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

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

Professor Steve Peers

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

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

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

The Court’s judgment

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

Legal base

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

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

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

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

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

Procedural issues

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

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

Substantive issues

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

JHA4: chapter I:5

Photo credit: Business Insider

The draft EU/Turkey deal on migration and refugees: is it legal?

Steve Peers

In the last week, there has been considerable legal controversy over the planned EU/Turkey agreement on refugee issues. I commented (together with Emanuela Roman) in general on the relevant points last month, but now we have a leaked draft text of a final deal. (See also today's Commission communication on the deal, which adds a lot of important detail). This is a good moment to comment specifically on this draft, just before the summit meeting due to finalise it. 

I have underlined the full leaked text below, and added annotated comments on each part of it. I will update this blog post if necessary in light of the final deal (if there is one).

The agreement will be formulated as an EU-Turkey statement. It will take as its basis the principles set out in the statement of 7/3/2016 while adding the following elements:

a) Since the agreement will take the form of a ‘statement’, in my view it will not as such be legally binding. Therefore there will be no procedure to approve it at either EU or national level, besides its endorsement by the summit meeting. Nor can it be legally challenged as such. However, the individual elements of it – new new Greek, Turkish and EU laws (or their implementation), and the further implementation of the EU/Turkey readmission agreement – will have to be approved at the relevant level, or implemented in individual cases if they are already in force. I will come back to the implications of this below.

b) The March 7 EU/Turkey statement is still applicable. As a reminder, it provided that: ‘all new irregular migrants’ reaching the Greek islands from Turkey would be returned to Turkey, with the EU covering the costs; there would be a ‘one-for-one’ resettlement of Syrians from Turkey by the EU, for every Syrian readmitted by Turkey; the aim was to lift short-term visa requirements for Turkey by June 2016; the existing €3 billion in EU and Member State funds committed for Syrian refugees in Turkey would be spent more quickly, with a decision on ‘additional funding’; the EU and Turkey would ‘prepare for the decision’ on opening new chapters in the accession process; and the EU and Turkey would work toward a de facto ‘safe zone’ in part of Syria. The statement also included some commitments on restoring Schengen, but they aren’t affected by the draft full deal.

As regards accession to the EU, note that: there are 35 ‘chapters’ to be negotiated; only one chapter has been closed to date in a decade of accession talks; a commitment to prepare for opening a chapter does not close a chapter, or even mean that a chapter will be opened (any Member State can still block this); it takes years to negotiate chapters; and there are many political obstacles to approving Turkish accession, which requires national government and parliament approval in every Member State (and possibly referendums in some).   

1.       On returns to Turkey: a) This will be a temporary and extraordinary measure which is necessary to end the human suffering and restore public order, b) Migrants arriving in the Greek islands will be duly registered and any application for asylum will be processed by the Greek authorities in accordance with Directive 2013/32/EU. 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, c) 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.

a) How temporary exactly? b) This 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 intention is that the Greek authorities consider any application, 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? This brings us to…

c) The commitments on treatment in Turkey are meant 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). This seems to be what the text of the draft deal is pushing towards. Of course, 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 March 7 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.    On resettlement based on 1-for-l principle: a) Priority will be given to Syrians who have not previously entered the EU irregularly, b) 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. [Any further need for resettlement will be carried out within the limits and in accordance with the distribution set out in [relocation decision of 22/9/2015 - non-allocated places]. c) Should 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.

On point a) 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. That is addressed by point b), which refers to the remainder of the 23,000 people that the EU committed to resettle from non-EU countries last year, and possibly (note the square brackets) another 18,000 who were originally going to be relocated from Hungary, but weren’t because the Hungarian government refused. These numbers clearly fall far short of the 2 million-plus Syrians estimated to be in Turkey. Point c) only undertakes to review the deal if the original modest numbers are reached. While the Hungarian government has reportedly been objecting to the idea of resettlement, note that this country didn’t commit itself to accept any resettled refugees last year, and so would not have to take any more people under this deal.  Whether other countries decide to resettle people is up to them. The Hungarian government resents interference in its own migration decisions; it does not and should not have any say in the resettlement decisions of other States.

3)   Turkey will take any necessary measures to prevent new routes for illegal migration opening up out of Turkey and into the EU.

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, 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 this would not apply until irregular crossings have stopped. This seems rather utopian - although the Commission paper talks about substantial reductions as an alternative.

5)   The EU and Turkey will further speed up the disbursement of the initially allocated 3 billion euros and ensure funding of additional projects before the end of March. Furthermore, the EU will decide on additional [X] billion for the period [Y] for the Turkey Refugee Facility.

The amount of additional money from the EU and its Member States is still open for negotiation. Note that this money is not, as is widely assumed, simply handed over to Turkey for unnamed nefarious purposes; legally speaking it is only intended for projects that assist the Syrian refugee population. Today's Commission paper lists how the money will be spent, starting with a contract to provide food aid to over 700,000 Syrians. Of course everyone should keep a beady eye on developments to ensure that the money is all spent as intended.

Conclusions

Overall this draft 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 key legal question will therefore 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, they could complain to the European Court of Human Rights.

What about the ‘deal’ itself? As I said at the outset, it is not binding so cannot be challenged as such. Its individual elements are binding and so their legality (or the implementation of them) can be challenged separately. On this point, it would be possible for the European Parliament or a Member State to challenge in the CJEU one particular legally binding element: the decision on the EU’s position on the EU/Turkey readmission treaty. That won’t directly affect the Greece/Turkey readmission deal, which is the key element in returns to Turkey in practice; but any ruling the CJEU might make would obviously be relevant to that latter deal by analogy.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

JHA4: chapter I:5

Photo credit: www.worldbulletin.net

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

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

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

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

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

1. Division of competences and institutional balance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Legislative vs. non-legislative acts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Repeated consultation by the European Parliament

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

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

5. The ‘provisional’ nature of the contested decision

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

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

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

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

6. Principle of proportionality

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

JHA4: chapter I.5

Image credit: news.yahoo.com