What happens if a UK government removes benefits from EU citizens in breach of the withdrawal agreement?

 

 

Professor Steve Peers, Law School, Royal Holloway University of London

 

Photo credit: Martin Robson, via Wikimedia Commons

 

Recently the Reform Party proposed that in government it would withdraw benefits from all non-UK citizens, including from those EU citizens who had moved to the UK before the end of 2020. It acknowledged that this would breach the Brexit withdrawal agreement (for an annotated text of the rules on EU and UK citizens’ rights under the agreement, see here, particularly Article 15).

 

Legally the EU response if the UK breached the withdrawal agreement on this issue (I’m assuming the Reform government would amend UK legislation as needed, to ensure that the breach was valid as domestic law) would be to challenge it in the arbitration process which the withdrawal agreement set up. (For an annotated text of the dispute settlement rules, see here). A dispute can be settled politically; if not settled, it goes to arbitration. An arbitration decision is binding, so if a party is found in breach of the withdrawal agreement, it is legally obliged to comply with the ruling.

 

But what if it does not comply with the ruling? The key provision is Article 178, which provides first of all that fines can be imposed upon the party that remains in breach of the treaty despite an arbitration ruling. Article 178 goes on to refer to possible additional retaliation for a continuing breach, but (in paragraph 2(a)) it says that such retaliation cannot concern Part Two of the withdrawal agreement, ie the citizens’ rights provisions. Therefore, the EU cannot respond to the UK breach of EU citizens’ rights by taking UK citizens’ reciprocal rights away. Instead, Article 178 refers to possible retaliation under other agreements (paragraph 2(b)), which brings us to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA).

 

The TCA has a separate set of dispute settlement rules, which I have annotated here. The key provision on links with the withdrawal agreement is Article 749(4) of the TCA. It states that a continuing breach of the withdrawal agreement can also result in suspension of parts of the TCA, ie tariffs on goods or suspension of other provisions of the agreement (subject again to some limits on the subject-matter of retaliation, ie the retaliation cannot affect social security).

 

The retaliation must be proportionate though, and if the party in breach argues that the amount of that suspension is disproportionate, the arbitration panel can be recalled to rule on the point (Article 178(3) of the withdrawal agreement).

 

One possible form of retaliation which would arguably be proportionate would be to reimpose tariffs equal to the amount of benefits EU citizens would be losing as a result of the breach, to which they would otherwise be entitled under the withdrawal agreement. So if the breach of the agreement caused EU citizens to lose €1 billion in benefits, UK goods exports would face €1 billion in tariffs. Under the World Trade Organisation, in comparable cases, the EU has targeted high profile exports from its trading partner in breach of the rules; for the UK, that might mean higher tariffs in particular on Scottish salmon or whisky, or Jaguar cars. To be clear, this is speculation – the EU might prefer another type of retaliation which is allowed under the agreements. And the EU would be charging its usual tariff rate for countries which it does not have a free trade deal with, which would only mean a big increase for some products.

 

It’s possible it wouldn’t get to this stage: the EU might decide to negotiate changes to the withdrawal agreement; indeed the Reform Party document states that it will ‘renegotiate’ the treaty. But a treaty can only be renegotiated if all parties agree; and it seems very unlikely politically that the EU would agree, given the priority which it placed on the issue before. (On the EU side, an amendment would need to be agreed by a qualified majority of Member States, having been proposed by the Commission, after consent of the European Parliament).

 

As for additional possible sanctions, the EU might, for instance, suspend talks on other issues with the UK. It could even suspend or terminate the entire TCA, although arguably the rule on proportionality of retaliation applies here. In practice, during prior disputes with the UK, the EU has preferred the negotiation and dispute settlement route rather than escalation: both the EU and the UK have previously triggered disputes under the withdrawal agreement and the later Trade and Cooperation Agreement, although only one dispute has got as far as an arbitration decision.

 

For instance, when the EU disputed the UK’s application of (what was then) the Northern Ireland protocol to the withdrawal agreement, it suspended talks on the UK’s participation in EU research programmes and began dispute settlement proceedings, but it put the latter on hold pending negotiations, which eventually resulted in a revised version of the protocol known as the Windsor Framework – after Liz Truss lost her nail-biting contest with a lettuce.

 

As for terminating the whole withdrawal agreement, as discussed further here, there is no termination clause (apart from the trade aspects of the Windsor Framework, subject to certain conditions), and in any event the EU would have no interest in terminating the basis for the Windsor Framework and the protection of its citizens’ rights. Nor does a breach of a treaty automatically terminate it, under international law – which has a whole Latin phrase (pacta sunt servanda) for the importance of upholding treaties. (Though to be fair, international law has a Latin phrase for nearly everything)

 

Anyway, as has been pointed out, EU citizens might choose to apply for UK citizenship before any new UK rules took effect.

 

All of this points to a policy that, on this point at least, seems as ill-thought-through as Mr Farage’s decision not to declare the significant gifts he received shortly before becoming an MP, including those from a convicted money-launderer.

The CJEU Gets Brexit Done: New Judgment on Extradition from Ireland to the UK after Brexit

 

 

Professor Steve Peers, University of Essex

 

The CJEU this week delivered its first judgment on the impact of Brexit (as far as the EU side is concerned) since the UK has left the EU – swiftly following last week’s Advocate General’s opinion (which I discussed here; I’ve adapted some of that blog post in this one) in response to fast tracked questions referred from the Irish Supreme Court (on appeal from the Irish High Court’s judgment).

 

Background

The Court’s judgment concerns extradition from Ireland to the UK under both the withdrawal agreement and the EU/UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). The former treaty provides that the internal EU legal framework for simplified extradition – the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) law – still applied between the UK and EU during the transition period set out in that agreement, which lasted from 1 February 2020 to the end of that year. (As an exception, three Member States refused to hand over their own citizens, but Ireland was not one of them). 

After that point, the separation provisions of the withdrawal agreement applied: the EAW law still applies if a fugitive was arrested on the basis of that law before the end of the transition period. If the EAW was issued before that date, but the fugitive was not arrested in time on the basis of the EAW law, the subsequent TCA provides that its extradition rules – which are similar, but not identical, to the EAW law – apply. (The TCA rules also apply to extradition requests first sent after the transition period ended, and the judgment in this case is also relevant by analogy to those requests too).  

The case is about two fugitives arrested in Ireland on the basis of British EAWs, who challenged their extradition to the UK. Both EAWs were issued during the transition period, but one EAW led to an arrest before the end of that period, hence the separation provisions kicked in, and the EAW law applies fully to the case. In the other case, the arrest took place after the end of this period, and so the TCA rules apply. The fugitive in the former case was already convicted and sentenced to eight years in prison, whereas the fugitive in the latter case was subject to a pending prosecution for fourteen alleged criminal offences.

Both two fugitives argued that they could not be subject to these rules in the two treaties, because even though Ireland agreed to both treaties in the EU Council, that country did not exercise a formal opt in as set out in the Justice and Home Affairs protocol relating to Ireland (and previously also applying to the UK) attached to the EU Treaties. If they had been successful, their challenge would have complicated not only extradition but other forms of criminal law cooperation between Ireland and the UK set out in the withdrawal agreement and TCA, in both directions (ie Irish requests to the UK too). It could also have impacted on criminal law cooperation between the UK and Denmark, which has a similar (but not identical) opt in protocol. (Criminal law cooperation would not entirely have ended, however, because there are other international treaties that would have applied as a default, although they do not simplify cooperation as much as the treaties with the EU do).

Judgment of the Court

The judgment first examines the scope of Article 50 TEU, noting that it has the twin objectives of ‘first, enshrining the sovereign right of a Member State to withdraw from the European Union and, secondly, establishing a procedure to enable such a withdrawal to take place in an orderly fashion’ (referring to the Wightman judgment, discussed here). The Court continued:

50      It is in order to be able to attain that objective effectively that Article 50(2) TEU confers on the European Union alone competence to negotiate and conclude an agreement laying down the detailed rules for withdrawal, since that agreement is intended to regulate, in all the areas covered by the Treaties, all questions relating to the separation between the European Union and the State withdrawing from it.

51      It was therefore pursuant to that competence that the European Union was able to negotiate and conclude the Withdrawal Agreement, which provides, inter alia, in relations with the United Kingdom, for the continued application of a significant part of the EU acquis, in order to reduce uncertainty and, to the extent possible, minimise disruption caused by the fact that, on the date of withdrawal, the Treaties cease to apply to the departing State, as is apparent from point 4 of the guidelines adopted by the European Council at its special meeting of 29 April 2017 following the United Kingdom’s notification under Article 50 TEU.

The Court also noted that there may be a contradiction between the procedure for the EU Council to conclude an international treaty in other circumstances – which may entail a unanimous vote – and a withdrawal agreement, where Article 50 TEU provides for a qualified majority vote. In the Court’s view, it followed that:

54      Since the withdrawal agreement is intended to cover all of the fields and issues referred to in paragraph 50 above, and since it is not possible to add to Article 50(2) TEU legal bases laying down procedures which are incompatible with the procedure laid down in paragraphs 2 and 4 of that article (see, to that effect, judgment of 2 September 2021, Commission v Council (Agreement with Armenia), C‑180/20, EU:C:2021:658, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited), it must be concluded that only Article 50 TEU, as an autonomous legal basis independent of any other legal basis set out in the treaties, can ensure that all of the fields falling within the scope of those treaties are treated consistently in the Withdrawal Agreement, thus enabling the withdrawal to take place in an orderly manner.

Furthermore, there would be ‘uncertainty’ because Ireland, having agreed to participate in the EAW system with the UK, ‘would be treated as if it had never participated in it’. This outcome ‘would be difficult to reconcile with the objective of reducing uncertainty and limiting disruption so as to enable an orderly withdrawal’.

As for the TCA, which was concluded on the basis of Article 217 TFEU (the power for the EU to conclude association agreements), the Court recalled its case law that Article 217 ‘empowers the European Union to guarantee commitments towards third countries in all the fields covered by the TFEU’. It followed that:

58      Agreements concluded on the basis of that provision may therefore contain rules concerning all the fields falling within the competence of the European Union. Given that, under Article 4(2)(j) TFEU, the European Union has shared competence as regards Title V of Part Three of the TFEU [ie EU competence as regards justice and home affairs], measures falling within that area of competence may be included in an association agreement based on Article 217 TFEU, such as the TCA.

Did the inclusion of extradition issues within the TCA require an additional legal basis relating to criminal law cooperation, besides that of an association agreement? While the case law states that the competence over association agreements can be used ‘only on condition that that measure relates to a specific area of EU competence and is also founded on the legal basis corresponding to that area’, that case law ‘concerned not the conclusion of an association agreement but the adoption of a decision on the position to be taken, on behalf of the European Union, within a body set up by such an agreement’; in such circumstances, where a decision could be adopted ‘by qualified majority without the participation of the European Parliament… the addition of a specific legal basis was necessary in order to ensure that any more stringent procedural requirements specific to the area concerned would not be circumvented’. This is distinct from an association agreement as such:

62      By contrast, since the conclusion of an agreement such as the TCA does not relate to a single specific area of action but, on the contrary, a wide range of areas of EU competence with a view to achieving an Association between the European Union and a third State, and the conclusion of such an agreement requires, in any event – in accordance with point (a)(i) of the second subparagraph of Article 218(6) TFEU and the first sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 218(8) TFEU – a unanimous vote and the consent of the European Parliament, there is no risk, as regards the conclusion of such an agreement, of more stringent procedural requirements being circumvented.

Nor did the prior case law on using multiple legal bases where a measure pursues multiple objectives apply, in the Court’s view. The Court recalled its case law taking a broad view of the scope of the EU’s development policy powers, and extended that approach to cover association agreements:

65      Those considerations also apply mutatis mutandis to association agreements whose objectives are designed in a broad manner, in the sense that the measures required in order to pursue those objectives concern a wide range of areas of EU competence.

66      That is precisely the case with regard to the TCA, since, as the Council submitted in its observations, in order to ensure an appropriate balance of rights and obligations between the parties to the agreement and to secure the unity of the 27 Member States, that agreement had to have a sufficiently wide scope.

67      Accordingly, in view of the wide scope of the TCA, the context of its adoption and the unequivocal declarations made by all the institutions and Member States involved throughout the negotiations on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, the inclusion in that agreement, alongside rules and measures falling within many other areas of EU law, of provisions falling within Title V of Part Three of the TFEU forms part of the general objective of that agreement, which is to establish the basis for a broad relationship between the Parties, within an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation, respectful of the Parties’ autonomy and sovereignty.

68      The surrender mechanism established by the TCA contributes to the pursuit of that objective, the Parties having indicated, in recital 23 thereof, that their cooperation relating to, inter alia, the investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences and the execution of criminal penalties would enable the security of the United Kingdom and the European Union to be strengthened. It follows that the TCA cannot be regarded as pursuing a number of objectives or as having several components, within the meaning of the case-law referred to in paragraph 63 above.

 

Comments

First of all, the Court’s approach to the scope of Article 50 is a logical application of its prior ruling that the purpose of Article 50 is partly to provide for an ‘orderly withdrawal’, as the Treaties cease to apply to the withdrawing State (note that the cessation of the Treaties to that country is not just an assertion in European Council guidelines, as the Court seems to imply, but is set out in Article 50 itself). This logically entails that the withdrawal agreement has a broad scope, covering ‘all the areas covered by the Treaties’ – because the withdrawal may raise issues as regards ending membership in any of those areas. The judgment implicitly confirms competence to conclude the transition period (‘the continued application of a significant part of the EU acquis’), also referring to ‘all questions relating to the separation’, in the context of ‘reduc[ing] uncertainty and, to the extent possible, minimis[ing] disruption’ (emphasis added). 

Although there is no reference to the potentially permanent system set up by the Northern Ireland protocol – which goes beyond purely transitional or ‘winding up’ rules – the Court’s judgment does point toward that direction, notably the reference to applying some EU law and to ‘all questions’ concerning withdrawal.

Secondly, as for association agreements such as the TCA, the judgment builds upon prior case law, and reflects the requirement for unanimity of Member States in the Council to conclude them – which is an even stronger guarantee for Member States than as regards development policy treaties (which can be concluded by a qualified majority in the Council). It appears, however, that the specific provisions in an association agreement should be linked to the objective of that particular agreement – although note that the Court’s description of the broad general objective of the TCA is not a frolic by the judges, but comes from the purpose of the treaty as agreed by the parties (see Article 1 of the TCA), which was quoted earlier in the judgment.

Finally, it is notable that while the Court confirms that the withdrawal agreement had to be concluded by the EU without participation of the Member States (para 50: ‘Article 50(2) TEU confers on the European Union alone competence to…’ – emphasis added), the Court does not comment on the fact that – unusually for association agreements – the TCA was also concluded by the EU without the Member States also becoming parties alongside it. However, the overall tenor of the judgment seems favourable to the EU only being a party to this agreement too (see the Council legal service opinion on this point). Given the Court’s explicit reference to the shared competence of the EU over justice and home affairs, it might reasonably be inferred from this judgment that, as the Council legal service argued, the EU alone may conclude association agreements when they include provisions on shared competence – or the Council may instead to conclude them alongside the Member States in such cases. 

Of course, the EU and the UK continue to argue about the interpretation, application and revision of the Northern Ireland protocol to the withdrawal agreement. Nevertheless, the Court’s firm conclusion that the EU had extensive powers to conclude the two key treaties relating to Brexit should address most or all complications that some had argued limited the powers of the EU to conclude those treaties. In that sense, at least as far as the EU is concerned, the Court of Justice has Got Brexit Done.

 

 

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

JHA4: chapter II:2, chapter II:3

Photo credit: Jimmy Harris, via Wikimedia commons

Extradition from Ireland to the UK after Brexit: the scope of EU powers

 

Professor Steve Peers, University of Essex

What are the legal implications of Brexit? This is a huge issue, with many different elements, but for the first time, the CJEU will soon be ruling on it – at least as far as the EU side is concerned – subsequent to the UK leaving the EU.

A recent CJEU Advocate General’s opinion suggests answers to fast tracked questions referred from the Irish Supreme Court (on appeal from the Irish High Court’s judgment), concerning extradition from Ireland to the UK under both the withdrawal agreement and the EU/UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). The former treaty provides that the internal EU legal framework for simplified extradition – the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) law – still applied between the UK and EU during the transition period set out in that agreement, which lasted from 1 February 2020 to the end of that year. (As an exception, three Member States refused to hand over their own citizens, but Ireland was not one of them).

After that point, the separation provisions of that treaty applied: the EAW law still applies if a person was arrested on the basis of that law before the end of the transition period. If the EAW was issued before that date, but the fugitive was not arrested in time on the basis of the EAW law, the subsequent TCA provides that its extradition rules – which are similar, but not identical, to the EAW law – apply. (The TCA rules also apply to extradition requests first sent after the transition period ended, and the judgment in this case would also be relevant by analogy to those requests too).

The new case concerns two fugitives arrested in Ireland on the basis of British EAWs, who are challenging their extradition to the UK. Both EAWs were issued during the transition period, but one of them led to an arrest before the end of that period, hence the separation provisions kicked in, and the EAW law applies to the case. In the other case, the arrest took place after the end of this period, and so the TCA rules apply. The fugitive in the former case has already been convicted and sentenced to eight years in prison, whereas the fugitive in the latter case is subject to a pending prosecution for fourteen alleged criminal offences.

What's the legal issue? The two fugitives argue that they cannot be subject to these rules because even though Ireland agreed to both treaties in the EU Council, that country did not exercise a formal opt in as set out in the Justice and Home Affairs protocol relating to Ireland (and previously also applying to the UK) attached to the EU Treaties. If successful, their challenge could complicate not only extradition but other forms of criminal law cooperation between Ireland and the UK set out in the withdrawal agreement and TCA, in both directions (ie Irish requests to the UK too). It could also impact on criminal law cooperation between the UK and Denmark, which has a similar (but not identical) opt in protocol. (Criminal law cooperation would not entirely end, however, because there are other international treaties that would apply as a default, although they do not simplify cooperation as much as the treaties with the EU do).

The Advocate General’s opinion argues against the fugitives’ attempts to limit the scope of the treaties. First of all, she notes that prior CJEU case law on the competence to adopt EU laws (which extends equally to the competence to conclude international treaties) looks at the ‘predominant purpose’ of the act being adopted to determine what the competence to adopt it should be.

Applying that test to this case, in her view both the power to conclude the withdrawal agreement (Article 50 TEU) and the power to conclude association agreements (Article 217 TFEU, the legal basis to conclude the TCA on the EU side) are broad.

First, the Article 50 competence necessarily includes a wide scope of power to wrap up the legal relationship with the departing Member State, in particular as regards the separation provisions at issue in this case – although she also refers to broad powers over a transition period, during which these EAWs were issued (para 46):

To that end, as the Commission in particular explains, Article 50(2) TEU provides for the competence to conclude a single, comprehensive agreement, based on a single specific procedure, which encompasses all areas covered by the Treaties that are relevant to the withdrawal. Such an agreement covers the bringing to a conclusion of procedures conducted on the basis of EU law, which are ongoing at the time of withdrawal, as regards the withdrawing State. That requires detailed rules and arrangements in a vast number of different areas falling within the EU acquis. In order to ensure an orderly withdrawal in the interests of the European Union, its Member States and indeed the withdrawing State, those rules and arrangements may include transition periods during which, for limited periods after the withdrawal takes effect, EU law continues to apply to the withdrawing State.

While the rules in the withdrawal agreement ‘cover many different policies, including, in particular, the surrender regime in criminal cases’, and ‘[o]rdinarily, to conduct those policies the European Union would act under specific powers and would be required to respect restrictions on those powers, such as Protocol No 21’ (paras 49-50, footnote omitted):

However, in the light of the aim of the Withdrawal Agreement all of those specific policies are necessarily ancillary to the predominant overarching objective of providing a comprehensive regime for the transition from membership of the European Union to third-country status. This is an extremely broad objective in the sense that it must be possible for the measures required for its pursuit to concern a very wide variety of specific matters. Indeed, the agreement must be able to deal with the full range of matters covered by EU law.

This would have caused particular complications where the withdrawal agreement provided for powers exercised by unanimous voting, given that Article 50 foresees instead qualified majority voting in the Council to conclude such an agreement. In her view, this could not ‘be resolved by excluding from a withdrawal agreement matters requiring incompatible procedures because Article 50(2) TEU does not provide for any exceptions to the arrangements for a withdrawal’. More broadly, she justifies this interpretation by referring to ‘the exceptional situation of a withdrawal’: the UK example ‘has demonstrated’ that ‘such broad arrangements have to be made under intense political pressure and within a very short time frame’, and ‘[r]equiring unanimity in the Council or excluding certain matters from the general procedure would add complexity to that process and increase the risk that no agreement is reached’.

So the inclusion of specific rules on a subject cannot alter the characterisation of the agreement as a whole. Here the Advocate-General refers back by analogy to case law on development policy treaties (see discussion here), which has taken a similarly broad approach to the EU’s development policy powers, which can cover a wide range of issues that might be relevant to the development of non-EU countries. That case law has carved out an exception if the development policy treaties set out a specific obligation in a specific field which is distinct from development policy cooperation; but the opinion argues that even if that exception also applies to the Article 50 competence, these provisions of the withdrawal agreement do not go beyond the objective of securing an orderly withdrawal process. The attempted comparison with another Advocate-General’s opinion on the Istanbul Convention on violence against women (on which, see the discussion here) is wide of the mark, as the withdrawal agreement is obviously quite different from that treaty.

As for association agreements, relying on prior case law (for instance, Demirel), she argues that the power to conclude association agreements is also broad, encompassing special links between a non-EU country and the EU. Although the CJEU has pointed to specific legal competences applying within the framework of an association agreement, the Advocate-General correctly points out that this applies to measures implementing association agreements (referring to the judgment on social security and the association agreement with Turkey). As with Article 50 and development policy, she suggests that the power to conclude association agreements is a broad power encompassing many policy areas; and even if there is an exception relating to further concrete obligations in a specific field, it would again be irrelevant here because the TCA essentially continues the EAW system that previously applied between Ireland and the UK.

Comments

In principle it is too late now to prevent the conclusion of the withdrawal agreement or the TCA – unless time travel is possible. Perhaps people living in 2019 should be (should have been?) braced for an influx of (ex)Tory MPs hoping to prevent their past selves from voting for the same withdrawal agreement that now disgusts them: Owen Paterson driving up in a Randox-branded De Lorean, or a nudus Jacob Rees-Mogg telling a startled plebeian “I need your clothes, your boots and your penny farthing bicycle”.

But in a legal sense it is possible for a court to rule that the conclusion of a treaty (or the adoption of another legal act) was invalid from the outset, or at least (as in this case) that aspects of it have never applied – although it should be noted that the CJEU has in some cases limited the past effect of its judgments in such cases (cf Test-Achats). So even if the fugitives in this case were successful, the Court might take the view that the extradition provisions of the treaties still apply to Ireland on a provisional basis until the formalities of the opt in process are completed – which would seem likely in light of Ireland’s prior agreement to these agreements.

Is the analysis of the Advocate-General rejecting such arguments here convincing? On association agreements, the case law has indeed taken a broad view of their scope, with the guarantee for Member States in such cases consisting of the requirement for unanimity of Member States in the Council to conclude them. As for Article 50, the Wightman judgment of the CJEU has already interpreted that Article to provide for the ‘orderly withdrawal’ of a Member State – and the Advocate-General’s interpretation best reflects that interpretation.

While it does not necessarily follow from her analysis that the potentially permanent system set up by the Northern Ireland protocol is covered by the scope of Article 50 – as it goes beyond purely transitional or ‘winding up’ rules – her opinion points in that direction, referring to an ‘extremely broad’ power to address ‘the full range of matters covered by EU law’ via a ‘comprehensive regime’. If all that is needed is that a provision of the withdrawal agreement have a link with orderly withdrawal from the European Union, it is more easily arguable that the protocol satisfies that test.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

JHA4: chapter II:2, chapter II:3

Photo credit: diego_cue, via Wikimedia commons