Category: 7.1 Regular immigration

THE COMMISSION’S NEW EU MIGRATION STRATEGY: WAITING FOR THE GREAT LEAP FORWARD

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EU LAW ANALYSIS

by Steve PEERS

Today this Commission releases its EU immigration strategy. The final text is not available yet, but here are my thoughts on the earlier version, leaked on Monday. I will update them if the final strategy differs significantly from the leaked draft.

Content

The migration strategy is divided into three parts. First of all, it sets out ‘immediate action’ to address the migrant death crisis. Secondly, it describes an agenda for immigration management in four areas: irregular immigration, border management, asylum and legal migration. Finally, it briefly sets out some long-term objectives.

Immediate action

The ‘immediate action’ section largely elaborates upon the strategy already defined by EU leaders in response to the deaths in the Mediterranean. As I discussed already, this is a modest response to the crisis, focussed mainly upon enlarging EU interception operations in the Mediterranean and destroying smugglers’ boats.

However, the Commission paper suggests more ambition in two areas. First, it wants to go further on the ‘relocation’ of asylum-seekers between Member States. This would mean that frontline states like Italy and Malta do not have to deal with so many asylum-seekers, which would normally be their responsibility under the EU’s Dublin rules on this issue. So on this issue, the Commission will propose by the end of May ‘emergency response’ legislation on the basis of Article 78(3) of the TFEU, which will allocate asylum-seekers coming as part of a mass influx between Member States. These laws will be subject to a qualified majority vote in the Council, but the European Parliament (EP) will only be consulted. The Commission will then follow that up with a proposal by the end of 2015 for a permanent system of relocation, on the basis of the ‘ordinary legislative procedure’, ie the usual powers of the EP. I have already discussed separately the question of whether they would apply to the UK.

Secondly, the Commission wants to go further on resettlement, ie the entry of recognised refugees now in third States into the EU. On this issue, the Commission will make a Recommendation on resettlement, to be followed by a binding proposal for legislation if this proves insufficient. Extra EU funds will be made available to assist resettlement.

Irregular immigration

First of all, the Commission wants to address root causes of irregular migration, by focussing the money the EU already spends on these issues. There is no clear commitment to more spending. Next, the Commission wants to address smuggling of migrants, with an ‘Action Plan’ to be produced by the end of May. The Commission doesn’t mention this, but a review of the current EU legislation on smuggling of migrants is now underway. Also, the Commission wants to take further action to enforce the EU’s Directive on employment of irregular migrants (on the implementation of this Directive, see discussion here).

Also, the Commission wants to address the issue of return, by prioritising countries of origin for readmission treaties with the EU, providing guidelines on the application of the EU Return Directive (see here on implementation of that Directive), and giving the EU Border Agency, Frontex, the power to initiate expulsion missions. The Commission will propose legislation on the latter issue on the basis of an evaluation to be completed by the end of the year.

Border management Continue reading “THE COMMISSION’S NEW EU MIGRATION STRATEGY: WAITING FOR THE GREAT LEAP FORWARD”

(DRAFT) COMMISSION STRATEGY ON EU IMMIGRATION POLICY

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EU LAW ANALYSIS

The following is a leaked draft of the Commission communication on the EU migration agenda which is due to be published on Wednesday 13th May.It might be changed before publication and may also be missing some text.

_____________________________________________________________

  1. Introduction

Throughout history, people have migrated from one place to another. The reasons can vary greatly: political oppression, war, poverty, entrepreneurship, family reunification – every person’s migration tells its own story. Migration impacts society in many different ways and calls for a variety of responses. This Agenda brings together the different steps the European Union should take now, and in the coming years, to meet this challenge.

The immediate imperative must be the duty to protect those in need.  The plight of thousands of migrants putting their lives in peril to cross the Mediterranean has shocked us all. As a first and immediate response, the Commission put forward a ten point plan for immediate action. The European Parliament and the European Council have lent their support to these plans and Member States have also committed to concrete steps to avert further loss of life.

The response was immediate but insufficient. This cannot be a one-off response. Emergency measures have been necessary because the collective European policy on the matter has fallen short. While most Europeans have responded to the plight of the migrants, the reality is that across Europe, there are serious doubts about whether our migration policy is equal to the pressure of thousands of migrants, to the need to integrate migrants in our societies, or to the economic demands of a Europe in demographic decline.

To try to halt the human misery created by those who exploit migrants, we need to exploit the EU’s global role and wide range of tools to address the root causes. Some of these are deep-seated but must be addressed. Globalisation and the communication revolution have created opportunities and raised expectations. Others are the consequence of wars and crises from Ukraine to the Middle East and North Africa. The impact of global poverty and conflict do not end at national frontiers. Europe should continue to be a safe haven for those fleeing persecution but it is also  an attractive destination for economic migrants. Upholding our international commitments and values while protecting our borders and at the same time creating the right conditions for Europe’s economic prosperity and societal well-being is a difficult balancing act that requires coordinated action on the European level.

This calls for a set of core measures and a consistent and clear common policy. We need to restore confidence in our ability to bring together European and national efforts to address migration, to meet our international and ethical obligations and to work together in an effective way. A European solution is essential because these are challenges that no Member State can effectively address alone. But it is clear that we need a new approach. This requires using all policies and tools at our disposal – combining internal and external policies to best effect. This also requires us to show solidarity and shared responsibility. All actors, Member States and EU institutions, need to work together to make a common European migration policy a reality. Continue reading “(DRAFT) COMMISSION STRATEGY ON EU IMMIGRATION POLICY”

THE CJEU WASHES ITS HANDS OF MEMBER STATES’ FINGERPRINT RETENTION (JOINED CASES C-446/12 – 449/12 WILLEMS)

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EU LAW BLOG

by

When is the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU applicable to a Member State measure? In C-446/12 – 449/12 Willems the CJEU held that a Member State which stores and uses fingerprint data, originally collected in compliance with Regulation No 2252/2004, but which the Member State then uses for purposes other than those stipulated in the Regulation, is not acting within the scope of EU law, and therefore is not bound by the Charter. This case appears to indicate a retreat by the Court from the expansive interpretation of the scope of application of the Charter which it had previously laid down in C-617/10 Fransson.

Facts and judgment

Council Regulation No 2252/2004/EC requires Member States to collect and store biometric data, including fingerprints, in the storage medium of passports and other travel documents, and require that such data be used for verifying the authenticity of the document or the identity of the holder. Spain introduced measures requiring the collection and retention of the fingerprint data for use in connection with travel documents. However, those national measures also provide that such data can be kept in a central register, and used for other purposes (such as national security, prevention of crime and identification of disaster victims). The applicants made passport applications, but refused to provide the fingerprint data. They argued, inter alia, that the storage and further use of those data breached their fundamental rights under Article 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. The national court referred two questions for preliminary ruling.

The first question concerned the applicability of the Regulation to national identity cards. The Court held that the Regulation did not apply to such cards. The second question is the one I want to focus on: Does Article 4(3) of the Regulation, read together with Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 95/46/EC  and Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, require Member States to guarantee that the biometric data collected and stored pursuant to that Regulation will not be collected, processed and used for purposes other than the issue of passports or other travel documents?

The ECJ had already held (in C-291/12 Schwarz) that the collection of those data for the purposes stipulated in the regulation (to verify the authenticity of the passport or the identity of the holder) was compatible with the Charter. The question was whether further processing of those data by the Member State would similarly be compatible.

The Court noted that the Regulation did not provide a legal basis for such further processing – if a Member State were to retain those data for other purposes, it would need to do so in exercise of its own competence (para 47). On the other hand, the Regulation did not require a Member State not to use it for other purposes. From these two observations the Court concluded that the Regulation was not applicable. The Court then cited its famous passage in C-617/10 Franssonwhere it had held that the applicability of EU law entails the applicability of the Charter. As the Regulation was not applicable, the Charter was not applicable either.

The Court then turned to Directive 95/46/EC  (the Data Protection Directive). It merely observed that the referring court requested the interpretation of the Regulation “and only that Regulation”. As the Regulation was not applicable, there was no need to examine whether the Data Protection Directive may affect the national measures.

Comment

I will focus on the question of applicability of the Charter (See Steve Peers comment on the “appalling” reasoning of the Court in respect of the Data Protection Directive). This judgment appears to signal a retreat by the Court from the expansive understanding of the scope of application which was laid down inFransson. It is true that in that case the Court had held that when EU law is not applicable, the Charter is not applicable. But when applying that test to the facts, the Court observed that the national (Swedish) measure was connected (in part) to infringements of the VAT Directive, and therefore was designed to implement an obligation imposed on the Member States by EU law “to impose effective penalties for conduct prejudicial to the financial interests of the European Union”. So inFransson the Court held that national measures which were connected in part to a specific obligation imposed by EU law on the Member State fell within the scope of application of EU law, and therefore of the Charter.

In the present case, the national measures are designed (in part) to implement the obligation imposed on the Member States by the Regulation, to collect and retain fingerprint data. Applying the reasoning in Fransson it would seem to follow that such measures would fall within the scope of EU law – after all, the measures relate to the retention of fingerprints, and the reason the fingerprints need to be retained stems from a specific obligation imposed, by EU law, on Member States: the obligation to collect and store biometric data with a view to issuing passports and travel data, set out in Article 4(3) of the Regulation.

Of course, this case can be distinguished from Fransson. In Fransson the Member State’s measure could be seen as not only stemming from the specific obligation imposed by EU law, but also as furthering the EU purpose of preventing conduct prejudicial to its financial interests. In contrast, in the present case the Member State’s measure is in furtherance of a member state’s purposes, and not an EU purpose.

But such a distinction would seem to entail a very strict approach to what obligations are imposed by EU law. Because the obligation which the Regulation imposes is not just to collect and store date, but also (under Article 4(3) of the Regulation) to ensure that the data are only used to for the specified purposes set out in the Regulation. That obligation was subsequently modified by Recital 5 inRegulation 444/2009, which states that Regulation 2252/2004 is “without prejudice to any other use or storage of these data in accordance with national legislation of Member States.” But is such a Recital sufficient to place the measures concerning those data outside the scope of EU law, or does it merely confer a discretion on states to adopt such measures, provided that they are compatible with EU law? Unfortunately, the reasoning in this judgment does not provide much guidance.

Conclusion

The approach of the Court in Fransson did not meet universal approval, and the judgement of the German Federal Constitutional Court in the Counter-Terrorism Database case may be read as a warning shot across the CJEU’s bows to make sure that the Charter is not applied to Member States’ measures in a way that “question[s] the identity of the [national] constitutional order”.  And by emphasising the autonomy of EU fundamental rights in its recent Opinion 2/13 on the accession to the ECHR, the Court certainly raised the stakes involved in demanding Member State compliance with the Charter. So this case may indicate a desire to ensure that the EU fundamental rights standard is reserved for those Member State measures where it matters most that a EU standard is applied – those matters where the primacy, unity and effectiveness of EU law is at stake.

In effect, this case can be read as tacit acceptance of AG Cruz Villalón in hisOpinion in Fransson, who proposed that the oversight by the Court of the exercise of public authority by the Member States be limited to those cases where there was “a specific interest of the Union in ensuring that that exercise of public authority accords with the interpretation of the fundamental rights by the Union”. However, that Opinion was a well reasoned legal argument. This judgment leaves many questions unanswered, and makes it very difficult to predict when a national measure will fall within the scope of EU law.

Furthermore, this approach sits uneasily with the self-understanding of the EU as a Union based on the rule of law inasmuch as neither Member States nor its institutions can avoid review of the conformity of their acts with fundamental rights (C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P Kadi). Through this Regulation, the EU requires the Member States to collect and store sensitive personal data of all EU citizens who wish to travel; but where the Member States go on to use those data in ways that may breach the fundamental rights of those EU citizens, the Court washes its hands of the matter.

 

 

DON’T ROCK THE BOAT: EU LEADERS DO AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE TO ADDRESS THE MIGRANT CRISIS

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EU LAW ANALYSIS  Thursday, 23 April 2015

by Steve Peers

Yesterday the EU leaders, in the European Council, adopted a policy for addressing the recent crisis of large-scale migrant death tolls crossing the Mediterranean. It builds upon the recent 10-point plan adopted by ministers (discussed here), but builds upon it in some respects. There were also some interesting last-minute changes to the earlier draft of the text (all of which are shown in the annex below), indicating leaders’ real priorities.

Detailed comments

At first sight, the leaders’ statement shows more compassion than the 10-point plan, referring to the huge loss of life as a ‘tragedy’ and stating an immediate priority to ‘prevent more people from dying at sea’. To this end, there is a specific commitment to triple the funds for ‘search and rescue’ as regards existing EU operations. However, this is only ‘within the mandate of Frontex’ – and the head of the EU border agency has stated that this agency does not really have a search and rescue role.

It should be noted that since these operations are coordinated by Frontex, detailed rules of EU law will apply (discussed here) will apply. These rules do allow, in some cases, for returns of migrants directly from their rescue to non-EU countries – as long as those countries are safe. It is unlikely that in the current situation, Libya would qualify as safe.

The destruction of traffickers’ vessels ‘before they are used by traffickers’ seems to suggest some Minority Report style precognisance of the future use of the boats, considering that traffickers do not paint logos on the side of their boats like ferries or shipping companies. This is also qualified by a reference to compliance with international law. It may be questioned whether this action will legally be a foreign policy operation (as the leaders assume), given the approach to EU law taken in a recent CJEU opinion concerning the EU’s anti-pirates operation (discussed here).

As compared to the 10-point plan, there is a reference to Interception of communications, and a very brief reference to the root causes of the problem (conflict in countries of origin, as well as Libya). The EU leaders took out a reference to stopping migrants making it to the Mediterranean shores, but it’s obvious that this is the main intention of stepping up cooperation with sub-Saharan countries.

There’s an added stress on readmission treaties, including with countries of transit; this refers implicitly to EU readmission treaties with North African states (not Libya) currently under negotiation. There are also two added references to the right to asylum and EU asylum law, confirming that the EU leaders do not intend to simply return migrants without considering their claims. Some press reports had erroneously suggested an intention to return many thousands of migrants without considering claims, but if migrants make it to EU waters or land, it would be illegal to return them without examining their claims under EU law. Migrants can be returned to countries of origin or transit if their asylum claims are unfounded, as long as those countries are safe. Again, returning migrants to Libya would, under current circumstances, breach EU and human rights law as long as that country does not appear safe.

As compared to the 10-point plan, it appears that the intention is not to fingerprint all migrants, but only those applying for asylum; this simply re-iterates long-standing EU law. More generally, the plan says little about safe passage, removing the original (and puny) target number of 5,000 resettlement places, and not referring to other forms of safe passage instead. (While it would be difficult to issue humanitarian visas in Libya, it would be possible to offer this option – discussed further here – in other States). Equally, there is little practical solidarity with frontline states; other Member States offer cash and help with processing and return, but weakened any significant commitment to relocate people from those frontline States.

There is an immediate commitment to issue a ‘roadmap’ next week, pre-empting the Commission’s agenda-setting role (its strategy paper is due in May). However, the role of the European Parliament may still prove significant, since it must approve any funding decisions or changes in legislation.

Conclusions

Overall, the new commitment to search and rescue is welcome, although it is qualified in light of Frontex’s limited powers.  The desire to address root causes is good but seems half-hearted, and this is easier said than done. A more ambitious strategy regarding the processing of asylum claims in non-EU transit states is probably necessary in the medium term, but neither the EU leaders nor asylum NGOs want to swallow this bitter pill for the time being. The destruction of traffickers’ boats is subject to legal and practical constraints, and will be almost literally a drop in the ocean. The summit result is frankly pathetic as regards safe passage of migrants, ensuring that they avoid the risk of the crossing altogether, and it is marginal as regards assistance to frontline Member States.

On the whole, it seems that the leaders want to do as little as possible to change the current approach to dealing with the crisis. Similar to their method of dealing with the euro crisis, this looks like a short-term patch-up that offers less than first appears, which will probably have to be revisited soon.

THE EU RESPONSE TO MIGRANT DEATHS: PROTECTION AND PREVENTION – OR POLICY LAUNDERING?

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EU LAW ANALYSIS Wednesday, 22 April 2015

by Steve Peers

On Monday, EU foreign and interior ministers adopted a ten-point plan in response to the recent huge death toll of migrants crossing the Mediterranean. There will be a summit on Thursday to examine the issue further, and then an EU Commission strategy proposed on May 13th. But for now, I want to examine the initial plan.

Overall, this is a very disappointing document. It’s not only vague on crucial details but more importantly focusses less on the situation of the migrants (addressing the root causes which cause them to move, and protection from drowning and persecution) and more on border control and repression. One point in the plan constitutes a rather crass example of ‘policy laundering’ – attempting to use a crisis to shove through an essentially unrelated policy objective.

Let’s look at the ten points of the EU plan in turn, then examine the ‘Australian solution’ and the ‘Christians only’ approach which some have suggested. For alternative solutions to the problem, see the proposals of the UN Special Rapporteur on Migrants, the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency, Patrick Kingsley (in the Guardian), Nando Sigona, and myself.

Reinforce the Joint Operations in the Mediterranean, namely Triton and Poseidon, by increasing the financial resources and the number of assets. We will also extend their operational area, allowing us to intervene further, within the mandate of Frontex;

This is the only one of the ten measures related directly to search and rescue, although it’s not clear if this is actually intended to be a search and rescue mission. The mandate of ‘Frontex’ (the EU’s border control agency) concerns border control, not search and rescue as such. Indeed there is no mention of search and rescue here, or in the rest of the plan. Nor is there any express mention in the plan of the recent loss of life. There are no details of the extent of the increase in financial resources and assets, or the extent to which the operational area will increase. Continue reading “THE EU RESPONSE TO MIGRANT DEATHS: PROTECTION AND PREVENTION – OR POLICY LAUNDERING?”

L’Union européenne et la crise de l’immigration en Méditerranée : le bal des hypocrites

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED HERE 22 AVRIL 2015

par Henri Labayle, CDRE

Rien ne change. Les minutes de silence au sein des institutions européennes ne se comptent plus face à la litanie des morts et des disparus lancés en Méditerranée.

Comme il y a près de vingt ans à Douvres devant les cadavres de 54 clandestins chinois, les Etats membres et les institutions de l’Union promettent que cette fois-ci est la dernière, qu’enfin des mesures efficaces seront prises pour faire face à l’inacceptable : des centaines de morts en quelques semaines, des milliers à venir en quelques mois si l’indifférence persiste. Faute de reconnaître son échec, l’Europe est incapable de changer d’approche en affrontant autrement la réalité. Au bal des hypocrites, le carnet de chacun est donc bien rempli.

1. Le double langage des Etats membres

L’environnement de l’Union est devenu extrêmement dangereux, troublé par une multitude de conflits. Graves autant que nouveaux, ils engendrent des mouvements de personne quasiment impossibles à réguler, pour partie imputables d’ailleurs à l’imprudence des interventions militaires occidentales, en Irak ou en Libye.

Les populations persécutées par Daesch comme par Bachar El Assad appellent la protection autant que celles fuyant la guerre en Erythrée, lorsqu’elles se jettent dans l’exode. Quoi que les politiciens prétendent aux opinions publiques nationales, cette protection leur est due et l’Union européenne n’en est pas la cause. Nous l’avions décidée bien avant, inscrite dès 1946 dans notre constitution et dans la Convention de Genève comme nos voisins depuis 1951. Notre indifférence contemporaine à la misère humaine ne peut occulter un choix qui est partie intégrante de nos valeurs. Les dévoiements tout aussi indiscutables du droit d’asile ne peuvent le masquer. N’est pas australien qui veut.

Quelle est l’attitude individuelle comme collective des Etats européens devant ce constat ? Une fuite devant leurs responsabilités et le refus de tirer les conséquences de leur impuissance matérielle et budgétaire à garantir isolément leurs frontières respectives. Ceux qui proclament le contraire en réclamant leur rétablissement ont-ils oublié l’échouage d’un cargo turc transportant des immigrants kurdes sur une plage corse et imaginent-ils ce qu’il adviendrait demain d’une vague semblable à celle de la Sicile ?

Ce refus s’est traduit d’abord, en Méditerranée. Sous couvert de soulager l’Italie qui avait lancé à grands frais l’opération de sauvetage « Mare nostrum » après une première catastrophe, les Etats membres lui ont substitué l’opération conjointe « Triton ». Elle a divisé les coûts par trois et couvert une zone moindre, aux seules fins de surveillance de la frontière commune. Les 4 avions et 21 bateaux alloués par une vingtaine d’Etats, dont certains ne sont pas membres de l’Union, illustre bien le peu d’enthousiasme étatique à défendre la frontière commune avec Frontex, rapportés aux moyens mis en oeuvre par la seule Italie …

L’opération n’illustre d’ailleurs pas les clichés habituels. Si la Roumanie (tenue à l’écart de Schengen) ou la Slovénie et la Lettonie répondent présentes, tel n’est pas le cas de la Hongrie, pourtant consommatrice de crédits de l’Union dans ce registre, ou de l’Irlande et du Royaume Uni. Certes, le refus de ces derniers de participer à l’espace Schengen est connu mais on sait tout autant qu’une partie importante de ces demandeurs de protection se retrouvera en fin de compte à Calais, dans l’espoir d’un passage … En attendant, c’est un navire islandais, le Tyr, qui est au rendez vous du canal de Sicile.

Passé les mots de l’émotion, le cynisme l’emporte donc largement. L’opposition à Mare Nostrum était ouvertement menée au moyen d’un argument glaçant de réalisme : sécuriser le passage en sauvant les naufragés serait un appel d’air au commerce des passeurs … L’augmentation actuelle du nombre de naufragés alors que cette opération est précisément terminée témoigne de l’erreur d’appréciation commise, son incompatibilité évidente avec la morale et le droit de la mer ne suscitant aucun doute.

Les attitudes individuelles ne sont guère plus glorieuses. Les envolées françaises sur le droit d’asile, tradition de notre pays, et les déclarations martiales du chef de l’Etat appelant à régler des « questions devenues insupportables » ne dissimulent pas le double langage.

Celui par exemple des résistances de la diplomatie française lorsqu’il fallut, en 2014, réglementer le cadre de la surveillance des frontières maritimes extérieures conformément aux grands principes. Pas davantage que n’est infirmé le bien fondé des remarques de la Cour des comptes et du Sénat sur le projet en discussion relatif au droit d’asile qui prétend faire mieux en n’octroyant aucun moyen nouveau …

D’autant que le couplet habituel sur une France « terre d’asile » appelle modestie : quatrième Etat européen à enregistrer des demandes d’asile (62.000), nous sommes devancés par l’Allemagne (plus de 200.000), la Suède et l’Italie, en 2014. Et pour ce qui est de leur acceptation, nous ne dépassons pas 15.000 dossiers … trois fois moins que l‘Allemagne, autant que les Pays Bas qui sont bien moins sollicités, 20% qui se situent largement au dessous de la moyenne européenne.

C’est bien là que le bât blesse : comment l’Union européenne peut-elle sérieusement prétendre à une solidarité quelconque quand l’essentiel de la pression pèse sur un dixième de ses membres, 3 Etats seulement ? Que font les autres ?

2. L’inconsistance de l’Union européenne       

Continue reading “L’Union européenne et la crise de l’immigration en Méditerranée : le bal des hypocrites”

La crise de l’immigration dans l’Union : vivre et laisser mourir ?

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED HERE 23 MARS 2015

 par Henri Labayle, CDRE

Une fois encore, la presse se fait justement l’écho de la crise migratoire frappant l’Union européenne, superlatifs à l’appui. Les mêmes mots, il y a quelques semaines, relataient déjà les mêmes inquiétudes et proféraient les mêmes contre-vérités. Avant que l’actualité ne les chasse comme des nuages que l’on sait programmés pour revenir, à la prochaine marée.

La publication du rapport trimestriel de Frontex en est la cause, rendant ainsi un hommage indirect aux efforts de transparence d’une Agence de l’Union souvent injustement décriée. Elle s’ajoute auxtravaux du Bureau européen d’asile et à ceux d’Eurostat. Cette publicité coïncidant avec la reprise des débats internes à l’Union mérite un éclairage particulier.

Les mois qui passent ne se ressemblent pas nécessairement sur le front migratoire et l’examen des faits est instructif, quitte à ce que leur mise en perspective avec les efforts de l’Union ne révèle les carences de celle-ci.

1. Des faits et des chiffres

La réalité est têtue : la pression migratoire sur l’Union européenne est sans précédent. Cette pression s’inscrit dans un contexte international particulièrement préoccupant comme en témoignent lescris d’alarme du Haut Commissariat aux Réfugiés et des ONG. Examiner l’importance des flux de demandeurs de protection relevant de la compétence du HCR permet, sinon de relativiser la gravité de la situation de l’Union européenne, du moins de mettre cette pression en perspective.

Ainsi, actuellement, pratiquement 4 millions de réfugiés syriens se trouvent aujourd’hui en Turquie, au Liban, en Jordanie, en Iraq et en Égypte, sans perspective aucune de retour dans leur pays d’origine dans un proche avenir. Leur présence fait peser sur ces Etats d’accueil une contrainte politique, économique et sociale hors du commun et, en tous cas, hors de propos avec celle subie par l’Union. Continue reading “La crise de l’immigration dans l’Union : vivre et laisser mourir ?”

Will the Syrian crisis (at least!) trigger a true EU “common” migration policy ?

by Isabella MERCONE (FREE Group Trainee)

The ‘Syrian refugee crisis’ or ‘Syrian humanitarian crisis’, originated by a civil war in 2011, has been going on for more than 4 years now, causing millions of people in need of protection to flee from Syria to neighbouring countries (Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, Egypt), in seek of safety. Moreover, the situation has aggravated in the last year, after the establishment of the ISIS State between Syria and Iraq. [1] Due to its gravity, the issue is at the moment in the spotlight of media and public opinion. Concerns about the issue has already been expressed by all European institutions.[2]

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Notably, in a resolution adopted already in the last legislature ( October 2013), the European Parliament was already calling for ‘safe entry and fair asylum procedures’, ‘temporary admission to the EU’, and resettlement as ‘an essential tool to address acute needs’, reiterating the ‘need for more solidarity with member states facing particular pressure to receive refugees.’
Moreover, the resolution encouraged EU countries ‘to make full use of money to be made available from the Asylum and Migration Fund and the Preparatory Action to “Enable the resettlement of refugees during emergency situations”.

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION

In a recent decision , the European Commission has underlined the importance of ‘sharing responsibility between Member States and strengthening cooperation with third countries’, and suggested that the Union Actions should ‘focus on EU-wide measures promoting the consolidation of the CEAS, including its possible deepening, promotion of resettlement and transfer, and capacity building and strengthening of asylum systems of third countries’.
However, in fact not much has been so far put in practice by EU institutions to respond to Syrian refugee crisis, especially in respect with the support to third countries most affected by the flow. Nowadays, with 3,9 million Syrians refugees displaced among Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt[3], the European Union has to take action and adopt a real common EU approach to respond to Syrian refugee crisis. In order to do so, it needs:

  • A regulation that establishes a strengthened common asylum and migration system;
  • Adequate funding to implement such common actions to respond to the emergency.

The “Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund” (AMIF)

The AMIF (Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund) is the EU Funding Programme concerning asylum and migration for the period 2014-2020. It was established with Regulation (EU) No 516/2014[4]. With a total budget of EUR 3.137 billion for the whole period (2014-2020), it is aimed at ‘promoting the efficient management of migration flows’ and at the ‘implementation, strenghtening and development of a common EU approach to asylum and migration’.[5] It replaces the three separate funding programmes created for the period 2007-2013 (ERF, European Refugee Fund; EIF, European Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals; RF, European Return Fund), in the attempt to create a common financial framework for EU asylum, immigration and external border control policies.

Should art. 80 on solidarity complement the legal basis ?

EU Member States cooperation in the policy area of migration and asylum has been developing in the last twenty years, starting from the Schengen intergovernmental cooperation paving the way to the suppression of internal border controls. The 1999 Amsterdam Treaty embodied the former intergovernamental Schengen cooperation by splitting it in a new title of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) dedicated to “visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons” and by dealing with security related policies in the so called “third pillar” (police and judicial cooperation in crimial matters). 

Ten years later the Lisbon Treaty has progressively overcome this dual regime by  merging all these policies in the Title V TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the EU), which deals with freedom, security and justice, and which explicitly calls for the adoption of a common policy on asylum, immigration and external borders, based on solidarity between EU countries and fairness to non-EU nationals (article 67(2)TFEU). In particular, article 80 TFEU (Principle of solidarity) specifically states that, in the implementation of this EU policy on migration and asylum, Member States should respect the principle of “solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility”, ‘including its financial implications’.  With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, entered into force also the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights whose articles 18 and 19 strengthen the right of asylum (also covered by art. 78 TFEU) and the principle of non-refoulement [6] at level of  EU primary law. This has been the basic legal framework in which the European Parliament and the Council adopted the Regulation (EU) 516/2014[7], establishing the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF).[8] However it is worth noting that Regulation formal legal basis  are articles 78(2) and 79(2) and (4) TFEU but the Council of  European Union did’nt accept the EP proposal to add also article 80 TFEU as complementary legal basis.  This divergence of view between the three institutions is clearly stressed in the declarations adopted at the time of the EP vote [9] In fact, the EP had advocated for the explicit inclusion of article 80 TFEU in the legal basis of the regulation, but finally surrendered to national parliaments will and adopted the final text without any reference to this article, in order to allow the Fund to start functioning.
Finally, concerning States that are allowed to opt-out in Title V related issues, all EU Member States, with the exception of Denmark, are part in the AMIF.

AMIF GENERAL AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES Continue reading “Will the Syrian crisis (at least!) trigger a true EU “common” migration policy ?”

ENDING THE EXPLOITATION OF SEASONAL WORKERS: EU LAW PICKS THE LOW-HANGING FRUIT

Original published on EU LAW ANALYSIS

by Steve Peers

For a long time, it proved impossible for the EU to agree on legislation on migrant workers coming from non-EU countries. Eventually, the Member States were able to agree on some laws that mostly concerned higher-income migrants: the Blue Card Directive (on its implementation, see here) and the Directive on intra-corporate transferees (see discussion here). The EU has also adopted some general rules on the overall framework for admission of labour migrants (the so-called single permit Directive).

But for the first time last year, the EU also adopted rules on a less well-paid group of migrant workers: seasonal workers. This group of workers is potentially particularly vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. Does the recent Directive go far enough to protect them from these risks?

Content of the Directive

Member States have to apply this Directive by 30 September 2016, and the UK, Ireland and Denmark opted out of it. It is limited in scope to those who normally reside outside the territory of the EU, and who apply to be admitted as seasonal workers, or who have already been admitted under the terms of the Directive. Also, it applies to those admitted for less than three months as well as those admitted for a longer period. For the former group, the Directive specifies that the EU’s borders and visas legislation continues to apply, and makes a number of cross-references to those measures. Furthermore, the Directive does not apply to those workers who are usually employed in other Member States, and who are ‘posted’ by their employers to work in a second Member State, to non-EU family members of EU citizens, and to non-EU citizens covered by an agreement which extends free movement rights (the EEA or EU/Swiss treaties).

A ‘seasonal worker’ is a worker who normally resides outside the EU, and who lives temporarily in the EU to ‘carry out an activity dependent on the passing of the seasons’, pursuant to a fixed-term contract concluded directly with an employer established in a Member State. The concept of a seasonal activity is in turn defined as an ‘activity that is tied to a certain time of the year by a recurring event or pattern of events linked to seasonal conditions during which required labour levels are significantly above those necessary for usually ongoing operations.’ Member States have to define what the relevant sectors are; the preamble refers to tourism, agriculture and horticulture as areas where seasonal work is usually needed.

Member States are free to set higher standards for certain issues (procedural safeguards, accommodation, workers’ rights and facilitation of complaints), but otherwise the Directive has set fully harmonised rules. So Member States can’t alter the substantive grounds for admission or the rules on duration of stay and re-entry.

The key criteria for admission are fully mandatory. Member States have to ensure that an application to enter as a seasonal worker is accompanied by: a valid work contract or binding job offer, setting out all of the details of the job; a valid travel document (possibly valid for the entire duration of the seasonal work); evidence of having, or having applied for, sickness insurance (unless such coverage comes with the work contract); and evidence of having accommodation, as defined in the Directive (see below). Member States have to check that the seasonal worker has sufficient resources not to have to use the social assistance system, cannot admit persons considered to pose a threat to public policy, public security or public health, and must check that the applicant does not pose a risk of illegal immigration and intends to leave the Member States’ territory when the authorization for seasonal work expires.

Applications have to be rejected whenever these conditions are not met, or where the documents presented with an application are ‘fraudulently acquired, or falsified, or tampered with.’ Member States also have to reject applications, ‘if appropriate’, where there has been a prior sanction against the employer for ‘undeclared work and/or illegal employment’, the employer is being wound up or has no economic activity, or the employer has been sanctioned for breach of the Directive.

Otherwise the grounds for refusal of an application are optional: a labour market preference test for home State citizens, other EU citizens or third-country nationals lawfully residing and forming part of the labour market; the application of Member States’ rules on volumes of admission of third-country nationals; or breaches of employment law by the employer, the use of seasonal work to replace a full-time job, or a prior breach of immigration law by the would-be worker. There are similar provisions on withdrawal of the authorisation to work as a seasonal worker, although it should be noted that Member States can withdraw authorization if the worker applies for international protection.

As for the admission procedure, Member States have to make information available on the conditions of entry and residence and rights, as well as the admission process. It’s up to Member States to decide whether the applicant or the employer makes the application, and the application process takes the form of a single application procedure for a combined work/residence status. Those applicants who fulfil the admission criteria and who do not fall foul of the grounds for refusal must be granted a permit or visa, in the format of the EU standard visa or residence permit.

There’s a total maximum limit of between five and nine months per calendar year of residence for a seasonal worker; they must then return to a third country. Since the Directive only regulates admission and stay of seasonal workers, it should follow that Member States still retain discretion to permit the worker to stay for longer on some other ground.

Within the maximum time limit, seasonal workers will be able, on one occasion, to change employers or to obtain an extension of their stay with their employer, if they still meet the criteria for admission, although the grounds for refusal will still apply. The preamble makes clear that this possibility is intended to avoid abuse, since the worker will not be tied to a single employer. Member States will have an option to allow further extensions or changes of employer. But again they can punish any worker who applies for international protection, by refusing to extend that worker’s stay.

Next, the Directive facilitates the re-entry of seasonal workers who were admitted at least once within the previous five years, if they complied with immigration law during their stay. This could include a simplified application process, an accelerated procedure, priority for previous seasonal workers, or the issue of several seasonal worker permits at the same time. The idea is to give an incentive to workers to comply with immigration law.

Member States have to impose sanctions against employers who have breached their obligations under the Directive, including a possible ban on employing seasonal workers. If seasonal workers’ permit to work is withdrawn because of the employer’s illegal behaviour, the employer must compensate the employees for all the work they have done or would have done. There are specific rules on the liability of sub-contractors.

Moving on to procedural safeguards, the Directive provides for: a notified decision in writing within ninety days of the application; special rules on the renewal of authorization; a chance to provide additional necessary information within a reasonable deadline; and a requirement that a rejection (or withdrawal or non-renewal of a permit) be issued in writing and open to a legal challenge, with information on the reasons for the decision, the redress available, and the relevant time-limits. Member States may charge fees for applications, if they are not disproportionate or excessive, and may require employers to pay the costs of workers’ travel and sickness insurance. Workers’ accommodation must ensure an ‘adequate’ standard of living, rents cannot be excessive, a contract for housing must be issued, and employers must ensure that accommodation meets health and safety standards.

As for the rights of seasonal workers, first of all they have the right to enter and stay on the territory of the relevant Member State, free access to the territory of that Member State, and the right to carry out the economic activity which they have been authorized to take up.  Furthermore, they have the right to equal treatment with nationals as regards terms of employment (including working conditions), freedom of association, back payments, social security, the transfer of pensions, access to goods and services available to the public (except housing), employment advice (on seasonal work), education, and recognition of diplomas, and tax benefits. However, equal treatment can be restricted as regards family benefits, unemployment benefits, education and tax benefits, and Member States are still free to withdraw or to refuse to renew the permit in accordance with the Directive. Finally, Member States must ensure monitoring, assessment, and inspections, and facilitate complaints workers or by third parties supporting or acting on their behalf.

Comments

According to its preamble, the intention of this Directive is to regulate the admission of seasonal workers with a view to enhancing the EU’s economic competitiveness, optimizing the link between migration and development, while guaranteeing decent working and living conditions for the workers, alongside incentives and safeguards to prevent overstaying or permanent stay. In principle it has achieved some of these goals, in particular by including a number of provisions to ensure equal treatment and decent accommodation for seasonal workers, to punish employers who mistreat workers or who breach immigration law, and to guarantee that the rules in question are enforced.

In fact the Directive was significantly improved on these points during the legislative process, in particular as regards monitoring and punishment of dodgy employers, accommodation standards, equal treatment (which was significantly extended in scope), employees’ costs, and remedies against employers (compare the final Directive to the original proposal). Doubtless this was largely due to the hard work of NGOs which raised these issues (see their joint statement here). Perhaps the EU should use this Directive as a template to try and address the exploitation of other vulnerable groups of migrant workers – for instance domestic workers, who are at particular risk of being enslaved or trafficked.

Having said that, there are some limits to what Member States were willing to agree. There are exceptions from the equal treatment rule, and some of the provisions on dodgy employers, as well as the ban on passing costs along to the workers, are optional, not mandatory. (See the comments on the final Directive by a group of NGOs here). The right to change employers is subject to conditions, and Member States might decided to allow only one such change. More broadly, while the provisions on enforcement are stronger than what Member States are usually willing to agree to in EU laws about migrant labour (or indeed EU employment law), it remains to be seen how much resources Member States are actually willing to expend on enforcement in practice.

Furthermore, since the Directive is limited in scope to those who are not yet on the territory, it can do nothing to alleviate the position of those who are present without authorization but who cannot be returned (ie who are in limbo) and it gives Member States express carte blanche to deprive asylum-seekers of even the modest income which they were previously earning as seasonal workers. Overall, while the Directive will hopefully have some effect achieving its objectives, it may be a classic example of what academics call ‘picking the low-hanging fruit’ – focusing on the easier issues and avoiding the harder ones.

*This post is based on my ongoing research for the 4th edition of EU Justice and Home Affairs Law (forthcoming, OUP)

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”