Brexit and Extending EU Membership: The Legal Issues

Professor Steve Peers, University of Essex*

*This blog post was updated following the approval of the official decision extending EU membership

As the Brexit day deadline of March 29^th loomed without approval of the proposed withdrawal agreement, the European Council meeting agreed conclusions offering an extension of UK membership of the EU on March 21st. The formal decision on extension was then adopted on March 22nd, after the UK agreed to it. What are the legal issues concerning the extension of EU membership?

EU law issues

The extension decision states that:

In the event that the Withdrawal Agreement is approved by the House of Commons by 29 March 2019 at the latest, the period provided for in Article 50(3) TEU is extended until 22 May 2019.

In the event that the Withdrawal Agreement is not approved by the House of Commons by 29 March 2019 at the latest, the period provided for in Article 50(3) TEU is extended until 12 April 2019. In that event, the United Kingdom will indicate a way forward before 12 April 2019, for consideration by the European Council

If the House of Commons approves the withdrawal agreement next week, there's an extension to 22 May to sort out the details (notably the Act of Parliament necessary to implement the withdrawal agreement). If the agreement is not approved next week, there's a shorter extension to 12 April, and the UK will indicate what it sees as the way forward before this date.

The starting point for legal discussion of this issue is Article 50(3) TEU, which provides, as regards a Member State withdrawing from the EU:

The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period. (emphasis added)

Unanimity can still apply despite abstentions (Article 235 TFEU), and the European Council can, if necessary, act by written procedure (see its Rules of Procedure). (In the event, it seems that neither was necessary). It logically follows that the Member State concerned has to agree to the text of the relevant European Council decision, in particular as regards the length of extension - which is what happened in practice. There’s no formal role for the European Parliament or national parliaments, but it's possible that their expressions of opinion had some influence. Article 50(3) is silent on whether or not there can be multiple extensions.

During the extension, the UK has the same rights and responsibilities as it would ordinarily have as a Member State otherwise, including the continuing right to revoke its notification of intention to leave the EU unilaterally (see the CJEU’s Wightman judgment; the general point is confirmed by preamble clause 10). This follows on from two earlier CJEU rulings (discussed here and here), in which the Court confirmed that the UK remained a fully-fledged Member State throughout the main two-year period after notifying its intention to leave the EU. In other words: Membership means Membership. (This rule doesn’t prevent political conditions being attached to the EU’s decision to agree to an extension though, such as those in the decision). Those who claimed that the EU would demand vast sums or abolition of opt outs as a condition of extension of membership were incorrect. 

This general rule raises a specific issue relevant to extension of the UK’s EU membership. Would the UK have to hold European Parliament elections, set for May 23-26? (The date is based on the basic law on EP elections, since amended in 2018 on other points).  The answer would obviously be no, if the extension did not go past May 22. Arguably the answer would still be no if the extension went no further than June 30 – as requested by the Prime Minister – because the new European Parliament would only take office after that point. However, this is disputed (see the recent EU room document on extension, Wednesday’s Commission paper, and the contrasting views of Professors Barnard and Weatherill, Professor Spaventa and the UK’s CJEU Advocate-General Eleanor Sharpston). Ultimately the European Council took the view that membership after May 22 does require holding EP elections, and noted that April 12 would be the last date on which the UK could decide to hold them, explaining why these dates appear in the decision (see clause 10 in the preamble).

In the event of extension after June 30, the UK would certainly be in breach of its obligation to hold EP elections, unless a special exception was granted to it. This is because the Treaties refer to election for five-year terms, and a Council decision (see link above) sets out the election dates. Both the Treaties and the basic law on EP elections need unanimous national ratification to amend them. Article 50 does not refer to granting exceptions from EU law, except as regards the departing Member State’s absence from discussions concerning its departure. While new Member States do have temporary exceptions from the obligation to elect MEPs, they are covered by a different legal framework: Article 49 TEU, which deals with accession, expressly allows for “adjustments” to the EU Treaties. As noted above, tonight’s conclusions make no specific mention of the elections issue (it appeared in an earlier draft, but was dropped).

Would the EP (and the new Commission which the EP has a big role in appointing) be acting illegally, if the UK had not elected MEPs in time? The EU courts have answered a similar question before, as regards the Santer Commission which resigned irregularly and was not immediately replaced. In the British Airways judgment, it was held that the Commission’s actions adopted during this period were not illegal.  There was also a brief period when the Commission’s status was uncertain, as the Lisbon Treaty came into force a month after a new Commission (with fewer Commissioners) was due to be appointed in 2009. In practice, the new Commission was appointed after a short delay, with the old Commissioners spending a short extra period in their jobs.

If the UK held EP elections in (say) September, there could be a delay in appointing a new Commission or adopting new EU legislation until then. (A new EP takes a while to have a big role in adopting legislation anyway, since a lot of proposed legislation is wrapped up before the outgoing EP dissolves for elections).  There might, however, be some complication as regards the number of MEPs per Member State (see the relevant European Council decision).

UK legal issues

In order to change ‘exit day’ as far as Westminster legislation is concerned, it’s necessary to adopt secondary legislation – a statutory instrument approved by Parliament – under s 20 of the EU Withdrawal Act. It’s been suggested that a Statutory Instrument could be tabled next week. (The UK doesn’t need to adopt a new law to hold EP elections, since the repeal of the legislation concerned has not been commenced yet). In the event that an extension decision is adopted, but the definition of ‘exit day’ has not changed in the UK, it’s been argued that this does not mean that the UK leaves the EU with no deal, but rather that it stays in the EU with no domestic legal framework to give effect to EU law (although it might be possible to fix this quickly). (Updated March 24th: see also Professor Mark Elliott's post on this issue, and the reply of Brexit minister Lord Callanan).

Apart from the legal issues directly related to the extension, next week is likely to see a number of crucial votes relating to the UK’s imminent and future relationship with the EU. Time will tell what indirect effect they may have on the length and circumstances of the UK’s extended EU membership – and in particular whether the UK government and parliament is able to agree upon a way forward in the event that the withdrawal agreement is not approved.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 27

Photo credit: archdaily.com

A Pyrrhic victory? The ECJ upholds the EU law on relocation of asylum-seekers

Professor Steve Peers

How should the EU deal with the perceived ‘migrant/refugee crisis’? It has done a number of things, but back in September 2015, when the numbers of arrivals were peaking, it did something truly remarkable – requiring Member States to relocate 160,000 asylum-seekers from the ‘frontline’ states of Italy and Greece, which were bearing most of the burden of new arrivals.

In fact, this took the form of two separate decisions, as I discussed in detail at the time. The first decision was relatively uncontroversial, since it concerned only 40,000 people and Member States had agreed to admit them by consensus. But the second decision, concerning the other 120,000 people, was adopted against the objection of several Member States and set out mandatory quotas for admission. This led to legal action by Slovakia and Hungary to challenge this decision before the ECJ (see discussion of the Slovak challenge here).

This week, the ECJ ruled against this legal challenge, following soon after the opinion of its Advocate-General, who took the same view. As we shall see, this case brings into sharp relief the conflict between effectiveness and legitimacy in EU law – and indeed between effectiveness as a legal principle and practical effect on the ground.

The Court’s judgment

The Court gathered the legal arguments into three main areas: the ‘legal base’ (ie whether the EU had the power to adopt the second relocation decision at all); the procedure followed to adopt the decision; and the substance of the decision, in particular as regards the principle of proportionality.

Legal base

The ‘legal base’ for the adoption of the decision was Article 78(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This clause has been around since the Maastricht Treaty, being amended by the Amsterdam and Lisbon Treaties; but it had never been used before September 2015. It says that if ‘one or more Member States’ face ‘an emergency situation characterised by a sudden inflow’ of non-EU citizens, the Council (Member States’ interior ministers) may ‘adopt provisional measures’ to benefit those Member States, on a proposal from the Commission after consulting the European Parliament (EP). The default rule of qualified majority voting in the Council implicitly applies. So do the opt-outs for the UK, Ireland and Denmark.

First of all, the Court rejected the argument that the relocation decision was a ‘legislative act’, sticking to the strict definition of legislative acts set out in the Treaties. In short, the decision was not a legislative act because the Treaty doesn’t define it as one. It followed from this that there was no obligation for the Council to consult national parliaments or to meet in public when adopting the decision.

Next, the Court ruled that it was possible for this non-legislative act to amend existing legislation, namely the Dublin III Regulation on responsibility for asylum-seekers. Taking a broad view of the power conferred by Article 78(3), ‘provisional measures’ could amend legislative acts for a limited period, as long as they do not amend legislation permanently. That was the case here, since the decision only applied for two years and related to a specified and limited number of people.

The Court also ruled that the decision was ‘provisional’ in that it only applied for two years. A shorter period might not have been enough time to address the crisis, and the previous limitation to six months had been removed when the Treaty was amended, suggesting an intention by Treaty drafters to give the EU more flexibility. While anyone who obtained refugee status would in principle keep that status after the decision ceased to apply, that did not mean the decision wasn’t provisional, since obtaining long-term status is inherent in the idea of asylum policy. The amount of time it might take to adopt legislation by comparison was irrelevant.

Then the Court ruled that the influx of asylum-seekers was sufficiently large to count as ‘sudden’ for the purposes of Article 78(3), and the link between the influx of people and the emergency was strong enough to say that that emergency was ‘characterised’ by the influx. 

Procedural issues

First, the Court rejected the argument that the decision breached the guidelines set by the European Council (Member States’ leaders), which have a specific power to set such guidelines as regards Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) law. It pointed out that those guidelines only related to the first, uncontested, relocation decision, then went on to point out that the European Council could not constrain either the Commission’s power to propose measures or the Council’s power to adopt them by a qualified majority. As for the alleged breach of the EP’s prerogatives, while it must be reconsulted if there is an essential change to the Commission’s proposal – and the removal of Hungary from the list of beneficiaries was such an essential change – it had been informed of that essential amendment to the text before it voted.

Moreover, the Commission had consented informally to the Council’s change to its text – which is a requirement for the Council to vote by qualified majority. Also, the Court took a flexible view of the rules on languages used in the Council. Only the main texts under consideration, not all amendments to them, need to be available in all EU languages.

Substantive issues

The Court rejected the arguments that the decision was not suitable to obtain its objectives. True, as Commission reports have pointed out, not many asylum-seekers have actually been relocated, but that could not be foreseen at the time – and that was implicitly partly the fault of the plaintiff Member States for not implementing the decision in practice. (The Advocate-General’s opinion dismisses this “I killed my parents, give me sympathy as a poor orphan” line of argument more bluntly).

In the Court’s view, the Council could not be limited to financial support alone and so had the power to set mandatory quotas against Member States’ wishes. Also the Court claimed that the EU’s existing temporary protection Directive (which was adopted in 2001 to deal with future crises, but never actually used) could not have worked as an alternative, since it only provided for protection where asylum-seekers are located – so implicitly did not provide for relocations between member States.

Next, the Court rejected Hungary’s argument that given the large numbers of asylum-seekers it was receiving, it should not have been allocated any more – given that Hungary had expressly argued that it did not want any relocation of asylum seekers from its territory, it was in effect estopped from arguing that it was overburdened that it could not accept any more of them. (The Opinion sets out the hilarious argument that while Hungary ‘continues to form part of the Member States that support’ Italy and Greece, it ‘does so in a different way from the other Member States’ by, er, not actually helping Italy and Greece at all.)

Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that the EU rules violated the Geneva (Refugee) Convention by potentially forcing asylum seekers to leave the country where they were located, pointing out that this did not subject them to refoulement to an unsafe country but only changed which Member State their application for asylum would be considered by.

Finally, the Court rejected Poland’s arguments as an intervener. In particular, the argument that Member States which are ‘virtually ethnically homogeneous, like Poland’ should not receive migrants was rejected, both because it infringed the principle of solidarity and because considering ‘the ethnic origin of applicants for international protection’ would be ‘clearly contrary to EU law and, in particular, to Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union’, which guarantees non-discrimination on grounds of (among other things) ethnic origin.

Comments

The Court’s judgment is suffused by the principle of solidarity between Member States on asylum and immigration matters, as set out in Article 80 TFEU (the Advocate-General’s opinion, even more so). To that end, it gives the EU broad powers, and wide discretion to use them, to address the perceived crisis. 

Most of the Court’s arguments are convincing. It would indeed be hard to address a large influx of people without amending EU legislation temporarily, given the wide scope of that legislation and the broader context of establishing a ‘common European asylum system’.  But the Court is right to ensure that this power is not unlimited, by insisting that any emergency measure can only be temporary and limited in scope. This means that any future measure more ambitious than the 2015 decision might be challenged for going beyond the limits set out by the Court. 

Note that the Court was not asked if Article 78(3) decisions can amend the Treaties temporarily, since the contested decision did not do so. The answer must surely be no, given the hierarchy of norms in EU law. So the general rules on EU asylum law set out in Article 78(1) TFEU – including the obligation to respect non-refoulement, the Geneva Convention, and other relevant (human rights) treaties – continue to apply when emergency measures are adopted. (This is implicitly confirmed by the Court’s willingness to consider the validity of the decision in light of the Geneva Convention). Article 78(3) cannot therefore be a route to address perceived crises by means of (for instance) detentions, interceptions or expulsions which would violate that Convention or the non-refoulement rule, or which would otherwise breach human rights law – including the EU Charter of Rights, which has the ‘same legal value’ as the Treaties.

Nor was the Court asked about the separate proposal to amend the Dublin III Regulation to set up a permanent system for addressing emergencies. This has a different legal base than Article 78(3), so perhaps an outvoted Member State could re-run the arguments that failed in this week’s judgments. However, the Advocate-General’s opinion supports the legality of this proposal too.

The Court’s rulings on the decision-making issues are also convincing, and are an implicit rebuke to those non-lawyers who argue that the European Council is the fount of all EU power. Then again, given Member States’ unwillingness to apply these decisions in practice, this saga confirms the argument that it is politically unrealistic for the EU to undertake very controversial ‘high politics’ policies – no matter how legally secure they are – without all participating Member States’ consent.

Odd as it may seem, there’s also a possible Brexit relevance to this judgment, since the EU’s negotiation position takes the form of guidelines adopted by the European Council and then negotiation directives adopted by the Council, and the Council ultimately concludes the withdrawal agreement by qualified majority. In the event that a Member State is outvoted when concluding the withdrawal agreement and so challenges the agreement arguing that the reference to the European Council requires acting by consensus, this judgment suggests by analogy that it’s the Council’s power to act by a qualified majority vote which is legally decisive.

On the substance of the legal challenge, it’s notable that the Court misinterpreted the temporary protection Directive, which does provide for potential transfers of beneficiaries between Member States. The real distinction between the two – as the Advocate-General’s opinion points out – is that the Directive makes such transfers conditional on the voluntary consent of Member States, whereas the contested relocation decision sets out mandatory quotas. In any event, there’s nothing in the decision to give priority to the ‘emergency’ route over the ‘temporary protection’ route: it’s the Council’s discretion which path (if any) to choose in the event of a perceived crisis.

It’s also striking that the Court rejected Hungary’s argument about the Geneva Convention, confirming judicially the view long implicit in EU legislation (but contested by some refugee advocates) that sending an asylum-seeker to another country which is sufficiently ‘safe’ to consider their application is not a breach of the Convention. (Cynics might suggest that Hungary advanced this argument in the hope that the ECJ would in fact reject it in these terms). Of course, this begs the question as to when a country is sufficiently ‘safe’ – an issue frequently litigated in the ECJ as regards other Member States but not (yet) as regards non-Member States.

That brings us to the Court’s response to the Polish intervention. The Court didn’t have to respond to that intervention, since it ruled that it was inadmissible. But it clearly wanted to, and did so in the strongest terms, ruling that Poland's argument would breach the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin. The Court’s approach comes across as a kind of ‘reverse dog whistle’ – saying “Get lost, you’re racist” as subtly as it could to a Member State. And it follows from the Court’s ruling on this point that any kind of Trump-like ‘Muslim ban’ would violate EU law too, since the Charter equally bans religious discrimination.

But such arguments won’t convince those with a frenzied obsession about ‘white genocide’, just as ruling that the quotas are legal won’t convince Member States (and not just the plaintiff Member States in this case) to apply the relocation decision, which is about to expire anyway. As noted above, this saga shows the tension between legitimacy and effectiveness in EU law sharply: the Court defends the decision’s legal legitimacy in light of the principle of effectiveness, but that decision’s political legitimacy has been ebbing away since it was first adopted. That latter form of legitimacy was not bolstered by adopting the decision against the opposition of several Member States – and indeed the Court’s ruling has now given them another stick with which to beat the EU in particular and ‘scary Muslim migrants’ more generally.  Meanwhile the EU has taken a different course towards the perceived crisis, working with Turkey and now Libya to reduce the numbers who reach the EU to start with – although nothing will satisfy those who believe that ‘none is too many’.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

JHA4: chapter I:5

Photo credit: Business Insider

The Slovak Challenge to the Asylum-Seekers’ Relocation Decision: A Balancing Act

Zuzana Vikarska, Post-graduate research student, University of Oxford*

*This post is written in the author's academic capacity and does not represent the view of any of her past, present or future employers

On Wednesday 2 December, Slovakia filed an action for annulment to the Court of Justice (pending case C-643/15), challenging the legality of the Asylum-Seekers Relocation Decision (“the contested decision”) adopted on 22 September 2015. Just one day later, on Thursday 3 December, Hungary did the same (pending case C-647/15).

Steve Peers has already discussed some of the (anticipated) legal arguments against the validity of the challenged EU measure in his recent blog-post. In the following post, I briefly discuss the arguments on which the Slovak government’s case rests and I explore whether they are likely to succeed before the Court of Justice. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the full text of the Slovak action, nor to the arguments of the Hungarian government. I am therefore only commenting on the summary of the six arguments, which has been published on the webpage of the Slovak Ministry of Justice.

1. Division of competences and institutional balance

“First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 68 TFEU, as well as Article 13(2) TEU and the principle of institutional balance: The Council by adopting the contested decision exceeding the previous guideline of the European Council, being therefore in contradiction to the mandate of the latter, infringed Article 68 TFEU as well as Article 13(2) TEU and the principle of institutional balance.”

In its first claim, the Slovak government argues that the measure was adopted in contradiction to the guidelines set by the European Council, an institution made up of heads of state and government (as distinct from the Council, made up of national ministers),  whose role is to “define the general political directions and priorities” of the Union (Article 15 TEU), as well as to “define the strategic guidelines for legislative and operational planning within the area of freedom, security and justice” (Article 68 TFEU). Let us therefore have a look at the “strategic guidelines” determined by the European Council in its most recent meetings.

On 23 April 2015, the European Council stated that there was a need to “consider options for organising emergency relocation between all Member States on a voluntary basis” and to “set up a first voluntary pilot project on resettlement across the EU, offering places to persons qualifying for protection.” Furthermore, at its meeting of 25 and 26 June, the European Council agreed on “the temporary and exceptional relocation over two years from the frontline Member States Italy and Greece to other Member States of 40.000 persons in clear need of international protection, in which all Member States (except the UK) will participate,” as well as “the rapid adoption by the Council of a Decision to this effect; to that end, all Member States will agree by consensus by the end of July on the distribution of such persons, reflecting the specific situations of Member States.” No particular conclusions have been adopted as to the 120.000 further asylum-seekers whose situation forms the subject matter of the contested relocation decision.

a. European Council promising “that no quota would be adopted”?

In his recent explanation of this first plea, the Slovak Prime Minister said that the European Council had allegedly “stated that no quota would be adopted” and that the Council of Ministers had disrespected this agreement. Having read the conclusions of the European Council summarised above, the Prime Minister’s statement seems to be rather inaccurate. The Council has not acted contrary to the European Council’s conclusions, which makes the first part of the first claim moot.

Hypothetically, however, if there truly was a clear conflict between the conclusions of the European Council and the actions of the EU lawmakers (the Commission, the Parliament, and the Council), such situation could indeed raise some interesting questions concerning the institutional balance in the Union. What if the European Council had expressed a clear consensus that relocation of asylum-seekers was an undesirable, or even unacceptable way of addressing the current crisis, and despite such consensus, the Commission would subsequently propose a relocation measure (like the one adopted on 22 September), which would be passed by the Council and the Parliament?

It is necessary to realise that the conclusions of the European Council are endowed by political, rather than legal significance (see Article 15(1) TEU). That being said, if the Commission acted in direct opposition to the “general political directions” (Art 15 TEU) and “strategic guidelines” (Art 68 TFEU) adopted by the European Council, such action could violate the principle of institutional balance, since it would deprive the European Council’s decisions and conclusions of any effect. This shows that although the European Council’s conclusions are not legally binding, they should be endowed with political significance, therefore requiring the Commission either to act in line with them, or to provide an elaborate and politically acceptable explanation of any other action.

Still, this analysis remains hypothetical, since the quotations above suggest that the draft of the contested decision did not disrespect any of the political directions outlined by the European Council in the past couple of months.

b. European Council requiring that the vote in the Council be unanimous?

The second interesting question concerns the European Council’s wish that the relocation decision be reached by consensus, as expressed in the conclusions of 25 and 26 June. It is important to point out that this wish only concerned the first 40,000 asylum-seekers, and therefore remains irrelevant for the validity of the contested decision. That makes the second part of the first argument moot as well. However, let us see (once again, hypothetically) whether the European Council could, by its (political) decision, require a different threshold for adopting a decision in the Council, in contrast with the (legal) threshold required by the Treaties.

What happens if the procedure envisaged by Article 78(3) TFEU requires a qualified majority vote in the Council (which it does), while the European Council imposes a requirement of a unanimous vote? While the Treaties remain silent about a change of procedures from QMV to unanimity, they do include a provision governing a move in the opposite direction: from unanimity to QMV. Pursuant to Article 48(7) TEU, “where [TFEU] or Title V of [TEU] provides for the Council to act by unanimity in a given area or case, the European Council may adopt a decision authorising the Council to act by a qualified majority in that area or in that case.” A change from unanimity to QMV is therefore possible, but it comes with significant procedural guarantees, such as obtaining the consent of the European Parliament and giving national parliaments 6 months to block such action. It follows that changes of Treaty voting mechanisms require more than just a unanimous decision of the European Council. Furthermore, while a change from unanimity to QMV is at least foreseen by the Treaties, a change in the opposite direction is not. That leads to a conclusion that such an instruction given by the European Council would only have political significance, but would remain legally irrelevant.

Therefore, even if the requirement of a unanimous vote extended to all legal measures adopted under Article 78(3) TFEU, quod non, I hold the opinion that such an agreement would remain a gentlemen’s agreement, rather than a legally binding requirement. Therefore, the second part of the first plea put forward by the Slovak government does not seem to offer a good reason for the annulment of the contested decision, either.

2. Legislative vs. non-legislative acts

“Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 10(1 and 2) TEU, Article 13(2) TEU, Article 78(3) TFEU, Article 3 and 4 of the Protocol (No.1) and Article 6 and 7 of the Protocol (No.2), as well as the principles of legal certainty, representative democracy and institutional balance: Such kind of act as the contested decision cannot be adopted on the basis of Article 78(3) TFEU. Regarding its content, the contested decision is in fact of a legislative character and should therefore be adopted by legislative procedure, which, however, is not foreseen in Article 78(3) TFEU. By adopting the contested decision on the basis of Article 78(3) TFEU, the Council not only breached the latter, but it also interfered with the rights of national parliaments and the European parliament.”

This second plea opens a very interesting question of the nature of “legislative acts” in EU law: what does a measure need in order to be “of a legislative character”? The Slovak government seems to invoke a material understanding of a legislative act, suggesting that some things are too important to be governed by a non-legislative act. This, however, is not how EU law seems to work. The concept of a legislative act seems to be a formal one, as follows from Article 289(3) TFEU: “Legal acts adopted by legislative procedure shall constitute legislative acts.”

Although EU law surely doesn’t work with a material concept of “legislative acts”, it remains unclear what a legislative act really is. Two formal interpretations are still feasible: a narrow textual one and a procedural one.

According to a narrow textual interpretation, favoured e.g. by Lenaerts, by Craig & De Burca, as well as by Advocate-General Kokott in her opinion in C-583/11 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the (non-) legislative nature of an act depends on one and only factor: whether its legal basis refers to a “legislative procedure” in its wording or not. Pursuant to this interpretation, an asylum measure adopted under Article 78(3) TFEU will be a non-legislative act, while a measure on diplomatic protection adopted under Article 23(2) TFEU will be a legislative act, although the procedure of their adoption is exactly the same: a proposal from the Commission and a qualified majority vote by the Council, after consulting the European Parliament. This interpretation seems to be supported by Article 289(2) TFEU, which states that special legislative procedure is only used “in the specific cases provided for by the Treaties,” which simply isn’t the case for measures adopted under Article 78(3) TFEU. Another argument for this narrow textual interpretation is the practical functioning of the EU institutions: Eur-Lex categorises the contested decision as an “NLE”, which stands for “non-legislative procedure”. On a practical level, this textual interpretation thus seems to be a well-established one.

The third thinkable alternative is a procedural interpretation (that seems to be preferred e.g. by Chalmers), according to which an act is to be labelled as “legislative” if both the Council and the Parliament are involved in its adoption, no matter whether the specific legal basis speaks of a “legislative procedure” or not. There are in fact a number of solid arguments for this broader interpretation of legislative acts. Firstly, Article 289(3) TFEU (technically) does not say anything about the nature of acts that are not adopted by a legislative procedure. In the terminology of formal logic, Article 289(3) is an implication; therefore, turning it around (and stating that “legal acts not adopted by legislative procedure shall constitute non-legislative acts”) would be a logical flaw. Secondly, the endorsement of the textual interpretation would lead to a situation where entire areas of EU law (such as competition law!) would not contain any legislative measures whatsoever, which is rather curious. Thirdly, the textual interpretation would have vast consequences for the procedural standing of non-privileged applicants under Article 263(4) TFEU who would be able to challenge a much broader category of acts without having to establish individual concern. Fourthly, if we were to link the legislative nature of a measure with its democratic legitimation, the procedural interpretation would make much more sense than the textual one. Yet, despite all these arguments (and despite the hopes of some academics, as well as practitioners), it seems that (at least at present), the narrow textual interpretation of “legislative acts” seems to prevail.

Be that as it may, both the narrow textual interpretation and the procedural interpretation are formal in their nature. It makes no sense to claim that the measure at stake is “of a legislative character” and that Article 78(3) TFEU is therefore not a correct legal basis for such measure, if it cannot lead to the adoption of a legislative act. The conditions of the said article have been fulfilled both materially (emergency situation, sudden inflow of third country nationals, benefit to the Member States concerned) and procedurally (proposal from the Commission, consulting the Parliament, QMV in the Council). Therefore, the second plea of the Slovak government seems to be unfounded as well.

3. Procedural conditions in case the contested decision is indeed a legislative act

“Third plea in law, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements governing the legislative procedure, established in Article 16(8) TEU, Article 15(2) TFEU,  Article 78(3) TFEU, Article 4 of the Protocol (No.1) and  Article 6 and 7(1 and 2) of the Protocol (No.2), as well as Article 10(1 and 2) TEU, Article 13(2) TEU and the principles of representative democracy, institutional balance and sound administration: If the Court of Justice contrary to the submissions of the Slovak Republic within the second plea in law came to the conclusion that the contested decision was adopted by legislative procedure (quod non), the Slovak Republic in the alternative alleges the breach of essential procedural requirements, established in Article 16(8) TEU, Article 15(2) TFEU,  Article 78(3) TFEU, Article 3 and 4 of the Protocol (No.1) and  Article 6 and 7 (1 and 2) of the Protocol (No.2), as well as Article 10(1 and 2) TEU, Article 13(2) TEU and the principles of representative democracy, institutional balance and sound administration. In particular, the requirement of public discussion and voting within the Council was not respected, the participation of national parliaments in the process of adopting the contested decision was limited and the requirement of consultation of the European parliament was breached.”

This is where the distinction between a textual and a procedural reading of “legislative acts” becomes relevant. If the Court endorses the narrow textual reading of the concept (which is, in my opinion, more probable), then the classification of the contested decision as a non-legislative act will be confirmed and the procedural guarantees invoked by the Slovak government will be inapplicable. Yet, should the Court wish to reassess the notion of “legislative acts” and change it to a procedural one, then the contested decision will have to be seen as a legislative act that has not fulfilled the requirements listed above, namely public voting in the Council (Article 16(8) TEU) and participation of national parliaments (Protocols 1 and 2), which would lead to its annulment.

4. Repeated consultation by the European Parliament

“Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements, established in Article 78(3) TFEU and Article 293 TFEU, as well as Article 10(1 and 2) TEU, Article 13(2) TEU and the principles of representative democracy, institutional balance and sound administration: Before adopting the contested decision, the Council substantially amended the proposal of the Commission in several ways. When doing that, the Council breached essential procedural requirements, established in Article 78(3) TFEU and Article 293 TFEU, as well as Article 10(1 and 2) TEU, Article 13(2) TEU and the principles of representative democracy, institutional balance and sound administration. It is because the European parliament was not properly consulted and the Council did not decide on the amendments of the Commission’s proposal unanimously.”

This fourth point has already been addressed by Steve Peers in his recent post and I agree that this indeed seems to be the strongest procedural argument against the validity of the contested decision. The original Commission draft concerned not just Italy and Greece, but also Hungary, which in the final version of the contested decision refused to be included in the group of external border States. As argued by Steve, this is a change of an essential element, which probably should have been subjected to a repeated consultation by the European Parliament. Possibly, the emergency nature of the contested decision could serve as an argument against an obligation to re-consult, which is, admittedly, a rather weak argument. However, as Steve has already argued, even if this argument were to succeed, it would only lead to a procedural redress (meaning that the outcome would be the same even if the European Parliament were to be re-consulted) while the contested decision would probably remain in force in the meantime. It therefore seems that the fourth plea will not suffice either to have the contested decision annulled.

5. The ‘provisional’ nature of the contested decision

“Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 78(3) TFEU by not fulfilling the conditions for its applicability: In the alternative to the second plea in law, the Slovak Republic argues that there was a breach of Article 78(3) TFEU because the conditions for its applicability, which concern the provisional character of the measures adopted, as well as the emergency situation caused by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries, were not fulfilled.”

The fifth plea can be seen from two points of view again: on the one hand, “the provisional character of the measures” can be assessed from a formal viewpoint, looking at the time period for which the measure remains applicable. On the other hand, the plea invites the Court to assess whether the EU finds itself in an “emergency situation”, facing a “sudden inflow” of migrants, which opens up a more substantive analysis of the contested measure.

As for the more formal part of the argument, the provisional character of the measures could be derived from the fact that the contested decision is limited in time - it only applies until 26 September 2017. Is a provision that remains applicable for two years “provisional” enough? The pre-Lisbon version of this provision was Article 64(2) TEC, which limited the duration of such provisional measures to six months. Compared to this past requirement, two years seem to be quite long. On the other hand, the current wording of the Treaties imposes no time limit whatsoever, so two years cannot be seen as a priori illegal. (Yet, this will be very similar to the data retention case: if 6 months are fine and 2 years are too much, how do we feel about one year? The criteria for assessment are not clear.) Still, the contested decision’s provisional character could also be derived from the fact that it only applies to those asylum-seekers who are already present on the European Union territory or who are likely to come in the very near future, while a long-term, sustainable solution is being sought by a legislative proposal, which is currently in the legislative process and which will presumably take quite some time.

As for the more substantive analysis, it is rather difficult to predict what criteria will be chosen by the Court to assess whether the EU really finds itself in an emergency situation. The current migrant crisis is undoubtedly one of the most serious crises that the EU has faced in the past couple of decades, but it remains to be seen how the Court tackles the interpretation of the notions in Article 78(3) TFEU.

6. Principle of proportionality

“Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality: The contested decision is manifestly incompatible with the principle of proportionality, as it is manifestly neither suitable nor necessary to achieve the desired end.”

The principle of proportionality can certainly serve as a very strong argument – it can open the door for a thorough assessment of the very core of any measure by the Court of Justice. Obviously, this assessment is much more likely to be political than legal, with the Court enjoying very wide discretion in balancing the values at stake. It is a huge pity that the Slovak government has not worked out this sixth plea in more detail, since any chance of success of this action is potentially hidden in this last argument. The action could have put forward an argument that the contested measure is not suitable to reach the desired aim (i.e. to relieve the burden borne by the external border states and to show “solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility between the Member States,” as outlined in the decision’s preamble), since relocating people is too difficult and their further movement is too unpredictable. Furthermore, under the heading of necessity, it could have been argued that a less restrictive measure could have been adopted in order to solve the problem, such as denying entry to migrants (although that could violate the basic principles of EU law, particularly EU asylum law), triggering the regime of the Temporary Protection Directive, or other forms of help (e.g. financial, material or personal help) to the affected states. Last but not least, the proportionality argument could have been coupled with other quasi-political arguments, such as a claim under the national identity clause in Article 4(2) TEU.

It can be concluded that the Slovak government has missed a great chance to actually make a point under the sixth plea, since a mere claim of manifest incompatibility with the principle of proportionality does not give the Court anything to build on. That being said, if the Court wants to annul the measure, it can always use this plea to build a strong argumentation under the principle of proportionality.

Conclusion

Based on the analysis above, it seems to me that the first three pleas have almost no chance of success (unless the Court decides to reinvent a new understanding of “legislative acts”), the fourth and the fifth pleas raise interesting issues that could lead to minor interferences, such as the need to re-consult the Parliament, a limitation of the contested decision’s application to a shorter period of time, or a very narrow interpretation of the concepts of “emergency situation” or “sudden influx of migrants”. The sixth plea, however, opens Pandora’s box and invites the Court to exercise broad discretion in its assessment of the current solution to the migration crisis. While proportionality leaves most scope for the creativity of the Court, it is hard to see it replacing its own judgment for the judgment of the Member States, especially in a situation where good, plausible alternatives are quite hard to find.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 3, chapter 5, chapter 26

JHA4: chapter I.5

Image credit: news.yahoo.com

EU migration policy: comments on the results of the latest European Council

Steve Peers

Alongside ‘Grexit’ and ‘Brexit’, the upsurge in immigration to the European Union is a further crisis which the EU has to juggle simultaneously. The first round of EU reactions to the crisis culminated in the emergency EU summit (‘European Council’) in April. I discussed the results of that summit here. Subsequently, the Commission released its ‘Agenda’ on EU migration in mid-May (see discussion here), and its detailed proposals later that month (see discussion here). Last week the European Council discussed immigration issues again, and came to a number of conclusions. This blog post sets out those conclusions, with my comments annotated. (I have left out the third part of the conclusions, which vaguely promise more cooperation with third countries.)

It’s interesting to compare the final text with the last draft of the summit conclusions (see full text here). To make that comparison easy, I have indicated below what changed between the penultimate and final versions of the text. (Underlined words were added to the final version; words in strikeout were deleted from it).

I. MIGRATION

1. Europe needs a balanced and geographically comprehensive approach to migration, based on solidarity and responsibility. Following the decisions taken by the European Council last April, concrete measures have been taken to prevent further loss of life at sea, to find new ways of confronting smugglers and to intensify cooperation with countries of origin and transit, while respecting the right to seek asylum. The launch of the EUNAVFOR MED mission, decided on 22 June by the Council, is an important contribution in this respect. Operational action to tackle the traffickers and smugglers in accordance with international law is an essential part of our comprehensive approach.

The EU's smuggling mission has officially got underway already, but its second and third phases (where the boats are destroyed) cannot get started until the Libyan government or the Security Council endorse the operation. For details and criticism see here.

2. Further to the Commission's European Agenda on Migration, work should be taken forward on all dimensions of a comprehensive and systemic approach.

The summit conclusions in fact address much of the detail of the Agenda.

3. Wider efforts, including the reinforcement of the management of the Union’s external borders, are required to better contain the growing flows of illegal migration. Today, the European Council focused on three key dimensions which must be advanced in parallel: relocation/resettlement, return/readmission/reintegration and cooperation with countries of origin and transit. The Council will regularly assess progress in all three strands and report back later in the year.

As noted above, I have omitted the third dimension (cooperation with countries of origin and transit) from this blog post.

Relocation/resettlement

4. In the light of the current emergency situation and of our commitment to reinforce solidarity and responsibility, and in line with its April decision in all its regards, including paragraph 3, the European Council agreed on the following interlinked measures to help 60.000 people:

Paragraph 3 of the April conclusions refers to the EU interception and search and rescue missions in the Mediterranean. Odd that such missions dare not speak their name in these latest conclusions.

a) the temporary and exceptional relocation over two years from the frontline Member States Italy and Greece to other Member States of 40.000 persons in clear need of international protection, in which all Member States will participate;

The final version of the conclusions adds a footnote stating that the UK will not participate. The number of 40,000 matches the number in the Commission’s proposal. So does the two-year time-frame, and the focus on Italy and Greece. The reference to ‘persons in clear need of international protection’ suggests that the focus will remain on Syrians and Eritreans (as the Commission proposed), as refugee claims from these two nationalities have a very high success rate.

b) the rapid adoption by the Council of a Decision setting up a temporary and exceptional mechanism to this effect; to that end, all Member States will agree by consensus by the end of July on the distribution of such persons, reflecting the specific situations of Member States;

There is a commitment to adopt a legally binding text, although presumably its content will differ greatly from the Commission proposal, in particular because many Member States dislike the idea (or the detail) of the Commission’s proposals on distribution. The added agreement that the distribution will be agreed by ‘consensus’ means effectively that the numbers accepted in each Member State will be voluntary, although the Treaty calls for qualified majority voting on this issue. The added reference to ‘specific situations’ is (according to press briefings) intended to exempt Hungary and Bulgaria from obligations, in light of the large number of asylum-seekers they currently receive. Obviously it is hard to see how the legally binding target of 40,000 asylum-seekers can actually be met if Member States only have to volunteer to take the relevant numbers. If a Decision with such an obligation is adopted but the offers of admission fall short of 40,000, there could be an interesting legal question as to whether and how the numbers could still be enforced.

c) the setting up of reception and first reception structured border zones and facilities in the frontline Member States, with the active support of Member States' experts and of EASO, Frontex and Europol to ensure the swift identification, registration and fingerprinting of migrants ("hotspots"). This will allow to determine those who need international protection and those who do not. The Commission will draw up, in close cooperation with the hosting Member States, a roadmap by July 2015 on the legal, financial and operational aspects of these facilities;

The reference to ‘structured border zones’ in the earlier draft has been altered, perhaps because some perceived it as a form of quarantine. Frontex is the EU borders agency, and the EASO is the EU asylum support agency. They don’t have powers to fingerprint migrants etc as such, but they can help coordinate Member States’ actions. On the other hand, it’s not clear why Europol, the EU police agency, needs to be involved, and indeed the conclusions seem to call for it to exceed its legal powers. It has a potential role in investigating smugglers, but the conclusions refer only to its involvement in an immigration law process.

Fingerprinting of irregular migrants who cross the external borders, as well as asylum-seekers, is a long standing EU law obligation in the Eurodac Regulation, but frontline Member States have often been accused of not applying it. If more such people are fingerprinted, then it will be easier to guarantee their return from other Member States like the UK under the EU’s Dublin rules on asylum responsibility, if those migrants travel to another Member State and apply for asylum there. The Commission recently released a paper on coercive methods to fingerprint migrants, discussed here.  

d) the immediate provision of enhanced financial assistance to the frontline Member States to help alleviate the costs of receiving and processing applications for international protection;

An emergency EU budget increase has already been approved.

e) the agreement that all Member States will participate including through multilateral and national schemes in the resettling of 20.000 displaced persons in clear need of international protection, reflecting the specific situations of Member States.

This matches a non-binding Commission Recommendation on this issue, which has already been adopted. Resettlement means that the persons concerned are moved straight from refugee camps in countries like Lebanon or Turkey. In fact the wording (‘displaced persons’) also covers Syrians who have fled to camps elsewhere within Syria. Legally speaking this group of people aren’t ‘refugees’ since they haven’t left their home country; international law refers to people who have fled within their own countries but who still have great protection needs as ‘displaced persons’ instead. They could qualify as ‘refugees’ once reaching the EU, however, since they would necessarily then have left Syria. The UK has pledged a very small increase in the small numbers of refugees that it currently resettles.

Return/readmission/reintegration

5. Effective return, readmission and reintegration policies for those not qualifying for protection are an essential part of combating irregular illegal migration and will help discourage people from risking their lives. All tools shall be mobilised to promote readmission of irregular illegal migrants to countries of origin and transit, building on the ideas presented by the Commission at the Council on 16 June.

Notice the word ‘illegal’ was changed to ‘irregular’, to address objections that the word ‘illegal’ is the wrong term to use. There is a footnote referring to the letter and it can be found via Google, but it is hardly transparent not to attach it as an Annex to the Conclusions. It’s not hyperlinked to the conclusions either. But you can follow this link for the text of the Commission letter and discussion of it.

It must be noted that this section only applies to people who do not qualify as refugees or for some other form of protection. Some press stories had suggested, on the basis of leaked drafts of the conclusions, that the EU wants to ‘send all the migrants back’. This is patently false: this section is clearly limited in scope (‘those not qualifying for protection’) and the first section of the conclusions not only shows an intention to relocate people needing protection within the EU but also to bring more of them to the EU. Since a significant proportion of migrants come from Syria and Eritrea, and a huge proportion of their asylum claims are successful, anyone who claims that ‘the vast majority of people crossing the Mediterranean are economic migrants’ is quite simply lying.

In particular: a) high-level dialogues with the main countries of origin of irregular migrants should be launched by the High Representative as soon as possible, in close cooperation with the Member States. The Council, together with the Commission, will prepare a global package to support the negotiations with the third countries concerned;

Most of the issues here are not foreign policy issues as such, so the High Representative should only be discussing them in her role as the coordinator of her colleagues in the Commission, not as foreign policy representative. So this looks like an internal Commission power grab, although it’s probably also true that she will come with more political authority than the Home Affairs Commissioner. There may of course be a corresponding power struggle between national foreign and interior ministries here.

b) the Commission will ensure that readmission commitments are implemented effectively as soon as possible, notably those under the Cotonou Agreement, and that ongoing negotiations on readmission agreements are accelerated and concluded as soon as possible, while new negotiations will be launched with other third countries;

The ongoing negotiations are with Belarus (nearly complete), Morocco and Tunisia. Talks with Algeria and China were approved years ago, but never started. The ‘Cotonou’ countries are sub-Saharan African, Caribbean and small Pacific island States, although obviously the conclusions are referring only to African states. 

c) building on the "more-for-more" principle, EU assistance and policies will be used to create incentives for implementing existing readmission agreements and concluding new ones. Commitments set out in trade agreements regarding the temporary presence of persons for the provision of services should be used as an incentive to conclude readmission agreements; development policy tools should reinforce local capacity building, including for border control, asylum, counter-smuggling and reintegration;

The EU has concluded readmission treaties with most countries to the east and south-east by offering visa facilitation deals, and in some cases the long-term prospect of a visa waiver. It has also offered visa facilitation to Morocco and Tunisia. It’s clear from the other recent documents that the EU doesn’t want to offer visa facilitation to sub-Saharan African countries, hence the quite new idea of offering them admission of service providers instead. Interestingly, the market access aspects of service provision apply to all Member States (ie, including the UK), although the immigration law aspects (such as facilitated visas and permits just for this category of persons) arguably fall within the scope of immigration law, where the UK opt-out applies. The Commission’s migration agenda had referred to plans to propose rules on this issue, but it had not linked them to readmission.

As for development policy cash, this also applies to all Member States, unless some external money in the home affairs budgets can be used. This phrase could also refer to national development policy budgets. The important question is whether this is new money, or will be diverted from building schools or hospitals, or aiding human rights defenders.  

d) Member States will fully implement the Return Directive, making full use of all measures it provides to ensure the swift return of irregular migrants; return decisions issued by the Member States will be introduced in the Schengen Information System;

Fully implementing an existing law sounds uncontentious, but in fact the Commission paper referred to above urges Member States to lock up irregular migrants for as long as possible and to use derogations in that Directive, which could justify limiting judicial review, and holding irregular migrants (including families) in prisons, mixed in with the general prison population of convicted criminals. Further comments on this here.

Some or all entry bans are already introduced in the Schengen Information System (SIS), and the Commission plans to propose a legal obligation that all of them will be. But introducing all return decisions in the SIS is quite new, since not all return decisions result in entry bans. In fact, this is the first new category of data to be added to the SIS since it was established. It will take some time and money (as well as new EU legislation) to set this up.

Note that the UK will not have access to this data, since it does not participate in the immigration-related aspects of the Schengen system. It does have access to the separate Eurodac database, of people who applied for asylum or crossed the borders irregularly in another Member State, although it can only access this is those people then apply for asylum in the UK.

e) the Commission will set out by July 2015 how Frontex will bring immediate support to frontline States on return. The Commission has announced its intention to propose to amend the Frontex Regulation to strengthen the role of Frontex, notably so that it can initiate return missions;

The Commission paper also wants to give Frontex a role in going to third countries and arranging return flights, and in expelling people from a single Member State. The last set of amendments to the Frontex Regulation in 2011 allow Frontex to have its own assets. Perhaps ‘Air Frontex’ – the one airline you never want to travel on – is coming?

f) in order to accelerate the treatment of asylum applications, the Commission will set out by July 2015 measures to be taken to use EASO to coordinate the implementation of the "safe country of origin" provisions in the Asylum Procedures Directive. The Commission has indicated its intention to strengthen the "safe country of origin" provisions in the Asylum Procedures Directive, including the possible establishment of a common EU list of safe countries of origin;

It’s not clear what EASO will be doing here. It can’t decide on asylum applications, but only give guidance. As for the legislative proposal, the Council tried to agree on a common list of safe countries of origin in 2005, but failed epically. It’s not so problematic to include countries where the failure rate is 99%, but becomes difficult to include countries where even 10% or 20% of applications are successful – since that is a lot of people whose claims won’t be adequately assessed.

g) adequate means will rapidly be made available in support of an effective EU return policy; furthermore, the Commission is invited to make proposals in this respect in the context of the 2016 EU budget, and to set up a dedicated European Return Programme.

This suggests more cash will soon be available for removals. It looks as if the ‘European Return programme’ is simply going to be an official name for this pot of cash, to give it greater visibility.

Final comments

Some analysis of the summit suggests that it was a failure on immigration issues, because Member States wouldn’t agree to binding quotas on relocation of refugees. This isn’t necessarily the case. The summit conclusions still refer to adopting a binding measure requiring the relocation of 40,000 people. If Member States do end up relocating 40,000 refugees, there’s not much point quibbling about exactly how they did it. However, the replacement of quotas by voluntary offers makes it less likely that this number will be achieved, and in that case the Council might decide not to adopt the Decision after all.  

Having said that, even if the number of people relocated ends up at 20,000 or 30,000, instead of 40,000, that will contribute to reducing the pressure on Greece and Italy. It will be significantly more than the piddling number of people relocated in the past. The very existence of this commitment is an implicit admission that the Dublin system is a failure. And the commitment to resettle 20,000 people is a bigger contribution than the EU has made before in that context too.

All this is counterbalanced by the decisions on return and readmission. It seems that there is a quid-pro-quo between a more generous policy on asylum and a more restrictive policy on irregular migration. Certainly this part of the conclusions shows the importance of implementation of EU law by the Member States. The Commission has committed itself to encouraging Member States to apply the Directive as restrictively as possible, so it will fall to NGOs and migrants’ legal advisers to monitor what goes in practice, and challenge it if necessary.

‘The Commissioner suggested that we do it’ is not in any way a sufficient legal reason to lock up families together with convicted prisoners, while limiting judicial review. Rather, any Member State wanting to apply exceptions from detention standards in the Returns Directive has to show that an ‘exceptionally large number of third-country nationals to be returned places an unforeseen heavy burden on the capacity of the detention facilities of a Member State or on its administrative or judicial staff’, presumably separately (ie it’s possible that the facilities are overburdened but the judges aren’t, or vice versa). It must also end the derogation as soon as conditions have changed, and also inform the Commission. CJEU case law (Kamberaj) suggests, by analogy, that the decision to lower detention standards is invalid unless that latter procedural requirement is fulfilled.  There’s a good argument that derogation clause is itself invalid, as a breach of the Charter rights to family life, access to court and the rights of the child. At the very least it must be interpreted in light of those Charter rights, and the similar protections set out in Article 5 of that Directive.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

Photo: Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan, by US Department of State