The final EU/Turkey refugee deal: a legal assessment

Steve Peers

The EU and Turkey have now reached an agreement on refugee issues, which has aroused considerable legal and political controversy. To examine the arguments about the deal, I present here the main text with my legal assessment of each point annotated. This builds upon my comments (together with Emanuela Roman) first of all in general on the relevant points last month, and then secondly on the leaked draft text of the final deal earlier this week (I have reused here some of the latter analysis where relevant). The agreement should be read alongside the EU summit conclusions, as well as the Commission communication on the deal. It incorporates the March 7 EU/Turkey statement which addressed the same issues in less detail.

The text of the deal is underlined below. The sections in bold have been added during negotiations, and the sections in strike-out have been removed. I have already discussed the legal status of the deal in the prior post earlier this week: it’s a statement that is not subject to approval or legal challenge as such; but its implementation in the form of specific laws or their application to individual asylum-seekers can be challenged.

1.       All new irregular migrants crossing from Turkey into Greek islands as from 20 March 2016 will be returned to Turkey. This will take place in full compliance with EU and international law, thus excluding any kind of collective expulsion. All migrants will be protected in accordance with the relevant international standards and in respect of the principle of non-refoulement. It will be a temporary and extraordinary measure which is necessary to end the human suffering and restore public order, Migrants arriving in the Greek islands will be duly registered and any application for asylum will be processed indvidually by the Greek authorities in accordance with the Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU, in cooperation with UNHCR. Migrants not applying for asylum or whose application has been found unfounded or inadmissible in accordance with the said directive will be returned to Turkey, Turkey and Greece, assisted by EU institutions and agencies, will take the necessary steps and agree any necessary bilateral arrangements, including the presence of Turkish officials on Greek islands and Greek officials in Turkey as from 20 March 2016, to ensure liaison and thereby facilitate the smooth functioning of these arrangements. The costs of the return operations of irregular migrants will be covered by the EU. Migrants having been returned to Turkey will be protected in accordance with the international standards concerning the treatment of refugees and respecting the principle of non-refoulement.

The newly added first sentence is a flagrant breach of EU and international law – but the rest of the paragraph then completely contradicts it. To be frank, anyone with a legal qualification who signed off on this first sentence should hang their head in shame. Returning ‘all’ persons who cross from Turkey to the Greek islands would contradict the ban on collective expulsion in the EU Charter and the ECHR, as well as EU asylum legislation. However, it does appear from the rest of the paragraph – including the newly added reference to non-refoulement (not sending people back to unsafe countries) – that this is not really the intention.

As for the rest of point 1, the first question is how ‘temporary’ this arrangement will be. Secondly, point 1 makes clear that the EU’s asylum procedure directive will apply to those who reach the Greek islands, as legally required. Note that the text does not refer to Greek waters: but the Directive explicitly applies to them too. It does not apply to international or Turkish waters. It is not clear what is planned as regards those intercepted before they reach the Greek islands.

As for ‘migrants not applying for asylum’ the crucial question is whether they will be given an effective opportunity to apply for asylum, as the Directive (and ECHR case law) requires. If an irregular migrant does not apply for asylum then in principle there is no legal obstacle to returning them to Turkey, subject to the conditions set out in the EU’s Returns Directive. Note that the Greek authorities will have to consider the applications, which is a significant administrative burden; this implicitly reiterates the closure of the route via the Western Balkans. The EU’s decisions on relocation of asylum-seekers from Greece and Italy (discussed here) will implicitly continue to apply, but they only commit to relocating a minority of those who arrive in Greece, and they are barely being applied in practice.  

If an application is ‘unfounded’ that means it has been rejected on the merits. If it is ‘inadmissible’ that means it has not been rejected on the merits, but on the grounds that Turkey is either a ‘first country of asylum’ or ‘safe third country’ (there are other grounds for inadmissibility, but they wouldn’t be relevant). The Commission paper briefly suggests that Turkey could be a ‘first country of asylum’ (for more analysis on that, see the prior blog post). Most of the debate is on whether Turkey is a ‘safe third country’.

Is it? The commitments on treatment in Turkey have been moved from this statement to the separate summit conclusions. Treatment in Turkey will need to match EU rules in the procedures Directive, which define a ‘safe third country’ as a country where: the people concerned do not have their life or liberty threatened on ground of ‘race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion’ (this test is taken from the Geneva Convention on refugee status); there is ‘no risk of serious harm’ in the sense of the EU definition of subsidiary protection (death penalty, torture et al, civilian risk in wartime); the people concerned won’t be sent to another country which is unsafe (the non-refoulement rule, referring specifically to the Geneva Convention, plus the ban on removal to face torture et al as laid down by ECHR case law); and ‘the possibility exists to request refugee status and, if found to be a refugee, to receive protection in accordance with the Geneva Convention’.

As set out in the previous blog post, the last point is questionable because Turkey does not apply the Geneva Convention to non-Europeans, and the best interpretation of this requirement is that it must do so in order for the clause to apply. However, this interpretation is not universally shared: the Commission, the Council, Greece and some academics take the view that it is sufficient that Turkey applies equivalent standards in practice. (Note that the Commission only selectively quotes the Directive to make this argument). Even if this latter interpretation is correct, whether Turkey does apply equivalent standards in practice might itself be open to question.

Furthermore, again as discussed in the previous post, many NGOs argue that refugees are not always safe from mistreatment in Turkey itself, although no one argues that all of them are mistreated there.  Equally Turkey allegedly returns some people (but clearly not all of them) to unsafe countries, and the deal explicitly plans for a ‘safe zone’ in Syria.  Such a zone is conceivable in theory, but whether it would indeed be safe would have to be judged when and if it happens; and it may become less (or more) safe in light of events. To address these issues the procedures Directive says that the asylum-seeker must be able to argue that ‘the third country is not safe in his or her particular circumstances’. Everything will then turn on the assessment of an argument along these lines.

A critical here is whether the case can be fast-tracked. The procedures Directive contains lists of cases where the administrative procedure can be fast-tracked, and where the appeal against a negative decision to a court doesn’t automatically entitle an asylum-seeker to stay. Note that those lists don’t refer to fast-tracking ‘safe third country’ cases, although in practice it may be quicker to decide a case without examining the merits. It is possibly arguable that the lists aren’t exhaustive. If Greece wants to take this view, the interpretation of these clauses will be crucial. If the cases can’t be fast-tracked, it will obviously take longer to return people to Turkey in practice. Member States can set up special ‘border procedures’, but there is no reference to fast-tracking applications in this context. Furthermore, Member States can’t apply fast-track or border procedures to ‘vulnerable’ applicants, as broadly defined, and can’t apply border procedures to unaccompanied minors.

Odd as it might seem, the general state of human rights in Turkey (for example, as regards freedom of expression) is not directly legally relevant to returning refugees or other migrants there. The question is whether Turkey is unsafe, as defined in EU asylum law, for refugees and migrants. However, the general state of human rights in Turkey is relevant for a different reason: the Commission has separately proposed that Turkey be designated a ‘safe country of origin’, so that any refugee claims by Turkish citizens can be more easily rejected. I argued last September that this proposal was untenable in light of the human rights record of Turkey. In light of developments since, I’ll update my assessment: the suggestion is now utterly preposterous. But this proposal is not part of the deal.

2.    For every Syrian being returned to Turkey from Greek islands, another Syrian will be resettled from Turkey to the EU taking into account the UN Vulnerability Criteria. A mechanism will be established, with the assistance of the Commission, EU agencies and other Member States, as well as the UNHCR, to ensure that this principle will be implemented as from the same day the returns start. On resettlement based on 1-for-l principle: a) Priority will be given to migrants Syrians who have not previously entered or tried to enter the EU irregularly, On the EU side, resettlement under this mechanism will take place, in the first instance, by honouring the commitments taken by Member States in the conclusions of Representatives of the Governments of Member States meeting within the Council on 22/7/2015, of which 18.000 places for resettlement remain. Any further need for resettlement will be carried out through a similar voluntary arrangement up to a limit of an additional 54.000 persons. The Members of the European Council welcome the Commission's intention to propose an amendment to the within the limits and in accordance with the distribution set out in [relocation decision of 22/9/2015 to allow for any resettlement commitment undertaken in the framework of this arrangement to be offset from non-allocated places under the decision. - non-allocated places]. Should these arrangements not meet the objective of ending the irregular migration and the number of returns come close to the numbers provided for above, this mechanism will be reviewed. Should the number of returns exceed the numbers provided for above, this mechanism will be discontinued. the number of returns exceed the numbers provided for by these commitments, this agreement will be subject to review.

The idea of a ‘1-for-1’ swap of irregular migrants for resettled Syrians has been controversial, but does not raise legal issues as such. Resettlement of people who need protection from the countries they have fled to is common in practice, but is not a binding legal obligation under international or EU law. The legality of return of people to Turkey has to be judged separately (as discussed above) from the question of whatever trade-offs might be made in return for this. However, I certainly share the view of those who find a de facto ‘trade in human misery’ morally dubious. The ethos of resettlement is humanitarian; to demand a pay-off for one’s humanitarian actions contradicts their ethical foundations.

The final text makes clear that resettlement will focus on the most vulnerable people. Note that if all resettlement from now on takes place from Turkey, then no-one will be resettled by the EU from Lebanon and Jordan, which also host large numbers of Syrian refugees. On the ‘low priority’ cases, it is open to Member States to prioritise resettlement on whatever criteria they like. Obviously the intention here is to deter people from attempting unsafe journeys via smugglers; whether that would work depends on the numbers who might be resettled.

Overall, the EU has not increased the numbers of people that Member States are willing to accept: the first 18,000 are the remainder of the 23,000 people that the EU committed to resettle from non-EU countries last year, and the next 54,000 are the remainder of those who were going to be relocated from Hungary, before that state rejected the idea last September. However, unlike the mandatory quotas under the EU’s relocation decision, these numbers will be voluntary. The final deal makes clear that the maximum member of people who will be returned on this basis is 72,000: this part of the deal ends once the number of returned irregular migrants hits that number, or if the levels of irregular migration stop. In the latter case, the EU will move to a voluntary humanitarian admission scheme, discussed below. In the former case, it is not clear what will happen.

3)   Turkey will take any necessary measures to prevent new sea or land routes for illegal migration opening from up out of Turkey and into to the EU, and will cooperate with neighbouring states as well as the EU to this effect.

This refers to Bulgarian concerns that people might try to cross the Black Sea as a new entry route. Of course, if people do make to Bulgarian territory or waters, the EU asylum laws would apply, as they do for Greece.

4)   Once the irregular crossings between Turkey and the EU have come to an end are ending, or at least have been substantially and sustainably reduced, the Voluntary Humanitarian Admission Scheme will be activated. EU Member States will contribute on a voluntary basis to this scheme.

This scheme is set out in a Commission Recommendation from December, as discussed in detail here. Note that the text was amended to make clear that irregular crossings would not have to stop entirely; that was an obvious fantasy.

5) The fulfilment of the visa liberalisation roadmap will be accelerated vis-à-vis all participating Member States with a view to lifting the visa requirements for Turkish citizens at the latest by the end of June 2016, provided that all benchmarks have been met. To this end Turkey will take the necessary steps to fulfil the remaining requirements to allow the Commission to make, following the required assessment of compliance with the benchmarks, an appropriate proposal by the end of April on the basis of which the European Parliament and the Council can make a final decision.

This commitment is transposed from the March 7 statement. The waiver of short-term visas only applies to the Schengen States, and applies for stays of three months. Under the EU/Turkey readmission agreement, Turkey will have to take back anyone who overstays. It will still be necessary for Turkey to meet the relevant criteria, and for the EU Council (by qualified majority vote) and the European Parliament to approve this change in EU law.

6)   The EU, in close cooperation with and Turkey, will further speed up the disbursement of the initially allocated 3 billion euros under the Facility for Refugees in Turkey and ensure funding of additional further projects for persons under temporary protection identified with swift input from Turkey before the end of March. A first list of concrete projects for refugees, notably in the field of health, education, infrastructure, food and other living costs, that can be swiftly financed from the Facility, will be jointly identified within a week. Once these resources are about to be used to the full, and provided the above commitments are met, Furthermore, the EU will mobilise decide on additional funding for the Facility of an additional 3 billion euro up to the end of 2018. [X] billion for the period [Y] for the Turkey Refugee Facility.

The amount and timing of additional money from the EU and its Member States was agreed during negotiations. Details of the timing of disbursements and the nature of the spending projects have also been added. Note that this money is not, as is widely assumed, simply handed over to Turkey: legally speaking it can only be spent on projects that assist the Syrian refugee population. The Commission paper sets out further details of how the money will be spent, starting with a contract to provide food aid to over 700,000 Syrians.

7) The EU and Turkey welcomed the ongoing  work on the upgrading of the Customs Union.

This refers to an intention to extend the existing customs union to cover services and investment issues.

8) The EU and Turkey reconfirmed their commitment to re-energise the accession process as set out in their joint statement of 29 November 2015. They welcomed the opening of Chapter 17 on 14 December 2015 and decided, as a next step, to open Chapter 33 during the Netherlands presidency. They welcomed that the Commission will put forward a proposal to this effect in April. Preparatory work for the opening of other Chapters will continue at an accelerated pace without prejudice to Member States' positions in accordance with the existing rules.

Ultimately the EU and Turkey agreed to open only one new chapter out of 35 which need to be agreed in order for Turkey to join the EU. Only one chapter has been closed so far in a decade of negotiation. There is no commitment to open or close any further chapters. Even if an accession deal is ever negotiated, there are many legal and political obstacles in the way of it being approved, as all Member States’ parliaments would have to agree.

9) The EU and its Member States will work with Turkey in any joint endeavour to improve humanitarian conditions inside Syria, in particular in certain areas near the Turkish border which would allow for the local population and refugees to live in areas which will be more safe.

This refers to an intention (as noted above) to create a ‘safe zone’ within Syria. Whether this is viable or not remains to be seen. If there is any dispute about its safety, then returning Syrians to Turkey would be problematic if Turkey intends to send them further on to the alleged safe zone.

Conclusions

Overall the final deal tries to address the two main legal concerns about the March 7 ‘deal’. It makes clear that the EU asylum laws will apply to those who reach Greece (subject to the caveat about what happens to those intercepted in Greek waters), and that Turkey will have to meet the relevant standards when taking people back. The intention to ‘make the deal legal’ is clearly undermined by the extraordinary statement that ‘all’ irregular migrants will be returned. The key legal question will be how these commitments are implemented in practice.

The main legal route to challenging what happens should be by asylum-seekers through the Greek courts. Those courts could refer questions to the CJEU about EU asylum law (the CJEU could fast-track its replies). Alternatively if the asylum-seekers have gone through the entire Greek court system, or cannot effectively access the Greek system they could complain to the European Court of Human Rights (which is separate from the EU), and claim that there is a breach of the European Convention of Human Rights. In practice, however, it may be that access to lawyers and courts is more theoretical than real.

It is unfortunate, to say the least, that the EU did not try to ensure beyond doubt that the deal was legal, by putting in place some sort of effective monitoring of Turkish commitments as regards the treatment of refugees and migrants, in particular asking Turkey to fully apply the Geneva Convention to all refugees as a condition of the deal. After all, the EU will now be meeting a significant proportion of the costs of housing refugees in that country. It is even more disturbing that some Member States want to arrange for expedited returns to Libya. Surely before too long, the CJEU will asked to interpret the definition of ‘safe third country’ in EU asylum law. That finding will be crucial in determining whether it really is legal to return people to Serbia, Turkey, Libya and possibly other countries besides.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

JHA4: chapter I:5

Photo credit: www.parapolitika.gr

The EU Humanitarian Admission Scheme for Syrian Refugees in Turkey

Laura Robbins-Wright

PhD Candidate in Government, London School of Economics and Political Science

On 15 December 2015, the European Commission published a recommendation concerning a humanitarian admission scheme for Syrian refugees in Turkey. The recommendation follows a June 2015 decision to implement an intra-EU relocation programme and a scheme of resettlement from third countries. The document also builds on an action plan released in October 2015 and a more recent decision to provide €3 billion for a Refugee Facility that will “coordinate and streamline” the provision of humanitarian assistance to Syrian refugees in Turkey. The recommendation calls for a “rapid, efficient and voluntary scheme” for the “orderly, safe and dignified arrival” of these individuals.

Three aspects of the recommendation stand out and merit further analysis. First, the Commission noted the importance of demonstrating solidarity with Turkey since the country hosts more than 2.2 million Syrian refugees at present. However, though Turkey hosts the largest absolute number of Syrian refugees, Jordan and Lebanon bear the greatest (relative) responsibility for these refugees. Indeed, whereas Syrian refugees comprise approximately 3 per cent of the total population of Turkey, they make up roughly 10 percent of the population of Jordan and more than 20 per cent of the population of Lebanon. Nevertheless, the recommendation to offer humanitarian admission to refugees from Turkey is perhaps to be expected given that the EU shares a border with Turkey and thousands of refugees have attempted the perilous journey across the Aegean into Greece. Furthermore, Turkey is a candidate for accession to the EU, while Jordan and Lebanon are simply considered to be part of the broader ‘European neighbourhood.’ Though negotiations on Turkish accession opened in 2005 and have proceeded slowly since then, the European Union and Turkey may be in the process of forging a new and more cooperative relationship in migration that could enhance refugee protection and “re-energize” these complex discussions.

Second, the recommendation also emphasises the voluntary nature of participation in the proposed scheme. The Commission indicated that all Member States, plus members of Schengen, are welcome to join the humanitarian admission programme. This approach is consistent with some of the previous intra-EU relocation efforts – namely EUREMA I and II. The decision to offer Member States a choice in participating in this programme is not especially surprising given the challenges the Commission faced in securing the agreement of some Member States on national quotas for the intra-EU relocation programme proposed last summer. In that context, recent media reports indicate that EU Migration Commissioner Dimitri Avromopoulos has acknowledged that “relocation does not work.” This statement is supported through data released on 20 January, 2015 which demonstrate that Member States pledged just over 4,200 places (as opposed to the Commission’s target of 160,000 places) and only 331 individuals have been relocated from Greece and Italy to date.

From a normative perspective, the desire to demonstrate international solidarity aligns with the principle of international cooperation outlined in the preamble to the 1951 Convention. However, this voluntary approach – combined with a clear lack of enthusiasm for the most recent relocation scheme – raises the age-old question of whether the European Union can truly achieve a cohesive approach to humanitarian protection.

Finally, the recommendation is notable for its strategic approach, as embodied in the desire to achieve a “sustainable reduction” in irregular migration from Turkey to the European Union. Since 2003, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has attempted to reframe resettlement as a strategic instrument for protection that emphasises the direct and indirect benefits of resettlement for refugees, host countries, receiving countries, and the international refugee protection regime. However, the organisation also recognised the importance of ensuring that such programmes do not create a “pull factor” for further migration. The UNHCR suggested that this can be achieved by establishing “clear and transparent” selection criteria. In this case, the Commission has proposed that only those who registered their presence with Turkish officials prior to 29 November, 2015 will be eligible for humanitarian admission. The Commission also recommends that participating countries assess why the individual fled Syria and examine their vulnerability and potential family ties within the European Union, among other criteria.

Though managing this humanitarian admission programme in a strategic manner could encourage Turkey to continue welcoming asylum seekers and also enable some Syrians to benefit from international protection, there are questions as to how Turkey will seek to manage ongoing arrivals. Furthermore, the UNHCR has noted that the decision to offer a durable solution to certain refugees can potentially create “bitterness and resentment” among ineligible groups, particularly in cases where these groups do not have access to effective protection in the host country. This raises questions about how the prospective decision to offer humanitarian protection to Syrian refugees will be perceived by the tens of thousands of Afghan, Iranian, and Iraqi refugees who have long resided in Turkey and may be obliged to wait up to 10 years for a decision on their respective applications for protection.

Though the recommendation offers clear operational guidelines, it does not indicate how many refugees can or should be offered protection through this proposed scheme. Instead, the Commission notes that the number of individuals offered admission should be determined according to UNHCR processing capacity, the number of displaced persons in Turkey, and the impact of efforts to reduce irregular migration to Turkey (a measure that has attracted criticism from the European Council on Refugees and Exiles). Furthermore, the Commission has recommended that participating Member States admit those granted subsidiary protection in an “equitable” manner. However, given the aforementioned challenges the Commission faced in securing Member State agreement on quotas for the intra-EU relocation programme, this could prove more difficult than anticipated. Overall, it remains unclear whether this humanitarian admission programme – if adopted – will have a meaningful impact on the substantial number of Syrian refugees residing in Turkey at present.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

JHA4: chapter I:5

Photo credit: www.unhcr.org

The Reform of Frontex: Saving Schengen at Refugees’ Expense?

Steve Peers

Years ago, shortly before the creation of Frontex (the EU’s border control agency) and the big EU enlargement of 2004, I discussed the future of EU borders policy with a senior German civil servant. Anxious about the forthcoming enlargement of the EU (and, in time, Schengen), his vision was that every Lithuanian or Polish border post would be jointly staffed by a friendly German.

Yesterday’s proposals from the European Commission don’t precisely reproduce that vision – but they do embody the same doubt that Member States (in the south, rather than the east) can be fully trusted to patrol the external border. Given that Frontex has been created in the meantime, it’s the agency itself – flanked by reserves from national border agencies – which would be sent in to help patrol the borders of Member States, albeit only in certain cases.

This is only one of a batch of proposals made yesterday. I’ll sum them all up, but focus on this one, as it’s the most important. Overall, though, the proposals are flawed, in two contradictory ways: they simultaneously seek to do too much in the area of border controls (where the Frontex proposal exceeds EU powers and is politically unprincipled) and too little in the area of asylum (since there is no significant attempt to address humanitarian or protection needs within the EU). In short, they seek to save the Schengen system, at the expense of refugees.

Overview

There’s a Commission communication issued yesterday which tries to sum up all the new proposals. But in an even smaller nutshell, here’s what the Commission has tabled. The flagship proposal is a Regulation which would replace the existing Frontex legislation, creating a new ‘European Border and Coast Guard’ (EBCG) consisting of national border guards plus the agency.  This is accompanied by two proposals for minor consequential amendments to the Regulations establishing the EU’s Fisheries Control Agency and Maritime Safety Agency, whose work would be coordinated with the EBCG.

Next, an amendment to the Schengen Borders Code would increase checks at the external borders on EU citizens and, to some extent, non-EU citizens, for security purposes. A fifth proposed Regulation attempts to make expulsion and readmission more effective, by creating a uniform document to be used during removals of irregular migrants to their country of origin.  

There are non-binding measures on border control issues too. The Commission has adopted a Handbook for use operating the EU’s ‘Eurosur’ system of maritime surveillance. It has also released its latest regular report on the Schengen system in practice.

In the area of asylum, there’s only one proposal for a binding measure: a Decision which would exempt Sweden from the EU’s system of relocation of asylum-seekers (which I previously discussed here), for a period of one year. There’s a non-binding Commission Recommendation for a voluntary humanitarian admission programme of refugees from Turkey. Finally, there are Commission reports on the operation of the ‘hotspots’ for immigration control in Greece and Italy, and on the application of the recent plan to manage asylum and migration flows coming through the Western Balkans.

The new European Border and Coast Guard

As noted already, the proposal would replace the existing legislation establishing Frontex, which was first adopted in 2004, then amended in 2007 and 2011. (I previously produced a codified text of the Regulation – see here). To compare it with the text of the rules it replaces, see the Annex to the proposal. There would be no change to the separate legislation, adopted in 2014, which regulates Frontex actions as regards maritime surveillance (see my comments on that law here).

It should be emphasised that the legislation would not apply to the UK or Ireland, because they don’t participate fully in Frontex. In fact, according to CJEU case law, they can’t participate fully in Frontex unless they join the Schengen system fully – which is hardly likely, to say the least (it would require a referendum in the UK). However, the current loose cooperation between Frontex, the UK and Ireland would be retained, particularly for joint expulsions.

These new rules would – if agreed – significantly transform the status and role of Frontex. I won’t examine every detail for now (I might come back to the finer points during or at the end of the negotiations). Rather, my focus here is on the key aspects of the proposal. Keep in mind that this proposal is far from a ‘done deal’, since it has to be approved by a qualified majority in the Council (the UK and Ireland don’t have a vote, due to their opt-out) as well as the European Parliament. Already press stories suggest that many Member States oppose some key features of the proposal.

The first key feature of the law is the relationship between Frontex and national border forces. At present, the current Regulation states that ‘the responsibility for the control and surveillance of the external borders lies with the Member States’. Frontex is merely tasked with the ‘coordination’ of national forces.

But the proposed Regulation would, in effect, promote Frontex from the job of tea lady to the role of chief executive officer. The new law would not just upgrade the EU agency itself, but create a ‘European Border and Coast Guard’ consisting of national forces and the Agency. The Agency will adopt an ‘operational and technical strategy for the European integrated border control management’. National authorities then adopt their own strategies, but they must be ‘coherent’ with the Agency’s strategy. To put the strategy into effect, the Agency will not only be ‘reinforcing, assessing and coordinating’ national forces, but also taking control of them when Member States are not able to do so effectively.

The current tasks of Frontex – training, risk analysis, research, operational support, border surveillance, and support for expulsions – would all be retained and considerably enhanced. For instance, Frontex would have powers to send liaison officers to Member States, to check the ‘vulnerability’ of external border controls, to create a ‘return office’, and to gather and analyse more personal data. It would also have powers to send staff to third countries to participate in operations, not just (as at present) liaison officers. It would have more staff and funding, as well as reserve forces from Member States to call upon for border control or joint return operations. Most significantly, it would be able to send forces to an external border, in certain cases, without a Member State’s consent.

Is this power compatible with the limits on the powers of the EU? Article 72 TFEU states that the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Title of the Treaty ‘shall not affect the exercises of the responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security’. This Article must apply to border control as well as policing, since there was an equivalent clause in the border controls and immigration Title of the Treaty before it was merged with the policing rules by the Treaty of Lisbon. It obviously does not rob the EU of all power to adopt laws regulating borders, since Article 77 TFEU goes on to confer powers to adopt laws on ‘the checks to which persons crossing external borders are subject’ and which are ‘necessary for the gradual establishment of an integrated management system for external borders’.

But the JHA Title specifically restricts EU powers regarding intelligence agencies, and bans coercive powers for Europol (the EU police agency) and prosecutorial powers for Eurojust (the EU prosecutors’ agency). In my view these restrictions are particular applications of the general rule set out in Article 72, which must mean that while the EU can establish rules on border controls and regulate how Member States’ authorities implement them, it cannot itself replace Member States’ powers of coercion or control, or require Member States to carry out a particular operation.  This is consistent with Article 4(2) TEU, which requires the EU to respect Member States’ ‘essential state functions, including ensuring the territorial integrity of the State, maintaining law and order and safeguarding internal security’, and with the requirement that any common EU defence would have to be agreed unanimously and ratified by national parliaments.

So the EU does not have the powers to send Frontex or its reserve forces to other Member States without their consent, or to require Member States to deploy those reserve forces without their consent either. Moreover, this is politically problematic for many Member States, who have historic concerns about foreign forces coming on to their territory without consent, stemming from the Cold War, the Second World War, and earlier history besides. While Frontex and its reserves should not be regarded as an ‘army’, due to their limited size and functions, they will nonetheless be perceived as such. So this aspect of the proposals is not only legally suspect, but politically ill-judged.

What to make of Frontex’s other enhanced powers, which Member States are rather more likely to accept? The key issue here is the accountability of Frontex for human rights abuses. The agency has fought a long battle with the EU Ombudsman to evade any accountability for individual cases, but it would finally lose that war, if this proposal is accepted. Individuals (or someone acting on their behalf) could make a complaint about human rights abuses, but it would be rejected if it was ‘anonymous, malicious, frivolous, vexatious, hypothetical or inaccurate’. Each complaint would go through the Frontex Fundamental Rights Officer, who would decide on admissibility and then either forward the complaint to the Frontex Executive Director or a national border force. If the complaint is well-founded it will be followed up, possibly by disciplinary action.

However, the proposed process is inadequate. The Executive Director, who will decide on the merits of admissible claims, is obviously not independent of Frontex. There is no reference to a remedy if the complainant believes that his or his complaint has been wrongly rejected as inadmissible or not well-founded. Even where Frontex considers the complaint well-founded, the remedies are ineffective: there is no reference to damages, or a possible criminal prosecution in the most outrageous cases. Furthermore, the new rules are limited in scope, as they do not apply to national border guards, who are responsible for alleged cases of illegal push-backs and assaults upon migrants. To address this, the other proposals released yesterday should be amended to require Member States to hold independent investigations with effective remedies in any case where national border guards are alleged to have acted in breach of fundamental rights.  

There is also a need for specific rules regulating Frontex (and national authorities’) action as regards the ‘hotspots’ for migrants at external borders, to clarify that they are not making decisions on the merits of asylum applications or issuing return decisions, and that only national authorities can make such decisions with full respect for the safeguards and content of EU and national law. (For more on the lack of clarity regarding the ‘hotspots’, see Frances’ Webber’s analysis here).

Other new measures

The most significant other new measure is the proposal for changes to the Schengen Borders Code. At present (see codified text here), Member States must check EU citizens at the external borders (either on entry or exit), to ensure that they hold an EU Member State’s passport which is not registered as lost or stolen. But there is no obligation to check them in security databases, except on a ‘non-systematic basis’. As for non-EU citizens, they must be more thoroughly checked on entry, including the use of security databases, but on exit the consultation is only optional, and security checks need only be carried out ‘wherever possible’.

Both sets of rules would be amended by the new proposal. EU citizens would have to be checked in security databases, both on entry and exit. But if this ‘would have a disproportionate impact on the flow of traffic’ at land and sea borders, Member States could decide to carry out such checks on a ‘targeted’ basis. There is no such derogation for air borders, which will also be subject to separate legislation (recently agreed in principle) concerning the collection of passenger records (Member States will also apply this law to internal Schengen flights). Also, the enhanced border checks won’t be recorded as such in a database, although that would happen in future if recent plans to include EU citizens in the future ‘smart borders’ rules are put into effect. As for non-EU citizens, the current derogation relating to exit will be abolished, and there will always have to be a check in security databases, regardless of any disproportionate impact on traffic.

So overall, checks on EU citizens in security databases would no longer be the exception to the rule (as at present); they would be the rule – subject to exceptions. The exceptions are relatively limited and the proposal does not accept that pressure at air borders could also be ‘disproportionate’. Surely that is a possibility, since if checks add several seconds each to a check of hundreds of disembarking passengers, a back-up could swiftly ensue. Given that data on air passenger movements will soon be recorded anyway, and that the Schengen Information System can’t be used to deny entry to EU citizens, the only practical use for the new rules would be in catching someone who was meant to be arrested, perhaps on the basis of a European Arrest Warrant, or who should be placed under surveillance. But in the latter case it might be awkward to arrange for the surveillance to start without tipping off the person concerned that it’s happening. The proposal might prove useful in detecting people subject to potential arrest due to suspicion of receiving terrorist training (see the separate recent proposal on this point), but is it really necessary for that purpose that it apply at all air borders?

Overall, it may be questionable whether any increase in security that may result from this proposal is proportionate to its impact on passenger movements. There would be a stronger case to amend the Borders Code to allow Member States to check certain flights or border crossings systematically following a risk assessment. This may give rise to concerns about discrimination, but there are already distinctions based on nationality as to who needs a visa, and it would have to be specified that all those on the particular flight must be checked – not just those who ‘appear Muslim’. Checks on all flights could only be justified if it were clear that 'foreign fighters' were returning to the EU via other countries too.  

As for the other proposals, the Regulation on a standard travel document for expulsion would not change the substantive rules on expulsion; time will tell if it leads to non-EU countries accepting more expelled persons.

The real problem is with the lack of ambition of the asylum measures. As noted above, the only binding measure suggested yesterday would exempt Sweden from the EU’s relocation rules. This is largely a cosmetic gesture, since only a tiny fraction of the 160,000 who were meant to be relocated – which anyway is not a huge proportion of those entering Greece and Italy – have in fact been relocated. In the meantime, the capacity of Greece and other States to register migrants, process asylum applications, and ensure basic living conditions for the persons concerned is clearly under immense strain.

What the EU really needs is a new strategy to deal with these protection and humanitarian needs. Is there anything it can do to make the relocation programme work? Failing that, can it assist Member States to process asylum applications, or do more than it is doing to ensure basic living conditions are satisfied? Why the focus on empowering Frontex, and no parallel attempt to empower the EU’s asylum support agency to play a greater role to address some or all of these issues?

Furthermore, pending a full review of the EU’s Dublin system (to be completed early next year), the Commission could at least have issued a recommendation to Member States on how to apply the existing Dublin rules on family reunion, and to widen the admission of family members to admit siblings, and the relatives of EU citizens or non-EU citizens who are legally resident other than as refugees or asylum-seekers.

As Thomas Spijkerboer and Tamara Last have pointed out, there is no shortage of migration controls in the EU. The death toll of migrants and refugees has built up over the decades in which visa requirements were imposed and carriers were sanctioned for letting those without authorisation get on a flight or a ferry. Bolstering Frontex may have an impact on the management of those who arrive, but solves neither the underlying problems in the country of origin or the huge pressure placed on national asylum systems – or the human misery that accompanies it.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

Photo credit: https://nobordersnortheast.wordpress.com/2011/05/03/invitation-anti-frontex-days-of-action-warsaw/

Can Schengen be suspended because of Greece? Should it be?

Steve Peers

A leaked Council document (see separate blog post) suggests in effect that the Schengen system should be suspended for up two years, due to ‘systemic deficiencies’ in the control of external borders by Greece. That would allow any Schengen States which wish to do so to maintain or introduce border checks on their ‘internal’ borders with each other. Probably not all Schengen States would take this opportunity, but many would (especially since a number of them already do so). This follows a recent press report in the Financial Times (paywalled), which states that some Member States are considering threatening to throw Greece out of the Schengen system, due to its management of refugees and migrants at the external borders.

It’s possible that the general threat to suspend Schengen is intended as a threat to suspend Greece only, but is simply badly drafted. Or perhaps the idea is to threaten to suspend the whole of Schengen, and pin the blame on Greece. Either way, in my view, this threat is seriously mistaken, for both legal and political reasons.

The Legal Framework

In principle, the Schengen system can’t be scrapped completely without amending the EU Treaties, since the Treaties refer to it several times. Instead, there are two types of possible suspensions: short-term (up to three months) and long-term (up to two years). The leaked Council document refers to use of the long-term suspension.

The short-term waiver rules have always formed part of the Schengen system. They allow individual Member States to reimpose checks on internal borders  for a short time, for reasons of public policy and public security. Over the years, those provisions have often been invoked by Member States, usually for a few days during an international summit or football tournament. This autumn, they have been invoked more often and for longer periods, as a response to the refugee crisis affecting the continent. Since this reintroduction is only allowed for a maximum period of six months, there is an upcoming legal problem if Member States with to prolong these controls past next spring.

But a newer, different set of rules apply to suspending a Member State from the Schengen system. As a response to the ‘Arab Spring’ of 2011, and a spat between Italy and France over responsibility for some Tunisians, the Schengen rules were amended in 2013 in order to provide for the collective reimposition of internal border controls for up to two years. Those amendments need to be read in conjunction with the rest of the rules which they amended. So I suggest you read them in the codified version (showing the amendments), which is set out in an Annex to the report which I wrote for the SIEPS thinktank on the revised rules.

These amendments were generally understood as providing in effect for the possible suspension of individual Member States from the Schengen system. However, that is not expressly set out in the rules, and the leaked Council document clearly intends something broader, since it refers explicitly to continuation of existing border checks, ie between Germany and Austria, not (only) between other Member States and Greece. But the role of individual Member States is still relevant, because this collective suspension of Schengen can only be triggered if there are ‘serious deficiencies’ in how one Member State applies the Schengen external borders rules.

The process would start with a Commission recommendation following a Schengen evaluation, according to the separate rules (also amended in 2013) on the process of assessing whether Schengen states comply with their obligations. If the Commission finds in its report that there are ‘serious deficiencies’ in a Member State complying with its external border control obligations, then it can recommend that this country take ‘specific measures’, including accepting assistance from the EU’s border agency, Frontex, and submitting plans for Frontex to assess.

If there is not enough action on settling these problems within three months, the process can escalate. In ‘exceptional cases’ where there is a ‘serious threat to public policy or public security’ in the Schengen area or parts of it, the Council can recommend ‘as a last resort’ to Member States that they reimpose border controls against that Member State for periods of six months, renewable up to the two-year maximum. It’s arguable that this process can be fast-tracked and be applied even without giving the Member State three months to fix its problems.  Since Member States would have to vote in favour of it in the Council (by a qualified majority), it can be assumed that most Member States would then follow this recommendation. The Council has to act on a proposal from the Commission, but Member States can request the Commission to make such a proposal.  

In adopting this recommendation, the Council has to assess whether it will ‘adequately remedy’ the threat to public policy, as well as the ‘proportionality’ of the measure in relation to the threat. This must be based on detailed information, and consider the EU assistance which was provided or which could have been requested, the likely impact of the deficiencies in border control upon the threat to public policy or public security, and the impact on the free movement of persons.

The legality of suspending Schengen and/or sanctioning Greece

It’s not clear exactly where we stand in the process as regards Greece. The Commission has recently adopted a Schengen evaluation report, but it’s not public. It’s not even clear if that report concerns Greece (all Schengen states are evaluated). So it would take a while (three months after a formal finding of ‘serious deficiencies’, which hasn’t happened yet as far as I know) before Greece could be sanctioned, unless the process is fast-tracked.

Indeed, the Council document seems to be aiming to fast-track the process. It wants the Council already to request a Commission recommendation to suspend the abolition of border controls for up to two years. Since (as far as I am aware) there’s not even a finding of Greek ‘serious deficiencies’ yet, there’s obviously not yet a three month period during which those problems continued. And the Council document doesn’t even attempt to assess whether the substantive criteria apply; the intention simply seems to be to find some way to justify a longer period to continue the internal border checks which Member States have reintroduced recently.

If the current threats get to the stage of a Council Recommendation that border controls be reimposed, it’s not clear if Greece could sue the Council in the EU Court of Justice (since technically Recommendations are not binding), or would have to sue Member States for following the Recommendation instead. Individual travellers could also sue Member States in national courts for imposing border controls, indirectly challenging the legality of the Recommendation; national courts could then send the issue to the Court of Justice.

Procedural issues apart, is there a substantive case for suspending Schengen rules and reimposing border controls, because of ‘serious deficiencies’ due to Greek control of the external border? In my view, there are serious doubts that there is such a case, for two main reasons.

First of all, according to the Financial Times article, other Member States are annoyed because Greece did not accept the support of Frontex, register enough asylum-seekers, or request humanitarian aid to assist them. While the failure to request support from Frontex is referred to in the EU border controls legislation, the other issues are not. And for very good reason: because the failure to control the numbers of refugees at the external borders is NOT a breach of the Schengen rules.

This assertion may seem surprising, because the critics of the EU’s response to the refugee crisis – on either side of the argument – often assume that EU law requires refugees and asylum-seekers to be refused entry at the borders. From one side, the EU is criticised for letting refugees and asylum-seekers in, and therefore ‘not protecting its borders’. From the other side, the EU is criticised for establishing a ‘Fortress Europe’.

Both sides are clearly wrong – at least, on this specific legal issue. This follows from the Schengen Borders Code itself, which expressly exempts refugees from the rules on penalising non-EU citizens for unauthorised entry across the borders, and includes an exemption from the usual conditions on border crossing if the non-EU citizen is claiming asylum. It equally follows from the EU’s asylum procedures Directive, which requires Member States to process not only asylum applications made on the territory, but also those made at the border. (Of course, Member States don't always fully comply with their EU legal obligations).

So it’s really the border crossing rule itself which is controversial, not Greece’s failure to apply it. There’s a political problem with the rule in practice, either because (from one side’s perspective) it is no longer keeping out enough people, or (from the other side’s perspective), it is too difficult for genuine refugees to reach EU territory without the risk of drowning or paying money to smugglers.

But for the purposes of finding that there are ‘serious deficiencies’ in Greek control of the external border, the point is that Greece is not failing in any obligation to stop asylum-seekers crossing the external borders – quite simply because there’s no such obligation. Just the opposite. Of course, due to the sheer scale of the numbers involved, it’s difficult for Greece to operate an effective asylum system, but that failure is subject to a wholly separate process. Indeed, the European Court of Human Rights and the CJEU have already said that Member States cannot send asylum-seekers back to Greece, because the asylum system has effectively collapsed there. The Dublin III Regulation sets out rules which apply in the event that the Dublin system has to be suspended for those reasons, and the EU has recently adopted Decisions (discussed here) to relieve the burden on Greece a little by relocating some asylum-seekers from that country.  

Of course, some of those who cross the Greek border do not apply for asylum immediately, or later fail in their asylum applications. According to UNHCR statistics, about half of those recently arriving in the Greek island of Lesvos (the main destination) are coming from Syria and Iraq (countries with high refugee recognition rates) and half are coming from other countries, with lower recognition rates. In that context, it is legitimate to suggest that Greece ought to accept assistance from Frontex and other EU agencies, and that Frontex in particular has a role coordinating the fingerprinting and registration of people when they first arrive. (Fingerprinting of irregular migrants and asylum-seekers isn’t a panicked authoritarian response to the refugee crisis, as is sometimes suggested, but a long-standing EU law obligation, going back to 2003).

The second problem is the link between the Greek ‘deficiencies’ and the reimposition of border controls, either against Greece or between other Schengen states. There’s certainly no link between the deficiencies and the borders between Greece and other Schengen States, since none of those are land borders, and (would-be) asylum-seekers and refugees travel by land between Greece and other Member States. So checking people flying between Greece and other Schengen States would be hugely disproportionate to the relevant deficiencies.  

What about border controls between other Schengen States? These are the controls that the Council document expressly wants to continue. Here there is a link between the people originally entering via Greece and later trying to cross the Austria/Germany border, for instance. But again, the real deficiencies are with the EU’s asylum system, not Greek border controls, since EU rules provide for admission of asylum-seekers. Asylum-seekers move on to other Member States because the Dublin rules were not drawn up with today’s increased numbers of asylum-seekers in mind, and Greece can’t manage the numbers that it would be responsible for under the rules. That’s certainly a problem – but that problem is not caused by Greek deficiencies in external border controls. The EU has to use the legal instruments available under its asylum policy to try to fix it.

Political context

Although it’s not evident from the face of the document, the political context of the Council paper may be an attempt to convince Greece to agree to further measures relating to border control. That’s evident from the Financial Times article, which conveys several Member States’ allegations against Greece (summarised above). In turn, the Greek government has defended itself and made counter-allegations against the EU, which are summarised in a Guardian article.

In some ways, this resembles the attempt by some Member States this summer to coerce Greece to leave the euro ‘temporarily’. As I argued at the time, this process did not have a shred of legality, unless we use the creative argument that Greece had never legally joined the euro.

However, there are differences as regards Schengen. There is on paper a process to suspend Schengen rules temporarily; the only question is the correct interpretation of those rules. Undoubtedly some will not share my interpretation above, and would argue that defects in the asylum system are implicitly part of the assessment of whether there are 'serious deficiencies' in external border control. In the absence of case law to date, it’s an open question which of us would be correct. It’s also an open question whether the Commission – which has made much of its strong support for Schengen – would be willing to suggest a suspension for two years.

Even if it’s legal to threaten Greece this way, is it wise? The EU was heavily criticised for trying to strong-arm Greece as regards the euro – although technically it wasn’t the EU institutions making the threats last summer, but rather the parallel ‘Eurogroup’ bodies which are not an ordinary part of the EU’s political system.

Far better for the EU to redouble its efforts to help both Greece and the people concerned, by ensuring that there are decent reception centres and living conditions in the country, by making greater effort to ensure that the relocation system works, and by working with Turkey to genuinely improve the living conditions of refugees there, so that fewer of them want to leave (more on that recent EU/Turkey deal in a later blog post).

As regards Schengen itself, if a temporary suspension is strongly desired, it might be better to provide for it by means of a legislative amendment to the Schengen Borders Code (with a ‘sunset clause’ providing for its expiry, since permanent suspension would violate the Treaties) rather than by the indirect means of threatening Greece. Or an amendment to the rules on checks near the internal borders could justify some occasional checks in the event of dysfunctional applications of EU asylum rules, if fixing those rules proves politically impossible – as well it might.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

Photo credit: dialoguereview.com