A Dilemma of Two Communities: How the Portuguese-speaking Countries Mobility Agreement Might be Conflicting with EU Law

 

 

Ana Rita Gil*, Aylin Yildiz Noorda** & Lucas Ricardo***

 

* Professor, Law Faculty of the University of Lisbon, Portugal. Researcher at the Lisbon Public Law. Email: anaritagil@fd.ulisboa.pt.

** Postdoctoral Researcher at the Lisbon Public Law Research Centre, University of Lisbon, Portugal / Non-resident Research Fellow at the World Trade Institute (WTI) and the Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research (OCCR), University of Bern, Switzerland. Email: aylin.yildiz@wti.org. This research has been funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) under grant no P500PS_210910.

*** Investment Policy Consultant at UNCTAD. Email: narciso_lucas@hotmail.com

 

Photo credit: Donatas Dabravolskas, via Wikimedia Commons

 

The recent decision of the European Commission to launch infringement procedures against Portugal concerning the provisions of the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries (CPLP) Mobility Agreement has placed this new framework in the spotlight. Concluded by Portugal, Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, São Tomé and Príncipe, Timor-Leste and Equatorial Guinea in 2021, the CPLP Mobility Agreement facilitates the movement of the citizens of the CPLP member states within the boundaries of ‘the same language space’. As the CPLP Executive Secretary Zacarias da Costa put it, the agreement goes ‘way beyond a set of piecemeal measures’, establishing a legal framework with a flexible and variable system suited to each state’s specificities. Notably, the Mobility Agreement aims to streamline the process for acquiring temporary residence visas and permits, with around 150,000 applications reportedly undergoing processing by the Portuguese Foreigners and Border Service (SEF). In this post, we examine the adoption, content, and implementation of the Mobility Agreement, commencing with a brief introduction to the CPLP.

 

Founding the CPLP

 

The inception of the CPLP traces back to early 1980s when the Portuguese Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time, during an official visit to Cabo Verde, endorsed decentralised tricontinental dialogues as a means to formalise the connections between Portugal and its former colonies. This initiative gained momentum in the 1990s, primarily due to the dedicated effort of the Brazilian ambassador to Portugal at the time, and resulted in the creation of the organisation in 1996. Although the CPLP was ostensibly established with benign objectives, centred on fostering cooperation across various areas rooted in a professed shared language and culture, it appeared to be the ‘political face’ of the Lusophone world. In this regard, it bears a resemblance to its French- and English-speaking counterparts, albeit neither the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie nor the Commonwealth of Nations have adopted a mobility agreement of the kind seen within the CPLP.

 

Initially comprising seven member states, the CPLP expanded with the admission of the newly independent state of Timor-Leste in 2002 and Equatorial Guinea in 2014. Brazil stands as the largest member state in terms of territory, population and economy, boasting the highest number of Portuguese speakers. However, projections indicate that by the close of the 21st century, the majority of Portuguese speakers will likely reside in Africa, attributed to demographic growth in Angola and Mozambique. While the list of potential future CPLP members may seem to have been exhausted, the CPLP has proactively introduced the category of an ‘observer’, enabling international organisations and interested countries to participate in CPLP summits and Council of Foreign Affairs Ministers meetings, albeit without voting rights.

 

Adopting the Mobility Agreement

 

The CPLP’s founding texts had already established the objective of ‘contributing to the strengthening of human ties, solidarity and fraternity among Peoples who have the Portuguese Language as one of the foundations of their specific identity and, in this sense, promoting measures that facilitate the movement of citizens of Member Countries within the CPLP space’. Acting on this, the CPLP member states agreed to explore possible avenues for policy development in mobility issues in the Praia Declaration in 1998. Two years later, a working group was established to facilitate intra-CPLP mobility and to ensure the equality of social and political rights among CPLP member state citizens. Several agreements followed soon after, including on common maximum requirements for short-term visa applications in 2002 and student visas in 2007. During this period, the goal to institute a Lusophone or CPLP citizenship status garnered much attention but has not reached a consensus. In the meantime, the path was laid for a mobility agreement, which was eventually signed in Luanda, Angola, on 17 July 2021, following seven sessions of text-based deliberations.

 

Facilitating Three Types of Movement

 

The Mobility Agreement does not create a free movement regime. Instead, the CPLP member states have established minimum standards to facilitate three types of movement: short stay, temporary stay, and residency. Although short stays do not necessitate prior administrative authorisation, temporary stays (with a duration not exceeding 12 months) are conditional upon such authorisation. Conversely, the streamlining of residency contemplates a novel documentation category called the ‘CPLP residence permit’, which may be granted subsequent to the authorisation of a ‘CPLP residence visa’.

 

Sitting at the heart of this framework are the applicable terms and conditions. Essentially, each state is free to choose mobility modalities and categories. This allows the states to undertake obligations gradually and with varying degrees of integration across one or more mobility modalities and/or categories of people, tailoring them to internal circumstances. Each state retains the authority to define, based on its internal legislation, the necessary documentation required to apply for the CPLP residence visa. Furthermore, none of the states are obligated to undertake commitments that are incompatible with their international commitments or regional integration agreements.

 

Implementation by Portugal

 

Portugal approved the CPLP Mobility Agreement by Resolution of the Assembly of the Republic No. 313/2021 of 9 December, implementing it by enacting Acts No. 4/2022 of 30 September, and No. 18/2022 of 25 August.

 

Accordingly, CPLP member state citizens may apply for a temporary-stay visa, work-seeker visa or a CPLP residence visa. Such requests shall be granted outright, unless the applicant is identified in the Schengen Information System as the subject of an alert for return or an alert for refusal of entry and stay. In other words, the applicants no longer need to apply for a visa in person, and are exempted from the prior decision of SEF (which has recently been replaced by AIMA).

 

Furthermore, as of March 2023, certain CPLP member state nationals have been able to apply for a temporary residence permit online. This is not an automatically granted visa, but rather a temporary residence permit granted to CPLP member state nationals who already had migration processes pending at SEF/AIMA or had visas issued by Portuguese consulates. Similarly, those with a CPLP residence visa are entitled to apply for a CPLP residence permit.

 

The decision to grant a CPLP temporary residence permit to citizens who were already staying in the territory, and who were waiting for a residence permit, was also taken with the aim to respond to the high number of pending applications made under the permanent regularisation scheme existing in Portugal. Indeed, Articles 88 and 89 of the Immigration Law establish a ‘right to regularisation’ to citizens who are illegally staying in the territory and who have a labour contract or a promissory agreement to formalize a labour contract. These legal norms attracted a high number of migrants, mainly from Brazil, that entered Portugal with the purpose of seeking job opportunities, and stayed illegally there, waiting for their regularisation. The number of pending procedures amounted to more than 120,000 and the waiting time was exceeding two years. The dissatisfaction among the immigrants’ community was growing, and the Ombudsman reported an extreme rise of complaints against SEF. With the CPLP scheme, the Government was expecting to solve this backlog, that was seriously jeopardizing the good functioning of the services and raising social discontent.

 

European Commission’s Infringement Procedure against Portugal

 

In September 2023, the Commission started an infringement procedure against Portugal. The Commission considers that the Mobility Agreement provides for a residence permit which is not compliant with the uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals under Council Regulation 1030/2002. Furthermore, the Commission contends that both the residence permits as well as the long-stay visas issued for job-seeking purposes to nationals of the CPLP States do not allow their holders to travel within the Schengen area, in contradiction with EU law.

 

The CPLP ‘residence permit’ consists of a document which simply states that its holder has authorisation to reside in Portugal under the CPLP mobility agreement. The fact that it does not follow the EU’s residence permit format has also contributed to raise several uncertainties in the daily lives of its holders. In fact, it was common for private or even public entities not recognising the document and denying access to some rights, such as opening bank accounts or renting houses. Also, it was very frequent that holders of CPLP residence permits were denied embarkment in international flights or even returning to Portugal by foreigner airports’ officials, who were not familiarised with the document.

 

Portugal has two months to respond to the letter and address the shortcomings identified by the Commission. Portuguese Secretary of State for European Affairs, Tiago Antunes, has already denied incompatibility between the Mobility Agreement and the Schengen regime, and announced that the implementation of the agreement would continue. In the absence of ‘a satisfactory response’ by Portugal, the Commission may decide to issue a reasoned opinion, which is a formal request to comply with EU law. In case the country in question does not comply with the reasoned opinion, the Commission may decide to refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the EU.

 

Conclusion: Is CPLP Mobility Agreement one of a kind or part of a larger trend?

 

The CPLP Mobility Agreement may be seen as a distinctive framework, emanating from a political and cultural cooperation organisation rather than an integrated trade bloc. Integrated trade blocs, such as the EU, African Union (AU), Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), have established their own systems of free movement, albeit at various stages of implementation. While trade agreements designed between developed and developing nations have been observed to facilitate human mobility to a certain extent, the extent of such facilitation is typically more limited. The CPLP Mobility Agreement echoes the conventional observation that states operating at differing levels of development tend to facilitate human mobility to a more restricted degree.

 

Nonetheless, the CPLP Mobility Agreement has been observed as being unique for putting an end to an unjustifiable limit to the right to work for certain non-EU citizens in an EU country. In this sense, it can be viewed as part of a larger trend in favour of international cooperation on migration issues. This issue topped the UN agenda particularly post-2015, leading to the adoption of the legally non-binding Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) in 2018. All CPLP member states have voted in favour of adopting the GCM during the historic UN General Assembly vote, with the exception of São Tomé and Príncipe and Timor-Leste which did not vote. Furthermore, three CPLP member states (Portugal, Cabo Verde and Guinea-Bissau) have submitted voluntary national reports on the implementation of the GCM. In their reports, Portugal and Guinea-Bissau make references to the CPLP Mobility Agreement as instances of successful implementation of the objective on enhancing the availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration. Also, both states mention in their reports that they have accepted to become a ‘GCM Champion country’ and to contribute to achieving the objectives of the GCM.

 

 

Protecting the Formal Rule of Law in the EU’s Asylum Policy: The CJEU’s Judgment on the Asylum Relocation Mechanism

Niels Kirst, Ph.D. Researcher in European Union Law at the School of Law and Government of Dublin City University*

*Reblogged from the Bridge Network blog

Introduction

In a recent judgment, the CJEU confirmed that Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic breached European Union law (EU law) by not implementing two Council Decisions (here and here; discussed in detail here) for the relocation of asylum seekers after the European refugee crisis in the Mediterranean. In this seminal judgment, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rejected the arguments of the parties who alleged that the European Union’s relocation mechanism could not be implemented due to a general threat to law and order and public security (Poland and Hungary), as well as the argument that the malfunctioning and the ineffectiveness of the mechanism prevented its implementation (Czech Republic).

The judgment was released against the backdrop of the current COVID-19 pandemic in the European Union (EU), which has prompted a broader discussion on European solidarity among the Member States. The judgment is a strong affirmation of the principle of solidarity and the principle of sincere cooperation (enshrined in Article 4 (3) Treaty on European Union (TEU)) and clarifies the scope of Article 72 TFEU (maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security). While the judgment has no immediate consequences for the affected Member States, since the Council Decisions lapsed in the meantime, it was lauded as an affirmation that the EU is a legal order based on the rule of law (see here, here and here).

Two Council Decisions established the relocation scheme in September 2015 (Council Decision (EU) 2015/1523 and Council Decision (EU) 2015/1601), in which the Member States committed to relocate persons likely in need of international protection from Italy and Greece. Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic were outvoted in the latter decision adopted by qualified majority voting in the Council of the European Union (Council) and subsequently either refused to take any asylum-seekers (Hungary) or took only a minimal number (Poland & Czech Republic).

As a consequence, and given that all other Member States had pledged to relocate a certain number of asylum-seekers, the Commission decided to initiate an infringement procedure and refer the three Member States to the CJEU. In the Advocate General’s Opinion (AG’s Opinion), which was analyzed earlier, the departing AG Sharpston reiterated the rule of law and the principle of solidarity in the EU legal order and found that the Member States had failed to fulfill their obligations under EU law. This blog post will provide an analysis of the reasoning of the CJEU and the grounds of the judgment.

Admissibility of the Infringement Proceedings

 A large part of the judgment was concerned with the admissibility of the infringement proceeding. The infringement proceeding was brought by the European Commission (Commission) under Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) in June 2017. First, the three Member States alleged that the Commission’s action is devoid of purpose since the matter of the proceeding (the Council Decisions) had expired. A judgment would only have a declaratory nature which does not amount to a legitimate interest in bringing the proceedings (para. 47-50). The CJEU rebutted these arguments by highlighting that ‘a declaration as to the failures to fulfill obligations at issue is still, moreover, of substantive interest’ (para. 66), according to Commission v Italy (1972) (Case 39/72). The CJEU found that the infringement proceeding is neither devoid of purpose nor inconsistent with the objectives under Article 258 TFEU (para. 70-71).

Second, Poland and Hungary alleged a breach of the principle of equal treatment by singling out three Member States in the infringement proceedings (para. 72-73). The CJEU highlighted the discretionary principle, which allows the Commission a certain leeway in bringing infringement proceedings (para. 75). Further, the CJEU reiterated the ongoing reporting by the Commission, which stressed the lack of implementation of the measures by the three Member States and the apparent threat of a subsequent infringement proceeding (para. 77-78). Finally, the Commission’s decision to bring an infringement proceeding against these three Member States was justified by the gravity and persistence of the alleged infringements (para. 81-82).

Third, Hungary alleged a breach of the rights of defence during the pretrial phase of the infringement procedure. According to Hungary, first, the Commission denied a request for extension of deadline amid multiple infringement proceedings ongoing against Hungary, second, the deadlines in the proceeding were extremely short, and third, the Commission committed formal errors in drafting the infringement procedure letters (para. 84-88). The CJEU rebuffed these arguments by asserting that the Commission’s discretion in bringing an infringement proceeding was not overstepped in the present case (para. 93-97). Further, neither a minor formal error nor a denial to grant an extension of the deadline is substantively eroding the admissibility of the infringement proceeding concerning the rights of defence (para. 98 – 110).

Fourth, the Czech Republic alleged that the infringement proceeding lacked precision and that it was inconsistent in its legal plea (para. 111). The CJEU dismissed these arguments by highlighting that the infringement proceeding was not ultra petita and that the dates for compliance with the request were sufficiently clear for the Czech Republic (para. 120-122). By dismissing the arguments on inadmissibility, the CJEU followed the AG’s Opinion and turned to the substance of the case.

Substance of the Case

First, the CJEU had to assess if the infringements took place (para. 124-133). The CJEU affirmed that the Member States breached Article 5 (2) of both Council Decisions, which required the Member States to communicate the number of asylum seekers they are willing to take to the Commission. Consequently, they breached Article 5 (4) of the Decisions which required the actual relocation of asylum seekers (para. 126-129). The proof of this breach of the obligations deriving from the Decisions can be found in the monthly reports of the Commission (para. 130-132). Moreover, the Member States did not dispute that they failed to indicate to the Commission their pledge of taking asylum seekers (para. 129). Instead, they relied on a twofold justification for their non-implementation of the Council Decisions.

In their defence, Poland and Hungary first argued that Article 72 TFEU (maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security) read in conjunction with Article 4 (2) TEU (national identity clause) allowed them to suspend the application of the Council Decisions since they would have created an internal security risk in their territory (para. 134-138). Poland, in particular, argued that Article 72 TFEU would be a conflict of law rule and would subsequently set aside the secondary legislation such as Council Decisions (para. 137).

The CJEU commenced with the assessment that ‘in a European Union based on the rule of law, acts of the institutions enjoy a presumption of lawfulness,’ with the consequence that both Council Decisions were binding for the Member States (para. 139). Notably, in its judgment in Slovakia and Hungary v Council (discussed here) the CJEU had already affirmed the lawfulness of the Council Decisions. While in the former case, Poland pleaded the illegality of the Council Decision under Article 72 TFEU (see paras 306-309 of that judgment), in the present case, both Poland and Hungary argued that Article 72 TFEU allowed them to disapply the Council Decisions (para. 142). Both arguments are flawed, according to the CJEU.

The CJEU reiterated that the only situations in which the Treaty expressly allows for derogations which affect law and order or public security are Articles 36, 45, 52, 65, 72, 346 and 347 TFEU (para. 143). However, the derogations of Article 72 TFEU, which concern Title V of the Treaty (the Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice), must be interpreted strictly (para. 144). Therefore it forecloses the general refusal of application of the Council Decision (para. 150). Moreover, in Article 5 (4), in conjunction with Article 5 (7), the Decisions foresee the possibility to deny the relocation of asylum seekers in case that there are reasonable grounds that a person is a threat to national security or public order (para. 151). These Articles are a reflection of Article 72 TFEU. Therefore, the Council duly took into account the responsibilities incumbent on Member States to protect national security (para. 153).

The CJEU, further stressed, that the serious reason (reasonable grounds) requirement for rejection of individuals from the relocation scheme is to be interpreted with a much wider margin of discretion for Member States than the requirements for exclusion from refugee or subsidiary protection status under Directive 2011/95 (the Qualification Directive) (para. 155), which implements the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention in the EU legal order, or the rules on exceptions to free movement law. Broad discretion is accorded to the Member States’ authorities to reject applicants on the grounds of national security or public order (para. 158). However, Member States must provide consistent, objective, and specific evidence for the suspicion that the applicant actually or potentially is a threat to the public policy of the Member States (para. 159). The invocation of Article 72 TFEU as a peremptory norm to deny any applicant on the grounds of public policy is invalid, as highlighted already in the AG’s Opinion (para. 160).

Since Poland and Hungary refused to pledge to take any asylum seekers, they could not carry out an individual assessment of the persons concerned (para. 161). Further, the claim by the Member States that the mechanism was ineffective and characterized by a lack of cooperation by the Italian and Greek authorities had to be resolved in the spirit of cooperation and mutual trust (para. 164). In conclusion, the CJEU found that ‘there is nothing to indicate that effectively safeguarding the essential state functions, such as of protecting national security, could not be carried out other than by disapplying both Council Decisions’ (para. 170). Instead, the mechanism provided for in the Council Decisions would have been the appropriate measure, which left the Member States genuine opportunities to safeguard national security (para. 171). They failed to take this measure.

In the second defence, the Czech Republic argued that the malfunctioning and the ineffectiveness of the mechanism made it disapply the Council Decisions and instead pursue bilateral avenues of support for the concerned Member States (para. 173-176). The CJEU reiterated that also, in this case, it was up to the Member States to resolve these issues taking into account the mechanism provided by the Council Decisions and the spirit of cooperation and mutual trust (para. 182). An outright suspension of the mechanism was not an adequate means to lament its ineffectiveness. Further, ancillary bilateral measures by the Czech Republic could not replace the general non-application of the Council Decisions (para. 187). In conclusion, all three Member States failed to fulfill their obligations deriving from the Council Decisions on the relocation mechanism.

Comment

This judgment is a strong affirmation that Council decisions are binding for the Member States, whether they like them or not. The EU is a legal order based upon the rule of law. A formal compliance with the Treaty, Regulations, Directives, and Decisions is necessary as a precondition of a rule-based order. Member States may not disapply EU law simply because they do not like the decision, or because it conflicts with their domestic political agenda. Specifically, the Visegrád states have voiced a rejection of the EU’s common asylum policy (see here) that culminated in Slovak Republic and Hungary v Council and the present decision. The legal consequences of the judgment are entirely declaratory. The obligations from the Council Decisions lapsed. Therefore, there are no consequences for Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic after this judgment. Notably, the Commission will also not be able to pursue a penalty payment against the Member States under Article 260 TFEU.

Moreover, the judgment is an indication that consensus in the EU has to be formed on the political level. Otherwise, decisions on disputed issues such as the admittance of asylum seekers will lead to the non-implementation of the measures by individual Member States. This is a sad reality following from this judgment. In an ideal world there should not be a necessity of the Commission to commence infringement proceedings after a qualified majority in the Council takes a decision. The dispute over a common approach to asylum policy highlights that qualified majority voting still requires Member States to come to a consensus that is tolerable for all of them. Otherwise, the Council risks the non-implementation of decisions by some Member States. As a guidepost, it would be recommended that any further decision in the area of asylum policy is based on a consensus among the Member States. Otherwise, the next infringement proceedings are just around the corner.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

JHA4: chapter I:5

Photo credit: Puskechina, via Wikimedia commons 

The Three Villains and the Lifeblood of the European Union Project – Advocate General Sharpton’s Opinion in C-715/17 (the asylum relocation mechanism)

Niels Kirst, PhD candidate in EU law, Dublin City University

The Backdrop of the Migration Crisis

Recently, Advocate General Sharpston (hereafter ‘the AG’) had to give her opinion on the failure to implement Decisions of the Council regarding the relocation of migrants within the European Union. The opinion deserves distinction due to its firmness and its comprehensive categorization of the concept of solidarity in the European Union legal order. The case itself has a political importance since it relates to the ongoing rule of law crisis within the European Union.

The case concerned the Area of Freedom, Justice and Security (hereafter ‘AFJS’), Article 72 TFEU (the safeguard clause) and the Dublin Regulation, which allocates responsibility for asylum applications within the EU. In the proceedings, the European Commission (hereafter ‘the Commission’) brought infringement proceedings under Article 258 TFEU against Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic for not implementing Decisions of the Council within their legal order. The case occurred at the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereafter ‘the Court’ or ‘Court of Justice’) as a direct cause of the migration crisis of 2015 in the European Union.

In September 2015 the migration crisis in the European Union was in full swing. Italy and Greece were overwhelmed by the number of migrants arriving at their shores each day. In response, on the 14th and 22nd of September 2015 respectively, the Council decided in urgently convened meetings that provisional measures are necessary to support Greece and Italy, which under the provisions of the Dublin Regulation, had to bear the highest burden in the migration crisis. This emergency was caused by a sudden influx of migrants into the European Union due to the military conflict in Syria.

In consequence, the Council (by qualified majority), agreed on Decision 2015/1523 and Decision 2015/1601 (hereafter ‘Relocation Decisions’ – discussed further here). The Council used Article 78 (3) TFEU as legal basis for the decisions, which provides the following: “In the event of one or more Member States being confronted by an emergency situation characterised by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may adopt provisional measures for the benefit of the Member State(s) concerned.” The article is located in Title V of the Treaty which deals with the AFJS and the common asylum and immigration policy of the European Union.

In an earlier proceeding, the legality of Decision 2015/1601 was unsuccessfully challenged by the Slovak Republic and Hungary (the judgment is discussed here). Having said that, the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary decided to not follow the Relocation Decisions since they regarded them as a threat to their internal security. The essential question of the present proceedings was, therefore, if the three defendant Member States can advance a claim that absolves them of their obligations under the Relocation Decisions? (see para. 69 of the Opinion)

The Factual Background

The Relocation Decisions by the Council required the allocation of, respectively, 40 000 and 120 000 applicants for international protection within the Member States of the European Union. The Relocations Decisions required Member States to pledge a certain number of applicants, which would be identified by Greece and Italy and subsequentially be transferred to the pledging Member State.

Poland, while initially pledging to take 100 applicants, did not relocate any applicant. Hungary did not pledge to the Commission to accept any applicants. The Czech Republic pledged to the Commission to take 30 applicants, from which 12 have been relocated. (see para. 72) In response, the Commission noted in its Fifteenth Report on relocation and resettlement in 2016 that, "Hungary and Poland remain the only Member States that have not relocated a single person […]. Moreover, the Czech Republic has not pledged since May 2016 and has not relocated anyone since August 2016."

The Substance of the Case

After rejecting a long line of merely procedural challenges of admissibility the AG declared the infringement proceedings brought by the Commission admissible. The challenges of admissibility by the Member States were unfounded in so far as they did not undermine the valid purpose and the legal interest of the Commission in bringing the proceedings.

The AG started her substantive assessment of the case by pointing out that Decisions of the Council pursuant to Article 288 TFEU are binding upon the Member States and that the relevant Decisions are intra-vires as in so far the earlier challenge on legality of one of the Decisions brought by the Slovak Republic and Hungary was dismissed as unfounded by the Court. (para. 153 – 157)

The Commission alleged in its claims that the Member States failed to comply with the pledging requirement on the one hand, and with the relocation requirement on the other hand. By failing to pledge to take any asylum seekers the three Member States consequently also failed to effectively take any asylum seekers. This argument was supported by the AG since the failing to pledge necessarily also fails to relocate. (para. 170 – 171) 

After supporting the Commission’s arguments concerning the factual basis, the AG shifted to the assessment to the justifications of the defendants for their non-compliance with the Relocation Decisions. This gave the AG the possibility to comment extensively on very fundamental concepts of European Union law – namely, the principles of sincere cooperation, the rule of law, and European Union solidarity.

Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic raised two substantial justifications for their non-compliance with EU law. Respectively, that Article 72 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4 (2) TEU allowed Member States to disapply the Relocation Decisions, and that the Relocation Decisions created a dysfunctional system. (para. 172 – 174) The Commission countered these arguments by pointing to the necessity of effet utile of EU law and the principle of solidarity, which is a fundamental principle of EU law. (para. 175)

Article 72 TFEU, which was the main defence raised by the three Member States, provides the following: “This Title shall not affect the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.” The three Member States used this article as justification which relieves them from their obligation to comply with the Relocation Decisions. The Commission argued that Article 72 TFEU should be interpreted similarly to the limitations for public security, et al, that apply to the fundamental freedoms of the internal market. (para. 187)

Regarding Article 72 TFEU, the AG first touched upon the concepts of ‘law and order’ and ‘internal security’ which are essential for understanding the scope of that article. Therefore, the AG turned to the three previous occasions in which the article had been treated by the Court: respectively Adil, A and Slovak Republic and Hungary v Council. (para. 190 – 194)

The AG acknowledged that the judgment in Slovak Republic and Hungary v Council foreshadowed the arguments which had been raised by the three defendants in the present proceedings. The AG cited the following crucial paragraph of the judgment in this regard, “If that mechanism were ineffective because it requires Member States to check large numbers of persons in a short time, such practical difficulties are not inherent in the mechanism and must, should they arise, be resolved in the spirit of cooperation and mutual trust between the authorities of the Member States […].” (para. 194)

On the concepts of ‘public order and security’ the AG pointed out that there must be a sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of the society to establish a public order intervention (N, discussed here) and that the concept of security cannot be determined unilaterally by each Member State without any control by the institutions of the European Union (Zh and O, discussed here). (para. 196 – 201)

The AG pointed specifically to the judgment in Bouchereau in the realm of the fundamental internal market freedoms, in which the Court found that it is the personal conduct of the individual concerned that must be assessed to determine whether there is a threat to the community of the Member State in question. (para. 199) The assessment of the personal conduct of the individual regarding the concepts of public order and security was crucial in the AG’s assessment.

Regarding Article 72 TFEU, the AG stated that the Article can only serve as a derogation measure in case the European Union legislator disregarded to take account of that obligation when drafting EU secondary law in the area of AFJS. (para. 202) However, in the present case, the European Union legislator did acknowledge the concepts of public order and security when it drafted the Relocation Decisions. Respectively, Article 5 (4) and 5 (7) of the Relocation Decisions took into account the concern of security as they gave right to Member States to refuse an applicant on reasonable grounds. (para. 203)

According to the AG, "it was perfectly possible for them to preserve the safety and welfare of citizens by refusing (on the basis of the Relocation Decisions themselves) to take applicant X, […]." (para. 207) However, they refrained to take that route and instead decided to entirely not apply the Decisions to safeguard their internal security.

Furthermore, the AG clarified that Article 72 TFEU may not be used in this way. It is not a conflict of laws rule which give the Member States competence over measure enacted by the EU legislature; instead, it is a rule of co-existence under the principle of subsidiarity. (para. 212) To substantiate this claim, the AG cited Factortame, NN (L) International, and Commission v Hungary to find that Article 72 TFEU is not a carte blanche to disapply any valid measure of EU secondary law with which a Member State disagrees. (para. 214 – 221)

In conclusion, the AG pointed to the measures which exist in EU law, regarding the safeguarding of security and public order, which allow Member States to deny a particular applicant entrance into a Member State. However, the AG clarified that there is no general pre-emption of EU secondary law by Article 72 TFEU. (para. 223)

Regarding the invocation of the principle of national identity enshrined in Article 4 (2) TEU by the three Member States, AG Sharpston again pointed to the case-law: Commission v Luxembourg, in which the Court held that national identity cannot lead to a general exclusion of applicants due to their nationality. There are less restrictive means to preserve the social and cultural cohesion of a society. In analogy, the AG applied this concept to find that a general exclusion of asylum applicants cannot be sustained. (para. 224 – 227)

Finally, all three defendants raised the claim that the Relocation mechanism was dysfunctional and that the dysfunctionality exposed them to a hardly assessable security risk. Further, the Czech Republic claimed that it would have been pointless to pledge certain numbers to the Commission since the majority of applicants would have been undocumented in any case, and the Czech Republic would be unable to assess the risk that such undocumented migrants pose to the country. (para. 228 – 229)

The AG rebutted the arguments by pointing to the principle of solidarity which requires the Member States to support each other in a situation of emergency, which was present during the migration crisis. Further, there would have been other means for the Member States concerned to express their fear of the dysfunctionality of the system. For example, by applying for temporary suspension of their obligations under the Decisions, as done by Austria and Sweden. (para. 234 – 235) Consequently, the AG opined to uphold the infringement against the three Member States.

Additional Remarks by the Advocate General

In the final part of the Opinion, the AG commented on the concepts of the rule of law, the duty of sincere cooperation and the concept of solidarity within the European Union. Concerning the rule of law, the AG noticed its primordial importance recognised in Article 2 TEU and the case-law of the Court (the most recent rule of law judgment is discussed here). Specifically, the AG remarked, "at a deeper level, respect for the rule of law implies compliance with one's legal obligations. Disregarding those obligations, in a particular instance, [when] they are unwelcome or unpopular is a dangerous first step towards the breakdown of the orderly and structured society governed by the rule of law which, as citizens, we enjoy both for its comfort and safety." (para. 241)

Concerning the duty of sincere cooperation, the AG clarified that this principle builds upon the common values of all EU Member States as enshrined in Article 2 TEU. These common values allow mutual trust among them which subsequentially enables mutual recognition in the realm of AFJS. Against this backdrop, the principle of sincere cooperation has to be understood. The AG assessed that the principle of sincere cooperation has been manifestly mistreated by the conduct of the three Member States. (para. 242 – 245)

Concerning Solidarity, the AG referred to the founding fathers of the ‘European project’, to find that only their openness and spirit to one another enable the European Union to flourish. Famously, the Schuman Declaration recognized solidarity as a cornerstone. Subsequently, the Court echoed that call for solidarity in Klöckner-Werke v Commission and formally recognized the principle of solidarity in Eridania zuccherifici nazionali and Others. (para. 246 – 251)

Moreover, the AG recognized that the principle of solidarity requires burden-sharing as seen in Grzelczyk and Bidar. Particularly, the AG stated that "Solidarity is the lifeblood of the European project. Through their participation in that project and their citizenship of the European Union, Member States and their nationals have obligations as well as benefits, duties as well as rights. Sharing the European ‘demos’ is not a matter of looking through the Treaties and the secondary legislation to see what one can claim. It also requires one to shoulder collective responsibility and (yes) burdens to further the common good.” (para. 251 – 255)

Comment

The significance of this opinion cannot be overstated. Due to the pending departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union, this could have well been the last Opinion from the British Advocate General Eleanor Sharpston. This may explain the length, accuracy and profundity of the opinion. Indeed, the Opinion provides a fully-fledged account of some of the core principles of European Union law and their respective case-law. The opinion will likely find its way into the canon of significant AGs' opinions – most notably concerning the reconstruction of what solidarity within the European project means, entails and what it requires by the Member States.

While touching upon core principles of European Union law, the opinion also clarifies the obligations of Member States under Decisions of the Council in the realm of AFJS. The Opinion gives guidance concerning the concepts of security and public order in EU law and assess the position of Article 72 TFEU in the EU legal order. Article 72 TFEU does not serve as a general derogation clause for Member States when they do not agree with a specific measure, instead, Article 72 TFEU applies only for particular cases under individual assessment or, when the EU has failed to take security and public order into account during the legislative process.

Besides, the Opinion has also a significant relevance in the ongoing rule of law crisis in the European Union. The proceeding before the Court concerned a case of disregard of secondary EU law by Member States. This disregard was presumably based on a national preference of not taking any applications for asylum. The Opinion clarifies that the rule of law in the European Union requires not only the independence of the national legal system but also, and foremost, the respect for and implementation of valid European Regulations, Directives and Decisions.

The key take-away of the opinion is the emphasis and the account on solidarity by the AG. Solidarity is essential for the functioning of the European legal order, as well as for the flourishing of the European project. By spanning a frame from the founding fathers of the European Union project to the migration crisis in the European Union of today, the AG distils the purpose and the idea of European solidarity. The European Union is not a system of cherry-picking of only the good parts while denying the burdens and obligations which also come with the membership. Instead, benefits and burdens have to be shared equally in the spirit of European Union solidarity.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

JHA4: chapter I:5

Photo credit: The Malta Independent

The beginning of the end for Poland’s so-called “judicial reforms”? Some thoughts on the ECJ ruling in Commission v Poland (Independence of the Supreme Court case)

Laurent Pech, Professor of European Law, Middlesex University London

Sébastien Platon, Professor of Public Law, University of Bordeaux

Imagine a faraway land where a government and a parliament dominated by the same party decide to retroactively lower the retirement age of the judges working for the country’s supreme court. Imagine that this change is being presented as a “reform” (allegedly) needed to hold to account judges (allegedly) “shamefully involved” in the country’s previous communist regime which however ended about thirty years ago. Imagine that all of this done with authorities claiming “there is nothing going on in [the country] that contravenes the rule of law” as “judges should always be on the side of the state”.

Surely we cannot be talking about a country belonging to the EU. Sadly, you would be wrong to think so. Indeed, the retirement measure described above was at the heart of the infringement action initiated by the European Commission against Poland last July and which resulted, earlier this week, in the European Court of Justice’s first ruling on the compatibility with EU law of one of Poland’s so-called “judicial reforms”. 

This post will explain the extent to which the Court’s ruling may be considered a landmark one, and the Court’s main findings, before assessing the ruling’s immediate and potential impact.

1. A landmark ruling

For the very first time, the Court of Justice has found a national government to have failed to fulfil its obligations under the second paragraph of Article 19(1) TEU which provides that “Member States shall provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by Union law.” This is far however from the only “EU law first” one may “credit” to the current Polish authorities:

-          Poland was indeed the first ever EU Member State to be subject to the Commission’s Rule of Law Framework in January 2016;

-          The first EU Member State to be threatened with the payment a fine of at least €100,000 per day in November 2017 by the ECJ should it continue to ignore an interim order adopted by the same Court in July 2017;

-          The first EU Member State to be subject to Article 7(1) TEU proceedings in December 2017;

-          The first EU Member State to have seen its “judicial reforms” provisionally suspended by the ECJ via two interim orders adopted in October and December 2018.

It has now become the first EU Member State to have been found by the ECJ to have failed to fulfil its Treaty obligations by violating both the principles of the irremovability of judges and judicial independence.

As will be shown below, the Court has forcefully and compellingly rejected each one of claims made by the Polish government, including the most recurrent one whereby the Court of Justice would lack jurisdiction to review the multiple, never-ending changes made to the organisation of the Polish judiciary.

2. The Court’s findings

2.1 Organisation of the Polish national justice system as an allegedly exclusive competence immune to EU review

According to the Polish government, supported by the Hungarian government, the organisation of the national justice system constitutes a competence reserved exclusively to the Member States, which would imply that that EU institutions, including the Court of Justice, cannot examine Poland’s “judicial reforms” in light of EU law requirements.

The Court easily explains why this argument cannot survive any serious scrutiny and does so by initially and unusually reminding the Polish government that “as is apparent from Article 49 TEU, which provides the possibility for any European State to apply to become a member” of the EU, Poland “freely and voluntarily committed” itself to respecting and promoting “the common values referred to in Article 2 TEU”, including the rule of law (§ 42). Furthermore, while the Court agrees that “the organisation of justice in the Member States falls within the competence of those Member States”, this obviously cannot be construed as a carte blanche to violate its EU law obligations, not to mention the fact that requiring Poland to comply with its EU law obligations is not akin in any way to exercising “that competence itself” (§ 52). This is merely a reminder of the longstanding difference between the applicability of EU law and the competence of the EU, which explains why EU law can apply in situations where the EU has no competence to legislate.

With respect to the Polish government’s argument that the EU principle of judicial independence can be applicable only in situations governed under EU law, the Court merely reiterates what it previously held in the Portuguese judges ruling. National authorities must respect the principle of judicial independence even in situations where national “judicial reforms” do not implement EU law. Article 19(1) TEU indeed covers any national court which may rule “on questions concerning the application or interpretation of EU law”, in which case any national measure affecting the independence of the said court falls within the fields covered by EU law.

In the present case, it was obvious that Article 19(1) TEU was applicable as it was common ground that Poland’s Supreme Court “may be called upon to rule on questions concerning the application or interpretation of EU law and that, as a ‘court or tribunal’, within the meaning of EU law, it comes within the Polish judicial system in the ‘fields covered by Union law’ … so that that court must meet the requirements of effective judicial protection” (§ 52). It follows that Polish authorities cannot adopt measures which undermine its independence without activating the application of EU law.

2.2 The lowering of retirement age as allegedly required to bring the Supreme Court’s retirement regime in line with the general retirement regime

According the Polish government, it follows from the Court’s own case law, that “that the Member States retain the option to adapt the employment conditions applicable to judges and, thus, their retirement age, in particular in order, as in the present case, to bring that retirement age into line with that provided for in the general retirement scheme, while improving the age structure of officers of the court concerned” (§ 67).

Anyone familiar with the situation in Poland would have immediately found this defence rather surprising. Indeed, the ruling party “has long rallied against what it calls a self-serving “caste” of judges who distort justice for ordinary citizens”. Furthermore, the Polish government’s own “White Paper” of March 2018 indicates that “the reform of judicial retirement age is justified with historical experiences of communism, the failure to account for the past for many years, and pathological [sic] mechanisms of the functioning of courts that have been perpetuated for years” (para 99).

Not unsurprisingly, the ECJ easily came to the conclusion that the forced early retirement of Supreme Court judges is not compatible with the principle of irremovabilily, which is a guarantee of independence. While phrasing this delicately, the Court all but explicitly states that the Polish government has deliberately sought to mislead it when it refers to the information contained in the “explanatory memorandum to the draft New Law on the Supreme Court” and on the basis of which one may have “serious doubts as to whether the reform of the retirement age” was not in fact made “with the aim of side-lining a certain group of judges of that court” (§ 82).

The Court could have stopped there but if only to make it clearer to any future government which might be tempted to follow a similar path, the Court proceeds to perform a proportionality test. In a few words, the Court sees no reason why, for the sake of standardising retirement age, the judges of the Supreme Court should be forced into retirement when all other workers have a right to retire (or not) before holding that the lowering of retirement age with immediate effect, without any transitional measure, is in any event disproportionate.

2.3 Discretionary prerogative granted to the Polish President as (allegedly) required to protect the judiciary

While possibly difficult to believe, the Polish government claimed that “the authorisation conferred on the President of the Republic to decide as to whether to allow” Supreme Court judges “to continue to carry out their duties once they have reached retirement age” constitutes a “prerogative, the specific purpose of which is to protect the judiciary both from interference by the legislative authority and from that by the executive authority” (§ 103).

In other words, it is suggested that the Polish President, itself part of the executive, is the best placed to protect the judiciary from interference by both the executive and legislative branches by deciding alone and in the absence of any substantive conditions, procedural rules and access to judicial review, when to authorise a Supreme Court judge not to be forcibly retired. This is by the way the same office holder who has deliberately ignored court orders, repeatedly attacked Polish judges while also questioning the independence of the Polish ECJ judge and the authority of the ECJ. Even Kafka could not have imagined something more Kafkaesque.

For the Court, the inescapable conclusion is that “by granting the President of the Republic the discretion to extend the period of judicial activity of judges of that court beyond the newly fixed retirement age”, Poland has violated Article 19(1) TEU (§ 124). While explaining why this is so, the Court makes noteworthy observations in relation to the new “National Council of the Judiciary” (NCJ), arguably established in breach of the Polish Constitution and since suspended from the European Networks of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) due to its lack of independence. In a nutshell, the Court explains that the prior involvement of the NCJ cannot “save” the presidential extension regime organised by the Law on the Supreme Court as the NCJ has proved unable to deliver properly reasoned opinions based on objective and relevant criteria to the President for the purposes of authorising Supreme Court judges to continue to carry out their duties.

3. Immediate and potential impact

In a strong editorial, the Financial Times described the Court’s ruling as a landmark one which “will help buttress the rule of law in the EU against authoritarian leaders who have been chipping away at democratic checks and balances with impunity”.

We agree with this assessment.

While the ruling addresses only one of the multiple serious rule of law problems identified by the European Commission in its Article 7 proposal, it does not merely fully confirm the accuracy of the Commission’s diagnosis in the present infringement action but also indirectly its general diagnosis regarding the growing systemic threat to the rule of law in Poland. This legal win is also bound to considerably strengthen the weight of the Commission’s arguments within the framework of ongoing Article 7 proceedings.

The Court’s ruling also establishes a solid de facto precedent with respect to any future attempt in Poland or elsewhere to take control of a court via a retroactive lowering of the retirement age of judges under false pretences. The ruling will similarly add to the growing body of evidence which shows repeated violations by the Polish government of the principle of loyal cooperation in its dealings with the Commission, the Council and now the ECJ.

The Court does not explicitly tackle the question of the NCJ, which was established in 2018 in open violation of what the Commission recommended. The ruling however makes it apparent that the consultation of the NCJ cannot be viewed as an effective safeguard to protect judicial independence. The Court will get a chance to make this crystal clear in Joined Cases C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18. One may expect the Court to follow AG Tanchev and find the new NCJ as lacking the required independence from the legislative and executive authorities. The ramifications of such a finding would be extremely significant as it would essentially mean that every single decision made by the ENCJ-suspended NCJ would be have been made by a compromised body acting in breach of its mandate to safeguard the independence of courts and judges. The potential impact could be extremely significant especially as regards the Polish courts which include the “judges” nominated by the tainted NCJ and appointed by the Polish President.

With respect to the new disciplinary system, the Court could not have more clearly indicated that it shares the Commission’s concerns when it stated that its case-law requires that the rules governing the disciplinary regime “must provide the necessary guarantees in order to prevent any risk of that disciplinary regime being used as a system of political control of the content of judicial decisions” (§ 77). This is virtually the same phrasing used by the Commission when it announced the launch of its latest infringement action regarding Poland’s “reforms” on 3 April 2019. We understand this as an implicit encouragement for the Commission to promptly continue with its action. This means inter alia that it is only a matter of time before the so-called “Disciplinary Chamber” is found to violate the requirements of judicial independence required by EU Law. Again, the ramifications of such a finding would be extremely significant as all of the Disciplinary Chamber’s decisions to date would then have been made by a body masquerading as a court.

Notwithstanding the above, the direct practical consequences of the Court’s ruling will remain modest. Indeed, a significant number of Supreme Court judges had previously refused to subject themselves to the plainly unlawful retirement regime both as a matter of Polish constitutional law and EU law, with all relevant Supreme Court judges requested to return to work following the first interim order by the Chief Justice (the President of the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) did the same in relation to the SAC judges who were forcibly retired as well). Furthermore, Polish authorities essentially conceded defeat after the final interim order adopted by the ECJ last December (while doing so it however sought to discreetly neutralise some pending preliminary ruling requests in order to prevent the ECJ from examining the NCJ and the Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Chamber in light of the EU requirements of judicial independence).

Most importantly, this ruling does not directly engage with one of the decisive issues raised by the Commission: the decision of the Polish President to increase the number of posts within the Supreme Court, which will eventually enable the ruling party to capture it. However, considering the arguably unlawful nature of the procedure having been used by the Polish President to appoint individuals to the Supreme Court, this issue should eventually reach the ECJ as it was the subject of the most recent preliminary ruling request adopted by a not yet captured chamber of Poland’s Supreme Court on 12 June 2019.

While not addressed by the Court’s ruling, it is to be hoped that within the framework of the infringement action regarding the Polish law on ordinary courts, the ECJ will tackle the forced retirement/dismissal of 61 ordinary court judges. In the absence of any pending actions raising this issue, the ECJ is unlikely to be able to address the dismissal of over 70 court presidents (and 70 vice‑presidents) which took place in 2017-18 on the back of a six-month transitional regime “which gave the Minister of Justice the power to arbitrarily dismiss them without any specific criteria, without justification and without judicial review”. Similarly, to the best of our knowledge, there is no legal action which would enable the ECJ to look into the “the very high number of dismissals and demotions among the Polish prosecutors”.

Lastly, one fundamental issue which is yet to reach the ECJ is the lack of effective constitutional review in Poland ever since the Constitutional Tribunal was unlawfully captured in December 2016, and whose independence and credibility, as recently noted by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, “have been seriously compromised by the persisting controversy surrounding the election and the status of its new President and several of its new judges”. This is a key issue which is however bound to arise sooner or later especially if, on the back of successful electoral results, the current ruling party is unable to resit the temptation to further instrumentalise the captured “Constitutional Tribunal”, for instance to justify non-compliance refuse to comply with ECJ rulings on specious constitutional grounds. 

4. Key lesson

The key lesson we draw from this ruling is that any “dialogue” with authorities engaged in rule of law backsliding should be systematically accompanied with the launch of as many infringement actions as possible and as soon as possible.

In the present case, one may not forget how seemingly difficult some within the Commission found it to accept the need for prompt legal action in the first place. To justify legal inaction, we often heard the argument that Article 7 TEU should be considered a lex specialis and therefore exclude the launch of Article 258 infringement actions on issues already highlighted as problematic under any ongoing Article 7 procedure. As observed by AG Tanchev, Article 7 TEU And Article 258 TFEU must however be considered as separate yet complementary procedures which can be invoked in parallel.

To maximise the effectiveness of infringement actions and “prevent the completion of constitutional capture before any eventual ECJ ruling”, accelerated infringement actions ought to be the default position when a Member State openly violates the rule of law. The Commission ought to also systematically request the ECJ to decide these actions under an expedited procedure while also simultaneously request relevant interim measures so as to prevent authorities from changing the facts on the ground before the ECJ is able to issue final rulings.

What the Commission has done and achieved in the present case should be commended. It should also be “considered the new template to follow” whenever judicial independence of national courts is under threat due to autocratically-minded authorities.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 9, chapter 10

Photo credit: France 24