “third pillar” and originally focused mainly on intergovernmental cooperation and cooperation between administrations, are now to evolve into European “common policies” directly towards the interests of the individual, who is placed “at the heart of European integration.”

It is a Copernican revolution in so far as the Union is called not only to offer “… its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime” (Art. 3 TEU and Title V TFEU) but also to promote (and not only protect) fundamental rights and prevent all forms of discrimination (Art. 10 TFEU) and strengthen EU citizenship (Arts 18-25 TFEU) and with it the democratic principles on which it is based (Title II TEU).

The fact that the competences related to the ASFJ are now “shared” with the Member States (Art. 4 TEU) and are to be focused on the rights of the person brings about a daily interaction between the national and the European level, bringing into play national and European values, rights and objectives.

The process of reciprocal hybridization between the nascent European model and traditional national models is anything but politically painless, as the experience of almost thirty years of Schengen cooperation shows.

The aim of this Summer School is to assess the progress and difficulties encountered by the European institutions and the Member States in implementing the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the objectives set by the European Council in the “Stockholm Programme” of 10 December 2009.

Based on this evaluation, we intend to shed light on the possible priority bearing in mind that:
– it will be necessary to adjust the secondary legislation of the European Union in the light of the values and principles which are now enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights (“Lisbonisation”);
– we shall be in the final phase of the accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights;
– at the beginning of the next legislature, we will be entering into a new phase in the European judicial area with the negotiations on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor and the transition to the ordinary legislative procedure with regard to measures of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters adopted before the entry into force of the Treaty (the transitional arrangements end on 1 December 2014);
– Member States which have hitherto enjoyed special treatment (Ireland, Denmark and the United Kingdom in particular) should have clarified their position with respect to the new phase of the ASFJ and the Schengen cooperation.

In the course of the next legislature it will also be necessary to promote greater consistency between European and national strategies related to the European area of freedom, security and justice. Just as in the economic sphere, the divergence of national public policies has put at risk the credibility of the common currency, the diversity of standards for the protection of the rights in Member States is straining mutual trust, the application of the principle of mutual recognition and the very credibility of the nascent “European model”. The strengthening of the operational solidarity between Member States’ administrations – which is being developed for example within the framework of Schengen cooperation – must be accompanied by legislative, operational and financial measures that implement solidarity between European citizens and third-country nationals on the territory of the Union.

In this perspective, Italy may play an important role as the new multi-annual programme for 2015-2019 is to be adopted by the second half of 2014 under the Italian Presidency.

Speakers:

Academics:
Valerio Onida, Former President of the Italian Constitutional Court
Giuseppe Cataldi, Pro-rettore Università L’Orientale (Napoli)
Oreste Pollicino, Public comparative law Professor  (Università Bocconi – Milano)
Nicoletta Parisi, EU Law Professor  (Università Catania)
Francesca Ferraro, Visiting Professor (Università L’Orientale – Napoli)
Dino Rinoldi, International Law Professor  (Università Cattolica – Piacenza)
Valentina Bazzocchi, PHD EU Law (Alma Mater Università Bologna)
Deirdre Curtin, Professor of European Law (University of Amsterdam – NL),
Luisa Marin, Assistant Professor of European Law (University of Twente – NL)
Henri Labayle, Professeur de Droit international et européen (Université de Pau et des
pays de l’Adour – France)

Representatives and officials of European and national administrations:
Ezio Perillo (European Civil Service Tribunal)
Stefano Manservisi DG of the Commission DG Home
Paul Nemitz Director at the Commission DG Justice
Antoine Cahen, Patricia Van Den Peer, Claudia Gualtieri (European Parliament)
Filomena Albano, Luca De Matteis, Lorenzo Salazar (Italian Justice Ministery)
Sandro Menichelli (UE Italian Permanent Representation )
Vanna Palumbo (Garante Privacy IT)

Representatives of Civil Society:
Tony Bunyan, Director of Statewatch,Emilio De Capitani, FREE Group Secretary and Visiting Professor (Università L’Orientale – Napoli)

BuonGoverno

Analysis :The second phase of the Common European Asylum System: A brave new world – or lipstick on a pig? By Professor Steve Peers, (*) University of Essex

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON STATEWATCH

(* FREE Group Member)

8 April 2013

Several years ago, the EU set itself the deadline of 2010 – later postponed to 2012 – for completing the second phase of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). Near the end of March 2013, the European Parliament (EP) and the Council (the Member States’ interior ministers) finally agreed upon the texts of the two remaining legislative measures to this end.
No further EU measures on asylum (other than a revision of the current European Refugee Fund) are currently under discussion or planned for the time being. So the recently agreed rules will likely govern the issue of asylum in the EU for a number of years to come.

The objectives of the second phase of the Common European Asylum System were set out in the policy plan on asylum published by the Commission in 2008 (see the links below). This policy plan began by pointing out some key general trends.

In particular, a ‘critical flaw’ of the first phase of the Common European Asylum System was the wide difference in Member States’ recognition rates, ie the percentage of persons from the same country of origin whose claim for refugee status was accepted or not.

This divergence created ‘secondary movements’ (ie movements of asylum-seekers between Member States) and ‘goes against the principle of providing equal access to protection across the EU’.
Also, an increasing number of applicants were given ‘subsidiary protection’, ie a form of protection other than refugee status, and it was necessary to take account of this when developing the second phase legislation.

As for the content of the Common European Asylum System, the objective of creating the system was first agreed back in 1999, at the European Council (ie summit meeting) in Tampere, Finland. It was then agreed that there should be a ‘uniform status of asylum’ which would be ‘valid throughout the Union’.

Since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009, these objectives are now a legally binding part of the EU Treaties (Article 78 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union).

The most recent multi-year Justice and Home Affairs programme, agreed in 2009 (the ‘Stockholm programme’) states that:

The European Council remains committed to the objective of establishing a common area of protection and solidarity based on a common asylum procedure and a uniform status for those granted international protection. While [the] CEAS should be based on high protection standards, due regard should also be given to fair and effective procedures capable of preventing abuse. It is crucial that individuals, regardless of the Member State in which their application for asylum is lodged, are offered an equivalent level of treatment as regards reception conditions, and the same level as regards procedural arrangements and status determination. The objective should be that similar cases should be treated alike and result in the same outcome.

Furthermore:

There are still significant differences between national provisions and their application.
In order to achieve a higher degree of harmonisation, the establishment of CEAS, should remain a key policy objective for the Union. Common rules, as well as a better and more coherent application of them, should prevent or reduce secondary movements within the Union, and increase mutual trust between Member States.
With the recent agreement in principle on all of the remaining legislative proposals, it is time to assess whether the second phase of the Common European Asylum System will achieve the objective of ensuring common standards based on a high degree of protection.

Overview

There are five main measures making up the first phase of the Common European Asylum System, and all of them are being updated as part of the second phase of the system.

The state of play of these five measures is as follows: Continue reading “Analysis :The second phase of the Common European Asylum System: A brave new world – or lipstick on a pig? By Professor Steve Peers, (*) University of Essex”

CALL FOR A TRUE EUROPEAN AREA OF FREEDOM SECURITY AND JUSTICE

By the “Fundamental Rights European Experts Group” (FREE Group) (see below)
“Let’s be driven by our values and not by our fears”

1. Three years after Lisbon the objective of an EAFSJ is still far away…

Three years after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and of the European Charter of fundamental rights one can wonder if the European Union and its Member States are really committed to the objective of building the European Freedom Security and Justice Area. It is worth recalling that this objective dates back to 1997 when the Amsterdam Treaty was signed, but it has since then been substantially upgraded by the Lisbon Treaty.

After years of hard negotiations between the MS the EAFSJ has been tightly linked to a newly binding Charter of fundamental rights and some of the previous political, legal and democratic flaws have been solved. For three years the qualified majority voting has been the normal Council decision-making rule, the EP is a full co-legislator and the Commission and the European Court of Justice can fully play their role.

2. A deceiving outcome on quantitative and qualitative terms..

However notwithstanding these undeniable constitutional advances, the EU recent activity is quite deceptive both in quantitative as in qualitative terms. The EU and its MS seem still in a transitional and survival phase than in the long awaited building phase of true EAFSJ.

On quantitative aspects suffice it to note that since the beginning of the legislative term less than fifty legislative proposals have been submitted and only twenty have until now been adopted (1). If this trend continues one can wonder if the European Parliament and the Council will be able to adopt in the last 18 months of this legislature all the texts currently on the table not to speak of the proposals that the Commission has announced notably from the second half of 2013.

But much more concerning are the qualitative aspects of the institutional activity in a domain which is deemed to be now the core of the European public space.

To start with some positive aspects it is more than likely that the new Common European Asylum System foreseen by the art. 78 TFEU (and by the art.18 of the Charter) will be adopted before the end of this year (2). Progress has also been achieved with the adoption of the first measures dealing with the suspect’s rights in criminal proceedings (3) as well as in the judicial cooperation in civil matters (4) and on the establishment of new Agencies (5).

These decisions have often been taken after lengthy and painful negotiations and have been accompanied by the conclusion of international agreements as happened with the EU-US TFTP and PNR agreements. However a positive assessment on the latter is not obvious and the risks has been denounced that the final outcome could still not comply with the European Charter as well as of the European Convention of Human rights standards (6). The EP rejection of the ACTA agreement (7) has confirmed that the EU institutions often do not share the same vision of the balance to be struck between freedom and security.
Continue reading “CALL FOR A TRUE EUROPEAN AREA OF FREEDOM SECURITY AND JUSTICE”

FRONTEX: first ever RABIT operation deployed on 2 November

The Rapid Border Intervention Teams (RABIT) is a mechanism established so as to allow, in case of exceptional migratory pressure, rapid deployment of border guards on a European level.

Established in 2007 as part of the Agency’s founding mandate, RABIT operations have never been used up to now.

Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmström went to Greece to see the deployment of the 175 EU border guards posted to the Greece-Turkey border and according to Malmström’s spokesman the operation will consist in providing support activities of various nature.

According to Frontex the objective of the RABIT operation deployed in the Greek-Turkish border is to:

“assist Greek border control authorities in securing the land border with Turkey from a heavy influx of irregular migration. This will entail the deployment of 175 specialist border control personnel from 24 European countries for 24 hour joint surveillance of the land border in the area between Orestiada and Alexandroupolis, as well as additional officers at the Border Crossing Point (BCP) at Kipi.

In addition, guest officers will also be stationed at Athens airport and the operation will be supported by Frontex’s Return Coordination Office in Athens with a view to enhancing Greece’s capacity to return irregular migrants found to be staying illegally on EU territory.

Additionally to surveillance and border control, Frontex will provide interviewers to assist in the screening of apprehended migrants to ascertain their nationality and identity, as well as debriefers to gather evidence on the involvement of people smuggling networks and trafficking rings as well as other relevant intelligence on cross border criminal activities.

Therefore Frontex not only will be involved in surveillance but also in intelligence activities, by having access to personal data of individuals, in ways that are not precisely identified.

Human rights concerns

Although during these activities officers deployed are supposed to respect human rights during these operations as required by, inter alia, Articles 18 and 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, several doubts have been raised in this regard, especially taking into consideration the fact that officers may carry service weapons.

Amnesty International has addressed important questions to the State Secretary in charge of Migration and Asylum Policy for the Presidency of the Council of the European Union which took place the 8 and 9 November 2010.

These questions refer to:

The kind of training that officers have attended

According to Frontex the officers involved in RABIT operations have a curriculum that includes among others knowledge related to

“the history of EU and Schengen  EU legislation (special focus on Frontex Regulation, RABITs Regulation, Schengen Border Code)  human rights (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, Geneva Convention and New York Protocol, Common European Asylum System) practical policing (intercultural management, practical work on the border).”

It remains to be demonstrated whether the fact that officers have basic notions on the above, represent sufficient guarantee for a full respect of human rights, including the principle of non-refoulement,  while operations are carried out.

The support that Frontex has received from experts in the field of international protection

No information has been provided in relation the support, if any, that Frontex has received from experts in the field of international protection when planning the RABIT operation.

In fact the decision to deploy a RABIT force follows the following procedure, as explained by Frontex:

“The decision on deployment of the Rapid Border Intervention Teams belongs to the Executive Director of Frontex. The final decision is preceded by a number of procedural steps:

a) Request of a Member State.

b) Information about the request from the Executive Director to the Management Board.

c) Assessment of the situation based on Frontex risk analyses and information provided by a Member State. The Executive Director may also send experts to the operational theatre in order to assess the situation.

d) Decision of the Executive Director (no later than five days from the date of the receipt of the request).

e) Communication on the decision to the requesting Member State and the Management Board.

f) If the decision is positive:

1. Preparation of the Operational Plan

2. Selection and composition of the teams to be sent

3. Deployment”

The kind of support that Greece has received in order to set up adequate reception facilities for all individuals whose status must be verified

So far no information has been found with the kind of support that Greece has received in order to set up adequate reception facilities for all individuals whose status must be verified.

The kind of involvement foreseen for humanitarian agencies and

Humanitarian agencies have requested to be involved in several occasions, so as to be able to monitor how Frontex has been carrying out its activities. However, none of these requests have been taken into consideration so far.

The existence of independent monitoring foreseen for these operation

Frontex explains that officers are subject to civil and criminal liability:

“While performing the tasks and exercising the powers, the members of the teams shall comply with Community law and the national law of the host Member State. While performing the tasks and exercising the powers, the members of the teams shall remain subject to the disciplinary measures of their home Member State. Where members of the teams are operating in a host Member State that Member State shall be liable in accordance with its national law for any damage caused by them during their operations.

Where such damage is caused by gross negligence or willful misconduct, the host Member State may approach the home Member State in order to have any sums it has paid to the victims or persons entitled on their behalf reimbursed by the home Member State.

Without prejudice to the exercise of its rights vis‐à‐vis third parties, each Member State shall waive all its claims against the host Member State or any other Member State for any damage it has sustained, except in cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct. (…) ”

However, Frontex has provided no information related to whether it has foreseen any measure to carry out an effective, constant and independent monitoring of the RABIT operation.

These questions are of utmost importance given the difficulties that third country nationals have to face in accessing refugee protection in Greece and the JHA Council that takes place on Monday 8 and Tuesday 9 November represents the appropriate forum to discuss such issues, especially because one of the point of the agenda concern s the development of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), whose principles seems to be put increasingly under question by also but not only the Greek case.