EU Referendum Briefing 1: Can the UK control the EU’s future if it stays a member?

Steve Peers

During the EU referendum campaign, a number of arguments have been made that staying in the EU is risky, because of possible future developments of the EU itself. While there will always be someone somewhere who says they would like to see an EU army, or some development related to the single currency, such an expression of opinion is meaningless by itself.  The fundamental issue is whether the UK could control such developments – either by vetoing them or opting out.

So what’s the worst that can happen? In this post, I’ll examine in turn the main alleged risks to staying in the EU. As we’ll see, in every single case the UK has control, either by an opt-out or a veto. In other words, none of these things can happen without the British government’s consent. Nearly all of them would also need our Parliament’s consent. And the large majority – all the fundamental possible changes to the EU that many are concerned about – would actually need the consent of the British public in another referendum. (Anyway, there's nothing to stop the UK holding another referendum on EU membership in future, if it wanted to).

All of these safeguards for UK control of further developments of the EU exist in the current law of the EU – as I will show in detail. None of them are first created by the renegotiation of EU membership agreed this February.

I’ll look at seven issues where the UK has control over future EU developments:

a) defence;

b) transfers of power;

c) new Member States, including Turkey;

d) taxation;

e) non-EU immigration, asylum and criminal law;

f) the single currency; and

g) the EU budget, including the UK rebate.

There's also an earlier blog post on the controversial issue of the planned EU/US trade deal (TTIP) and the NHS. 

a)      EU Defence and foreign policy

The UK has control over EU defence and foreign policy measures because they are in principle taken by unanimous vote, with only limited exceptions. On foreign policy in general, Article 31 TEU says:

Decisions under this Chapter shall be taken by the European Council and the Council acting unanimously, except where this Chapter provides otherwise.

The exceptions are where there has been a prior act or request of EU Presidents and Prime Ministers (who act by consensus), or where the EU is implementing a prior act already agreed by unanimity, or where the EU appoints a ‘special representative’. However, there is a kind of ‘emergency brake’ in all these cases:

If a member of the Council [ie a Member State government] declares that, for vital and stated reasons of national policy, it intends to oppose the adoption of a decision to be taken by qualified majority, a vote shall not be taken.

Also the majority voting ‘shall not apply to decisions having military or defence implications’. It’s also possible to apply majority voting to funding issues, but again there’s a military and defence exception (Article 41 TEU), and also there’s an exception for a Member State which chose to abstain on a proposal. The bottom line is that the UK is in control of whether it has to contribute to EU foreign policy funding.

So whether EU foreign policy relating to Ukraine or Russia (for instance) is a good idea or not, it has not been imposed on the UK government. Rather the government is in control, because it could have vetoed it. This means that if EU Member States can’t agree on an issue, there is no EU foreign policy on that issue, and they do as they like – as in the case of the Iraq War, for instance.

Some have raised the issue of the UK’s permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. In fact Article 34(2) TEU refers to Member  States’ seats on the Security Council, not to any EU seat. The UK has control here, because it could veto any EU decision that required it to give up its Security Council seat, as part of its veto over any foreign policy matters. It’s suggested that the European Parliament wants that to happen, but the European Parliament has no role in EU foreign policy: Article 36 TEU says that it’s only consulted.

Anyway, a change to the UK’s Security Council veto  could only happen by means of a change to the UN Charter, and the UK has control over that: a veto, according to Article 108 of the Charter:

Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council.

As for defence, can there be an EU army? Article 42(2) TEU says:

2. The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

So the UK has control over any possible ‘common defence’, by means of its veto. And there’s more: the ‘constitutional requirements’ that would apply in the UK are not only parliamentary approval, but also a referendum, according to the European Union Act 2011. In general this law sets out a ‘referendum lock’ on further transfers of power to the EU, putting the British public in control over any future transfers. I’ll refer to this law again several times, since it sets many other limits on the development of the EU in future. It also requires a referendum before any British veto over foreign policy or defence is given up. 

b) Treaty amendments and transfers of power

It’s sometimes suggested that there might be future transfers of power from Member States to the EU, as part of the developing single currency project (perhaps following the so-called ‘Five Presidents Report’ on this issue) or for some other reason. This is sometimes presented as a 'superstate', or as an inevitable outcome of the EU's 'ever closer union' clause. However, the UK has control over these developments. First of all, the UK has an opt-out from the single currency, as discussed below. Secondly, it also has a veto over future Treaty amendments.

There are several ways to amend the EU Treaties, as set out in Article 48 TEU. They have two things in common: (a) the UK government has a veto over all of them (which it used in 2011, for instance); and (b) the British Parliament would have to approve each of them, either by voting in favour or deciding not to vote against.

But there’s more. The European Union Act 2011, first mentioned above, also gives control to the British public over any significant Treaty amendment, by means of a referendum. This would apply where the UK would drop nearly any veto. It would also apply to other transfers of powers to the EU from the UK, defined in detail as including:

a)      ‘the extension of the objectives of the EU’;

b)      any ‘conferring’ or ‘extension’ of any EU competences, including over ‘the co-ordination of economic and employment policies’ (an issue in the Five Presidents’ Report); or

c)       giving any EU ‘institution or body’ any power to give orders or impose sanctions upon the UK.

  

It’s been suggested that the UK gave up a veto relating to single currency and banking issues as part of the renegotiation deal. This isn’t true, as the deal didn’t amend the Treaties and Parliament has not amended the 2011 Act.

So the control over any transfer of power from the UK to the EU is threefold: the UK government, UK Parliament and the British public.

c)       New Member States

The rules on accession of a new Member State are set out in Article 49 TEU, as follows:

Any European State which respects the values referred to in Article 2 and is committed to promoting them may apply to become a member of the Union. The European Parliament and national Parliaments shall be notified of this application. The applicant State shall address its application to the Council, which shall act unanimously after consulting the Commission and after receiving the assent of the European Parliament, which shall act by an absolute majority of its component members. The conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the Union is founded, which such admission entails, shall be the subject of an agreement between the Member States and the applicant State. This agreement shall be submitted for ratification by all the contracting States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. The conditions of eligibility agreed upon by the European Council shall be taken into account.

So the UK controls whether a new country joins the EU, by means of a veto. The ‘constitutional requirements’ are an Act of Parliament in favour.

There has been some concern about new Member States joining the EU in future, but in order to join each new State must negotiate 35 chapters of detail about EU law. In 11 years’ of negotiations, Turkey has only agreed one out of those 35 chapters. It has not even opened many of them:

Moreover, the ‘conditions of eligibility’ include human rights standards, which Turkey doesn’t now meet. Cyprus would veto Turkish membership unless there’s a deal on the future of the island. The other countries applying to join have not agreed many chapters either.

In any event, the current Member States can insist on a long waiting period before the free movement of persons fully applies to new Member States. The majority of the Member States which joined the EEC/EU after it was founded (14 out of 22) have been subject to seven-year waiting periods before full free movement of people, and longer periods could be applied in future.

The UK veto over enlargement could only be dropped by a Treaty amendment, approved by the government, parliament and public under the European Union Act 2011.

d)      Taxation

The main taxes harmonised at EU level are VAT and excise taxes. EU law sets a minimum rate for these taxes: it’s 15% for VAT, subject to exemptions. It also defines their scope. The UK has VAT exemptions on things like books, basic foodstuffs and children’s clothes.

While VAT is sometimes depicted as if it is imposed by the EU upon the UK, in fact the UK has consented to all VAT laws, since law-making in this area is subject to unanimity. The rule currently appears in Article 113 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:

The Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation.

So the UK has control in this area, since it has consented to every VAT obligation and excise tax obligation set by EU law. It’s the UK’s own decision to set the rate of tax for VAT and excise taxes (taxes on alcohol, tobacco and petroleum) above the minimum level. Many people would like to see further exemptions from VAT, such as on tampons or environmental services; but it was the UK government that agreed to commit itself not to lower these rates. Actually, the UK government recently agreed to a renewal of the 15% minimum rate. In any event, the EU has recently agreed to a more flexible approach, which will allow VAT to be dropped on tampons and possibly a broader range of other products and services.

It follows from the existence of the veto that the UK has control over any future amendment to EU tax law in these areas, including any removal of any exemption, by means of its veto.

What about other taxes? There is little EU involvement in other areas of tax law. So, for instance, the UK is entirely free to set rates of personal income tax, National Insurance contributions, corporate taxation, council tax and many more. However, there is some limited EU involvement in cross-border aspects of corporate tax, such as the recent law which aims to tackle cross-border tax evasion.

The EU adopts these laws on the different legal basis of Article 115 TFEU:

Without prejudice to Article 114, the Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, issue directives for the approximation of such laws, regulations or administrative provisions of the Member States as directly affect the establishment or functioning of the internal market.

Again it can be seen that unanimity is the rule. So the UK has a veto. This veto is further protected by Article 114(2) TFEU, which says that the majority voting that normally applies to EU single market law does not apply to ‘fiscal provisions’.

Therefore the UK has control over any new EU tax that might possibly be proposed to fund refugee and migration costs, or upon pensions, or upon anything else. We can simply veto it.

Can these vetoes be removed? As discussed above, due to the European Union Act 2011, they can only be removed (in whole or part) if the Treaty is amended with the consent of the UK government and parliament, and the British public in a referendum.

e)      Asylum, non-EU migration and criminal law

The UK has an opt-out over EU laws on non-EU migration, criminal law and policing. This is set out in Protocol 21 to the Treaties.

As regards immigration and asylum, the UK opted out of most non-EU immigration laws, but opted in to the first phase of asylum laws from 2003-2005, using the veto which it had at the time to ensure that these laws did not require any change in UK asylum law. The only substantive EU asylum laws which the UK has opted in to since 2005 are the Dublin III Regulation (on returning asylum-seekers back to another Member State where they first entered) and the Eurodac Regulation (on fingerprinting asylum-seekers to that end). The UK opted out of recent EU laws on relocating asylum-seekers from Italy and Greece to other Member States.

The UK also has an opt-out from the Schengen system of open borders between Member States, and harmonised external border controls (see Protocols 19 and 20). This includes an opt-out from the EU laws on short-term visas (which concern stays of three months’ maximum). So the UK will not be covered by the proposed laws on waiving the short-term visa requirement for Turkish citizens, or for other countries (Ukraine, Georgia, Kosovo).

For the same reason, the UK will also not be covered by the proposed law on a European Border Guard. While this law originally provided for the border force to enter a Member State without its consent, that idea was dropped during negotiations. That would anyway not have applied to the UK; and in fact the EU court has ruled that the UK could not opt in to the EU law creating a border agency (the precursor to the proposed Border Guard law) even if it wanted to, without signing up to the whole of the Schengen system.

In the areas of criminal law and policing (which will be the subject of a separate blog post with more detail), the UK had a veto until 2009, when the Treaty of Lisbon came into force. Since that date, it has had an opt-out, which it has frequently used. In particular, it has opted out of the proposal for a European Public Prosecutor. Note that the EU’s police agency, Europol, is not a ‘federal police force’: the Treaty rules out ‘coercive powers’ for it, so it cannot arrest, question or detain people. Its main role is the analysis of police investigation data.

The abolition of the opt-outs on immigration and asylum, Schengen and criminal law would require a Treaty amendment subject to approval of the government and Parliament. The abolition of the Schengen opt-out would also require a national referendum, under the European Union Act 2011. So would participation in the European Public Prosecutor.

f) The Single Currency

The UK’s opt-out from the single currency appears in Protocol 15 to the Treaties. Point 1 reads:

1. Unless the United Kingdom notifies the Council that it intends to adopt the euro, it shall be under no obligation to do so.

This protocol does not expire at some point, as is sometimes suggested. Neither are ‘all Member States obliged to join the euro by 2020’. So the opt-out is valid for an unlimited period.

The protocol goes on to disapply the various EU law rules relating to the single currency. This has a number of implications. Due to the single currency opt-out the UK cannot be subject to austerity measures imposed by the ‘Troika’ that oversees bail-outs to Eurozone countries, since this only applies to states which adopt the single currency. Austerity policy in the UK is solely a decision made by our own government.

Furthermore the UK is exempt from some EU banking laws. Most notably it is not obliged to participate in the permanent bail-outs of Eurozone states. Only Eurozone states are involved in that, on the basis of a separate treaty. In fact the EU as such cannot adopt laws on permanent bail-outs, according to the EU court.

The UK could potentially be part of solely temporary bail-outs. But here the law was amended to provide a guarantee that the UK would get its money back in the event of any default.

g)      The EU budget – and the UK rebate

Of the money the UK in principle sends to the EU, there are two key features: a) a rebate, meaning some of that contribution is never sent at all; and b) some EU spending back in the UK. (For an overview, see here).

It’s often suggested that the rebate is not legally secure, and that the UK has no control over spending by the EU. Both suggestions are false.

The rebate is set out in the EU’s Own Resources Decision. This does not (as some suggest) have an expiry date (other Member States’ rebates will expire in 2020, but the UK rebate, and the law as a whole, will not). If the EU wants to amend this law, Article 311 TFEU applies:

The Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall unanimously and after consulting the European Parliament adopt a decision laying down the provisions relating to the system of own resources of the Union. In this context it may establish new categories of own resources or abolish an existing category. That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

It’s clear that the UK government can control the future of the rebate by means of a veto. Furthermore, so can Parliament, since the ‘constitutional requirements’ for the UK referred to mean that an Act of Parliament has to be passed for any amendment to the Own Resources Decision. These constraints have meant that the veto has stayed in place for over 30 years – although the UK government and parliament have agreed to some reduction in it over that time.

It’s clear that this rebate is not ‘conditional’, as is sometimes suggested. The UK has full control over the rebate money and can do entirely what it likes with it.

What about EU spending back in the EU? The basic rules on what the EU spends money on are set out in the law on the ‘Multi-Annual Financial Framework’. The latest such law is here. The UK does have control over the basic features of this law, because it has a veto over it, according to Article 312(2) TFEU:

2. The Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall adopt a regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework. The Council shall act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, which shall be given by a majority of its component members.

It’s also useful to put the EU budget contribution into broader perspective. It’s less than 1% of UK spending (the small red section of the graph below). So if the UK no longer paid the contribution, it would be like getting a pay increase from £400 to £404. The average taxpayer is paying 12p a day toward the EU.

Conclusion

As we have seen:

a)      The UK cannot be required to join an EU army without consent of the UK government, parliament and public;

b)      Treaty amendments require the consent of the UK government and parliament, and (if there’s any transfer of powers) the public;

c)       Accession of new Member States requires the consent of the UK government and parliament; it is a long way off for Turkey in particular and if it ever happens, will be subject to long periods of transition for workers to be admitted;

d)      The UK has a veto on tax issues; the UK government, parliament, and public would have to consent to dropping it;

e)      The UK has an opt-out from EU law on asylum, non-EU migration and criminal law; the UK government and parliament would have to consent to dropping it, and the public would have to agree to join Schengen or the European Public Prosecutor;

f)       The UK has an opt out from the single currency and other related issues, and could only join after the consent of the UK government, parliament and public;

g)      The UK has a veto over the basic EU budget revenue and spending rules, including the UK budget rebate; the veto could only be dropped with the consent of the UK government, parliament and public.

Of course, there are many other possible criticisms of the European Union. Some may be valid, and some not. But the argument that the UK government could be forced into any of the measures listed above is quite clearly false and scaremongering. All of the above possible developments are subject to the control of the UK government, and usually our Parliament and the general public besides.

Art: ‘The Scream’, Edvard Munch

The Orbanisation of EU asylum law: the latest EU asylum proposals

Steve Peers

There have been a number of EU proposals to deal with the perceived ‘refugee crisis’ in Europe over the last year. The latest batch, issued this week, are perhaps the most significant to date. They concern three related issues: visas (notably a short-term Schengen visa waiver for Turkish nationals); Schengen (partly suspending the open borders rules for six months); and asylum (changing the Dublin system on responsibility for asylum seekers, and creating a new EU asylum agency). Further proposals on legal migration and other EU asylum laws are coming in the months ahead.

Essentially, these proposals amount to the ‘Orbanisation’ of EU asylum law. They copy and entrench across the EU the key elements of the Hungarian government’s policy, which was initially criticized: refusing essentially all asylum-seekers at the external border and treating them as harshly as possible so as to maintain the Schengen open borders system. 

Background

The surge in the number of refugees and migrants coming into the EU since 2014 led initially to a discordant response from Member States, with Germany and Sweden initially welcoming the arrivals and Hungary trying to stop them. Last September, in a bid to modestly assist the ‘frontline’ border states of Greece and Italy with the large numbers of asylum-seekers, the EU adopted two Decisions on ‘relocation’ (discussed here), in principle taking up to 160,000 asylum-seekers off those countries’ hands and distributing them among other Member States. However, this ‘Plan A’ was ineffective, as some Member States refused to cooperate (even launching legal action) and the remainder relocated very few people.

So ‘Plan B’ was developed: an EU/Turkey deal whereby Turkey either prevented the large number of refugees on its territory from leaving, or readmitted them back from the EU if they did reach EU territory (which in practice usually means the Greek islands). To implement this, Greece agreed to treat Turkey as a ‘safe third country’ or a ‘first country of asylum’ under EU asylum law, with the result that claims were treated as inadmissible. As discussed earlier on this blog, this is a highly dubious interpretation of the law. To induce Turkey to cooperate, the EU agreed to spend money on the welfare of Syrian refugees in Turkey, and to drop the short-term visa requirement for Turkish citizens to visit the EU countries in the Schengen system. (It also agreed to open one more ‘negotiating chapter’ relating to Turkish accession to the EU, but this is a trivial concession: only one of these 35 chapters has been agreed to date, in 11 years of accession negotiations).

In the meantime, many Member States became concerned about the numbers of migrants and refugees reaching their territories, and so resumed checks on the previously open borders between Schengen states. However, under the relevant Schengen rules dating from 2013 (on which, see my thinktank report on the Schengen system here), the authority to do this will soon expire, unless the EU as a whole agrees to suspend the Schengen system for one or more periods of six months. This prospect has been mooted since December 2015 (as discussed in detail here).

So this week’s proposals aim to implement and entrench these policy developments: waiving the visa requirement for Turkey; allowing a limited suspension of Schengen; and amending the Dublin system to reflect the EU/Turkey agreement, to deter asylum-seekers from moving between Member States (allowing Schengen to be fully reinstated) and to incorporate a new version of the failing relocation rules.  All of these measures are related, but I will examine each of them in turn. 

Visas

There are three separate proposals to amend the EU visa list. All of them need to be agreed by the European Parliament, as well as a qualified majority of participating Member States in the EU Council.  The proposals, if adopted, would not apply to the UK and Ireland, which have their own laws on visa requirements (or waivers) for non-EU countries, due to an opt-out from the EU’s visa laws. That opt-out forms part of those countries’ overall opt-out from the Schengen system, which allows the UK to check people at its borders and refuse entry to non-EU citizens based (mostly) on UK law. It is therefore dishonest to suggest that the proposals would lead to an increased migrant influx into the UK. Indeed the UK’s withdrawal from the EU would not change the rules at all as regards non-EU citizens seeking to enter the UK from (the rest of) the EU – other than the small minority who apply for asylum or who are family members of EU citizens.

These proposals would, in turn: a) waive visa requirements for Turkish citizens; b) waive visa requirements for Kosovo; and c) make it easier to reimpose visa requirements in the event of immigration control issues. It should be noted that the Commission also recently proposed to waive visa requirements for Ukraine and Georgia; those proposals are still under discussion. All these proposals would, if adopted, amend the EU’s main law on visa lists, which dates initially from 2001. That law has been amended many times since, without any official codification of those amendments, but I have codified it unofficially here. Note that the visa waiver would apply to Turkish citizens, not to Turkish residents like the refugees from other countries living there.

The visa waiver for Kosovo is not linked to the overall refugee crisis, but rather to the policy of strengthening relations with EU neighbours, in part as an incentive for them to settle their own disputes. The Commission report on Kosovo fulfilling the requirements for visa waivers refers in particular to a recent border agreement between Kosovo and Montenegro. It also refers to meeting the requirements as regards readmission, reintegration, document security and organised crime.

As for Turkey, there is obviously a direct link with the EU/Turkey refugee deal. A fast-track visa waiver was promised to Turkey as part of that deal. But it is still subject to Turkey meeting the EU’s conditions. According to the Commission’s report, Turkey meets all but 7 of 72 requirements: the exceptions relate to issues like readmission, corruption, terrorism and document security, and the Commission believes that they will be fulfilled by the time the visa waiver is granted. In any event, the document security point is addressed by limiting the visa waiver to those with biometric passports. 

A longer staff working document elaborates on this assessment, but it is not convincing on several points. As regards asylum issues, it states that the obligation to lift the geographical limitation on the Geneva Refugee Convention (which means that Turkey only fully recognises Europeans as refugees) is met by Turkey because that country treats non-Europeans just as well as if they are refugees. But it skips over the lack of work permits for refugees who are not Syrians. It also concludes that Turkey does not refoule refugees to dangerous countries (as alleged by NGOs) simply by accepting Turkey’s word to the contrary. The Commission also waives the obligation for Turkey to ratify Protocol 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights, on the grounds that its national law offers equivalent protection. But if so, why be afraid of the supervision of the European Court of Human Rights on these issues? And it is only clear reading the staff working document that the (unresolved) concerns about ‘terrorism’ laws are actually concerns about misuse of terrorism law to crack down on freedom of expression. The main report does not even flag this as one of the most significant concerns. And the existence of these concerns gives the lie to the Commission’s argument (in an earlier proposal, still under discussion) that human rights in Turkey are so well protected as to classify Turkey as a ‘safe country of origin’ for asylum purposes.

The proposal to reimpose visa requirements more easily is implicitly linked to the Turkish visa waiver proposal, although in fact it could apply to any State on the visa waiver list (the ‘white list’). The current rules, dating from 2013, allow ‘emergency’ reimposition of a visa requirement by the EU Commission for a six-month period, renewable for another six months if the Commission proposes to amend the law to make this permanent. This temporary Commission decision can be blocked by Member States, but does not need the approval of the European Parliament. The grounds for it are ‘sudden and substantial’ increases in irregular migration, rejected asylum applications or rejected readmission applications from the country concerned.

There are some further details of these rules in the preamble to the 2013 law.  A ‘substantial’ increase is an increase above 50%, and a low rate of recognition of asylum applications constitutes 3% or 4%, although in either the Commission could choose to use a different number.  Reimposition of visas is not automatic: there is a diplomatic phase during which the Commission talks to the officials of the other country and warns them to take action in light of the impending threat.  The Commission will only propose reimposition if it is not satisfied with the outcome of these talks. So far it has not done so.

Basically the new proposal would make it easier to reimpose visas in several ways. First of all, it would no longer be an ‘emergency’ or ‘last resort’ decision, and the increases in irregular migration, rejected asylum applications or rejected readmission applications would no longer have to be ‘sudden’. Secondly, the reference period for examining the increased irregular migration, etc would no longer be over six months, but over two months. Third, the increase in asylum applications would no longer have to lead to ‘specific pressure’ on asylum systems; so there would need not be a large absolute number of asylum applicants from the country concerned, just a large relative increase in the number of applications.

Fourth, the rejected readmission applications would relate not only to citizens of the country concerned, but also to citizens of other countries who transited through that State’s territory. This is obviously aimed at enforcing the key feature of the EU/Turkey plan: the readmission of refugees to Turkey. Fifth, the possibility of triggering reimposition of visas as compared to the period before the visa requirement was dropped would now apply indefinitely, and would no longer expire after seven years. The immediate impact of this change would be on Western Balkans countries, where (apart from Kosovo) the EU waived visa requirements in 2009 and 2010. Sixth, the Commission can trigger the clause, not just Member States. It could act on the same grounds plus an additional ground of failure to apply a readmission deal with the EU as a whole.

Again, the final point aims at enforcing the EU/Turkey refugee deal. If Turkey does stop readmitting refugees, the EU can swiftly react by reimposing visa requirements. This works both ways, of course: if the EU threatens to reimpose visas on Turkish citizens on some other ground, such as an increase in Turkish citizens overstaying without authorization, then Turkey will likely refuse to take back refugees. Indeed, as discussed above, Turkey is threatening to do this if the EU does not waive the visa requirements in the first place – which accounts for the EU’s haste on this point.

Finally, a side issue (relating only to Turkey) is worth discussing. The EU/Turkey association agreement has a Protocol, signed in 1970, that sets a standstill on the free movement of services and freedom of establishment. That means the EU and its Member States can’t make the rules on these issues stricter than they were when the Protocol was signed. The CJEU has also ruled that if the rules are made more liberal than when the Protocol was signed, they can’t be made less liberal after that point without violating the standstill (Toprak and Oguz). While the standstill rule doesn’t apply to tourist visas (Demirkan), it does apply to visas for short-term economic activity (Soysal). 

So would the standstill rule in the association agreement prevent the EU from reimposing visas for economic activity by Turkish citizens? In its case law (see most recently Genc, discussed here), the CJEU has said that the standstill rule can be overridden on public interest grounds. So far the case law on this point has concerned integration of family members, although it could also be argued that the objective of preventing irregular migration is also a valid ground to override the standstill. In fact, the CJEU has been asked whether migration control objectives can override it, in the pending case of Tekdemir. However, this case won’t be decided until well after June (when Turkey wants the visa waiver in place); and like the earlier cases, it concerns legal migration. 

Schengen

The idea of suspending Schengen for up to two years was originally mooted back in December – as I discussed in detail at the time. The mechanics of the process, as I detailed there, have been grinding away for some time. Now we have nearly reached the final stage: a Commission Recommendation for a Council Recommendation to suspend Schengen. Once the Council adopts this (by a qualified majority of Schengen states), the suspension can go ahead.

However, the Commission has tried to limit this suspension in time and in space. It would only apply to Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark and Norway (where the unilateral authority to suspend border controls is about to expire), and only for an initial period of six months. The Commission argues that the tightening of EU immigration and asylum law should have had sufficient effect by then, so a further suspension would not be justified. Time will tell if this is true: the Schengen rules allow for three six-month extensions of the initial suspension.

For legal reasons, as I discussed in the earlier blog post, the suspension has to be based on blaming a Member State for insufficient control of its external borders. Obviously, the Commission has named Greece. But it has warm words for Greece’s efforts in the last few months, and flights to and from Greece to the Schengen zone will not be affected. This rather measured and proportionate approach contrasts with the Commission's asylum proposals - to which we now turn.

Asylum

Again, there are three separate proposals, all of which need to be agreed by the European Parliament, as well as a qualified majority of participating Member States in the EU Council.  First of all, the current Dublin III Regulation, which sets out rules determining which Member State is responsible for an asylum application, would be replaced by a new Regulation – which I will call ‘Dublin IV’. Secondly, the current Eurodac Regulation, which supplements the Dublin Regulation by providing for the storage and comparison fingerprints of asylum-seekers and those who crossed the border irregularly, will also be replaced by a new Eurodac Regulation. Thirdly, the current law establishing an EU agency known as EASO (the European Asylum Support Office), would be replaced by a new law creating an EU Agency for Asylum (the ‘EU Asylum Agency’).

This is just one batch of proposals: as the previous Commission communication from April (discussed here) set out, it will also soon propose new laws to amend the existing laws on qualification (definition) of refugees and people needing subsidiary protection status, asylum procedures, and reception conditions for asylum-seekers. In effect, this will amount to a third phase of the Common European Asylum System.

Currently, the UK and Ireland have opted in to the EU laws regarding Dublin, Eurodac and EASO. They opted out of the second-phase asylum Directives, but are covered by the first-phase Directives (except Ireland never opted in to the first-phase reception conditions Directive). Denmark and the Schengen associates (Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein) participate in these laws on the basis of treaties with the EU. It would be up to the UK and Ireland to decide whether to participate in the new proposals; if not, the current Regulations continue to apply. If they opt out of the discussions on the proposals, they could still opt in later after adoption of the legislation, if they find that the final result is more to their liking than they had feared at the outset. Denmark and the Schengen associates could refuse to participate, but in that case their treaties with the EU will automatically terminate.

In the event of Brexit, the UK would no longer be subject to any of the EU asylum laws it is now participating in, unless the EU and the UK negotiate an agreement to that effect. It should be noted that the EU has in practice only ever been willing to extend the Dublin rules to non-EU States if those States are also Schengen associates. (Indeed in some cases, the Dublin and Schengen association treaties have been negotiated as a package).

The EU Asylum Agency

I will start with the least contentious of the new proposals.

Currently, EASO has a number of practical cooperation tasks. In particular, it must: ‘organise, promote and coordinate’ the exchange of information and identify and pool good practice, as well as activities relating to country-of-origin information (ie, information about conditions in asylum seekers’ countries of origin), including gathering and analysis of that information and drafting reports on that information; assist with the voluntary transfer of persons granted international protection status within the EU; support training for national administrations and courts, including the development of an EU asylum curriculum; and coordinate and exchange information on the operation of EU external asylum measures. For Member States under ‘particular pressure’, the Office must gather information concerning possible emergency measures, set up an early warning system to alert Member States to mass influxes of asylum seekers, help such Member States to analyse asylum applications and establish reception conditions, and set up ‘asylum teams’.

For its contribution to the implementation of the Common European Asylum System, the Office gathers information on national authorities’ application of EU asylum law, as well as national legislation and case law on asylum issues. It also draws up an annual report on the situation regarding asylum in the EU. At the request of the Commission, the Office may draw up ‘technical documents on the implementation of the asylum instruments of the Union, including guidelines and operating manuals.’ The Office can also deploy ‘asylum support teams’ on the territory of a requesting Member State, in order to provide ‘in particular expertise in relation to interpreting services, information on countries of origin and knowledge of the handling and management of asylum cases’.

How would the EU Asylum Agency be different? As with the parallel proposal for a European Border Guard (discussed here), the Agency would not replace national administrations, but play a bigger role coordinating them.  The main changes are: an obligation to exchange information with the Agency; a stronger role in analysis of the situation of countries of origin, including advice on alleged ‘safe countries of origin’; the development of guidance on applying EU asylum law; monitoring of the Common European Asylum System, including the capacity of Member States to apply it; and increased operational and technical assistance for Member States. An indication of the bigger role for the Agency as compared to EASO will be the planned increase in staff – from about 150 to around 500.

Eurodac

The current Regulation requires Member States to take the fingerprints of all asylum-seekers and irregular border crossers over 14 years old. This information is then stored in the Eurodac computer system. Every asylum-seeker’s fingerprints are compared with those already in the system, to see if he or she has either applied for asylum already or crossed the border irregularly. This is taken as evidence as regards which Member State is responsible for the asylum application under the Dublin rules.

Eurodac can also be used for other purposes. In 2013, the Eurodac law was revised to give police forces and the EU police agency, Europol, limited access to the fingerprint data for the purposes of criminal investigations. Member States may choose to check the fingerprints of an irregular migrant against the system, for the purposes of identification, without storing that data.

The proposed new Regulation would make some key changes to these rules. First of all, it would significantly enlarge the amount of personal data that will be taken and stored. Member States will have to take information on children from the age of six (rather than fourteen), and facial images as well as fingerprints. Eurodac will also now store data on the names, nationalities, place and date of birth, travel document information. For asylum-seekers, it will store the EU asylum application number (see the Dublin IV proposal), as well as information on the allocated Member State under the Dublin rules, for the first time. For irregular border crossers and irregular migrants, it will store the date of the removal from the territory.

There will no longer be an option merely to check data on irregular migrants; rather Member States will be obliged to take and store this information. While the rules on police and Europol access to Eurodac data will not be changed as such (although the Commission will review those rules soon), there will be more personal data for them to access: they will be able to get facial image information, and more individuals will have their personal data recorded in Eurodac in the first place.

Secondly, it will be possible for fingerprint data to be taken not only by national officials, but also (as regards asylum-seekers and irregular border crossers) by the new EU Border Guard and EU Asylum agencies. Thirdly, while asylum-seekers’ data will still be retained for ten years, data on irregular border crossers will now be retained for five years – up from 18 months at present. Data on irregular migrants will also be retained for five years. The data will be marked if a Member State gives a residence permit to an irregular migrant. Finally, Eurodac data will now be made available to third countries for the purposes of return, on certain conditions, including a refusal to disclose if the person who has applied for asylum. But the non-EU country might guess that the person has applied for asylum; in fact the EU’s procedures Directive requires that country to be informed of this in some cases.

The Commission justifies these changes by the need to strengthen the EU’s return policy as regards irregular migrants, and to keep track of them if they make movements across the EU. It believes that taking fingerprints and photos of young children is justified for child protection reasons. Collecting personal data on facial images is justified because some persons refuse to have their fingerprints taken.

This proposal obviously raises huge data protection issues, and it will be important to see what concerns are raised by national data protection authorities, as well as the EU’s Data Protection Supervisor. The arguments about child safety should be independently assessed by child protection experts. It is conceivable that taking facial images would avoid the need to insist upon taking fingerprints coercively, but it’s not clear why the Commission believes that storing data on names, birthdates et al is justified. The use of Eurodac to underpin EU return policy obviates much need to use or expand the Schengen Information System (which currently contains data on non-EU citizens who are meant to be refused entry) for similar purposes, and raises the question of whether there need to be two different databases addressing the same issue. The choice between the two databases is particularly significant for the UK, since it will have access to the Eurodac returns data (if it opts in to the new proposal), but doesn’t have access to the immigration alerts in the Schengen Information System, and indeed can’t have access to those alerts unless (rather improbably) it fully joins Schengen. (However, the UK does have access to the criminal law alerts in the Schengen Information System, such as alerts on suspected terrorists: see my further discussion here. It could lose that access after Brexit, as I discuss here).

Dublin IV

As noted at the outset, the amendments to the Dublin Regulation essentially aim to entrench the EU/Turkey deal and to save Schengen by deterring secondary movements of asylum-seekers, while also making a fresh attempt to establish relocation rules. To accomplish each of these objectives, the Commission proposes an extreme solution which is probably legally and/or politically unfeasible.

Let’s examine each element in turn. In order to entrench the EU/Turkey deal (and possibly future heinous deals with countries like Libya), the proposal transforms a current rule which gives Member States an option to apply to state that a non-EU state is a ‘safe third country’ for an asylum applicant in accordance with the asylum procedures Directive, rather than send the applicant to another Member State or consider the application after a transfer from another Member State under the Dublin rules. The CJEU recently took a permissive view of this provision (Mirza). In place of this option, there would be an obligation to assess the inadmissibility of an application on ‘safe third country’ or ‘first country of asylum’ grounds before applying any of the rules on responsibility for applications. This confirms the current practice as regards asylum-seekers coming from Turkey to Greece, which aims to return as many of them as possible to Greece despite the dubious designation of Turkey as a ‘safe’ country for asylum-seekers.

This doesn’t matter much in cases where Greece would anyway be responsible for considering the application under the Dublin rules, because it was the first country where the applicants entered. (Moreover, due to recent closure of the Greece/Macedonia border and other controls and fences on internal and external Schengen borders, it’s now very difficult to leave Greece even for those asylum-seekers not in detention). But contrary to popular belief, that is not the only ground for assigning responsibility under the Dublin rules. There’s also an obligation to bring family members together, where one of the family members has status as a refugee or asylum-seeker or otherwise has legal residence in another Member State.

The Mirza judgment did not address whether these family rules take priority over the ‘safe third country’ option, but the Dublin IV proposal is clear.  If a case is inadmissible on the dubious ‘safe third country’ or ‘first country of asylum’ rules, then the Member State in question is responsible, regardless of the family or humanitarian clauses in the Regulation. It’s arguable that this is a breach of the right to family life set out in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. But it’s certain that this change completely undercuts the broadening of the definition of ‘family member’ contained in the Regulation – extending it to cover siblings and families formed after leaving the country of origin (while Syrians were living in Turkey, for instance). Those changes therefore amount to a legal ‘Potemkin village’ – a cynical façade intending to mislead a naive onlooker.

It might be argued that family members should not be encouraged to pay smugglers and take unsafe routes to reach their loved ones who are already in the EU. Fair enough – but in that case, the EU should take steps to ensure their safe passage (note that the EU’s family reunion Directive requires Member States to admit family members of refugees). There’s nothing in this week’s batch of proposals to do that. The EU’s informal arrangements with Turkey do provide for ‘nuclear family’ members as one category of Syrian refugees to resettle. But these arrangements are not binding and (at time of writing) not even officially published (see this entry in the Council register of documents). They only apply to the ‘nuclear’ family, and only for Syrians.

Next: the attempt to deter secondary movements of asylum-seekers, in order to reinstate the Schengen system. Most notably, there will be punishments for asylum-seekers who do not stay in the responsible Member State. In that case the asylum procedure will be accelerated, and they will lose all benefits (health, education, welfare and accommodation) except for emergency health care. (However, the grounds for detention of asylum-seekers in the Dublin Regulation will not change – though the future proposal to amend the reception conditions Directive might seek to amend the detention rules there instead.) This will overturn the CJEU ruling in CIMADE and GISTI, which was based on the right to dignity in the EU Charter. Let’s put it plainly: asylum-seekers who flout the Dublin rules will be left to starve in the streets – even children, torture victims and other vulnerable people. And fast-tracking their asylum application implicitly aims at refouling them to their country of origin, with only limited suspensive effect of any appeal to the courts.

The violations of the Charter don’t stop there. According to the CJEU case law on the current Regulation, unaccompanied minors can move to another Member State and apply there. This ruling (MA) is also based on the Charter (rights of the child), but the Commission wants to overturn that too – in the process trashing its own proposal dating from 2014. Again, any attempt to argue that this aims to protect children by deterring them from moving is undercut by the prioritisation of inadmissibility rules over family reunion rules (even for unaccompanied children), as well as the failure to insert rules to ensure that the Dublin family rules are actually applied (such as the recent UK ruling on a requirement for DNA tests). If the EU and its Member States care so much about asylum-seeking children, why have they detained so many in Greece in poor conditions, and shrugged as so many suffered in northern Greece – shirking the legal obligations which they accepted to relocate them?

Furthermore, the proposal limits both the substantive and procedural remedies for applicants. They will only be able to challenge a decision on the responsible Member State on the grounds that the asylum system has broken down, or that they should be with their family member. This overturns the opinion in the pending cases of Karim and Ghezelbash (although it is possible that the Court will not follow this opinion). Also, they will only have seven days to appeal: this risks a breach of the Charter right to an effective remedy, given that in the Diouf case the CJEU found that a 14-day time to appeal was acceptable.

The proposal doesn’t only aim to restrict asylum-seekers in order to ensure that Dublin works effectively; it will also restrict Member States to the same end. The essentially unlimited discretionary ‘sovereignty’ and ‘humanitarian’ clauses will be amended to severely limit the circumstances in which a Member State can examine an application that is not its responsibility. If Angela Merkel (improbably) wanted to repeat her open-door policy of summer 2015 in future, the proposal would make that illegal. Various deadlines for Member States to act would be speeded up (although Member States have said before that this is impractical). Conversely, other rules which limit Member States’ obligations will be dropped: there will be longer periods of responsibility after issuing a visa or residence permit, and responsibility for those who cross a border without authorisation, or who abscond or who leave the EU and then come back, will be endless.

This brings us to the relocation rules. These will be triggered once a Member State is responsible for more than 50% of the asylum applications which objective criteria (based on income and population) indicate that it ‘should’ be responsible for. In other words, if Greece ‘should’ be responsible for 50,00 asylum applications under those criteria, other Member States would be obliged to relocate asylum-seekers from Greece once it was responsible for 75,000 applications. But Member States can't relocate asylum seekers whose applications are inadmissible under the new rules discussed above, so this may have little impact on Greece anyway. Indeed, if the EU/Turkey deal breaks down, the combination of these rules would in principle put Greece in a worse position than it is currently. A new emergency relocation Decision would have to derogate from the Dublin rules again.

Then the proposal becomes truly surreal. The Commission suggests that Member States may opt out of relocating asylum-seekers, but they will have to pay €250,000 per asylum-seeker if they wish to do this. This is a fantasy on top of a fantasy. Member States have already shown that they are unwilling to apply the relocation Decisions of last September, or to adopt the proposal to amend the Dublin rules to this end that was tabled at that time. The idea of financial contributions in place of accepting individuals, whatever its merits, is perceived to be a ‘fine’ and was already rejected by Member States last year. That idea will not suddenly appear more attractive to Member States by doubling down on it, and suggesting a contribution set at an obviously absurd and disproportionate level, which the Commission does not even try to justify.

So why did the Commission jump the shark here? Perhaps someone in the Commission lost a bet. Or perhaps this is a legislative homage to the Belgian surrealist tradition of Magritte, et al. More seriously, it might be intended as a negotiating position. But such a ridiculous position will just backfire: it’s as if management started the latest pay talks with the unions by arguing that the workers should start paying the company for the privilege of working there. Or perhaps it’s a subtle way of addressing Greece’s debt problems: rejecting the relocation of a mere 10,000 asylum-seekers from Greece would transfer €2.5 billion to the Greek treasury – where it would rest briefly on its route to Germany. 

I have another theory, well known to followers of British politics. Maybe the €250,000/person proposal is the Commission’s equivalent of ‘throwing a dead cat on the table’. The phrase is borrowed – like the EU’s current asylum policy – from Australia. It means that if the political conversation is particularly damaging to a certain politician, an ally of that politician suddenly does or says something outrageous. Everyone will start talking about that outrageous thing, just as they would be talking about the unfortunate feline; which means that no-one is talking about the original issue any more.  In this case, it means that everyone is talking about the €250,000 – and no-one is talking about the suspension of Schengen, or of the families who would be split up, or the people who would be made hungry and homeless, by the Commission’s Dublin IV proposal.

Conclusion

The Commission’s proposals are not a done deal, of course. Some Member States and Members of the European Parliament have misgiving about a visa waiver for Turkey, on migration control or human rights grounds. MEPs fought for years for many of the provisions in the Dublin III Regulation (on family members and unaccompanied minors in particular) which the Commission now seeks to overturn. As I pointed out above, some of the proposed changes to the Dublin rules are highly vulnerable to challenge in the CJEU, if adopted. The red herring of a €250,000 sanction is already floating on the surface of the pond. And the whole EU/Turkey deal might anyway be overturned at the whim of Turkish President Erdogan – the only politician whose ego makes Donald Trump’s look small by comparison. Nevertheless, EU asylum policy is already becoming more Orbanised in practice, and I would expect at least some elements of the further Orbanisation proposed by the Commission to be adopted.

For over twenty-five years now, the EU and its Member States have been attempting to get the Dublin system to work. The continued abject failures of those attempts to get this pig to fly never seem to deter the next attempt to launch its aviation career.  With this week’s proposals, the Commission is in effect trying to get the poor beast airborne by sticking a rocket up its backside. It might be best to stand back.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

JHA4: chapter I:3, chapter I:4, chapter I:5, chapter I:7

Photo credit: JapanTimes.co.jp

Keeping up with the (Turkish) family: integration requirements for family reunification in Genc

Silvia Adamo, Postdoctoral Fellow, bEUcitizen – Barriers to European Citizenship/Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen

What are the legitimate expectations regarding integration before family reunion in a Member State, and what is the position of Turkish citizens in that equation? The EU Directive on family reunion for third-country nationals gives Member States an option to impose such integration requirements before entry of the family members, and the CJEU dealt with the limits to the discretion of Member States in imposing such requirements in a 2015 judgment (K and A, discussed here). Moreover, in the Dogan judgment of 2014 (discussed here), the Court assessed the reach of the standstill clause in the protocol to the Association Agreement between EU and Turkey in relation to the conditions for family reunification for self-employed Turkish nationals. There’s an important distinction between the two legal instruments: all Member States are bound by the EU/Turkey association agreement, whereas the UK, Ireland and Denmark opted out of the family reunion Directive.

In that context, the Dogan case attracted the attention of the Danish Ministry of Justice. After all, Turkish nationals are the largest immigrant group in the country, and the issue of family life with a third country national in Denmark is very controversial. In a legal note commenting on the case shortly after the judgment in Dogan, the Ministry found that the national rules on family reunification (significantly restricted since 2002) could be evaluated as constituting new and more stringent conditions that are not allowed to be introduced for Turkish nationals, in light of the standstill clause. (Note that the protocol to the association agreement has applied since 1973 for the first nine Member States – such as Denmark and the UK – but at the date of accession for the 19 Member States which joined the EU later). At the same time the Ministry did not advise to amend them. Instead, it assessed that there were ‘doubts’ as regards the reach of the restriction test, including the proportionality test, for the manifold requirements for family reunification in Denmark. One of the requirements to fulfil for family reunification is that of potential for successful integration (for the child) and of achieved integration (for the sponsor parent).

The question that has now found its way to the courtroom is the following: Can a Member State require Turkish children to fulfil a successful integration evaluation, before granting them family reunification with their economically active parent? The CJEU recently answered this question in the Genc case. Its judgment is relevant to family reunion with Turkish nationals in all Member States – and would apply by analogy to other forms of new restrictions on family reunion with Turkish citizens besides integration requirements.

Facts

Mr. Genc is a Turkish national born in 1991. His father moved to Denmark in 1997 and obtained a permanent residence permit there in 2001. After the divorce of his parents, his father had obtained legal custody over him; however Mr. Genc continued to live in Turkey with his grandparents. In 2005, when he was fourteen years old, he applied for family reunion with his father in Denmark, who was at the time in active employment.

Mr. Genc’s application was denied in 2006 by the Danish Immigration Service, and again in 2007, by the Ministry of Integration. The reasons for the denial were twofold: having lived in Turkey all his life and being able to speak only Turkish, the Ministry stated that Mr. Genc had no possibility of establishing sufficient ties with the Danish society to allow a successful integration. The other reason given was that his father was not considered well integrated either, and thus he was referred to continue family life through visits to his son in Turkey, as he had been doing already.

Mr. Genc brought the case to the court of first instance and later to the Eastern Regional Court, which decided to refer the case to the CJEU in 2014. The Danish national courts are generally reluctant and not particularly active in referring cases to the CJEU, but since the Dogan case had stirred the waters around the conditions for family reunification for Turkish nationals, the time was ripe to submit to the Court’s evaluation the condition for successful integration before family reunion – at least as far as this group of foreign nationals is concerned.

The Danish Aliens Act establishes that a residence permit can be granted upon application to a child under the age of fifteen who wants to live with the parent having full or partial custody, but only if the child has not established her own family yet. The sponsor parent living must be the holder of either Danish citizenship, citizenship in one of the Nordic countries, refugee status, a permanent residence permit, or a temporary residence permit that has the possibility of becoming permanent. Other conditions are: self-sufficiency (the sponsor parent should not be receiving State help or social security subsidies); adequate housing; no conviction for abuse against children; and respect for the best interest of the child. Different conditions may apply for refugees.

Finally, the requirement for successful integration demands that if the child and one of her parents are living in their home country or another country, the residence permit will be given only if she already has, or has had, a possibility to obtain such an attachment to Denmark that will constitute a basis for a successful integration. The integration requirement is only applied when more than two years pass from the moment a parent becomes eligible to apply for family reunification to when s/he finally files the papers.

Judgment

The referring court formulated four questions, requesting clarification on the earlier case law of the CJEU on the standstill clause vis-à-vis the Dogan judgment. As a whole, the questions referred reflected the doubts expressed in the Ministerial note and concerned the restriction test and proportionality assessment of the integration requirement for family reunification with respect to Article 13 of Decision No. 1/80 on the development of the Association Agreement (prohibition on introducing new restrictions on the conditions of access to employment to legally resident and employed nationals). Unlike the standstill considered in the Dogan case, this standstill relates to workers, not self-employed persons, and has applied since 1980 for the first nine Member States.

The CJEU decided to consider the questions referred together, and to focus on evaluating whether the integration requirement in Danish law was to be considered a new restriction. The Court started by affirming that the situation in question related to the freedom of Turkish workers within the EU, and thus it was covered by Article 13 of Decision 1/80. The CJEU then affirmed that its interpretation in Dogan that applied the standstill obligation to spouses could also be transposed to other family members, since restrictions to family reunification would affect the exercise of the economic freedom of (in this case) workers.

Thus the CJEU insists on the fact that -national legislation that restricts family reunification for Turkish workers is covered by the standstill clause, denying that this is equal to granting a right to family reunification or a right of establishment and residence for family members (para 44–45).

In order to sustain the exercise of the economic activity of Turkish nationals, a requirement that further restricts the possibility of obtaining family reunification must be considered a new restriction. As such, according to the Court’s case law since Demir, national provisions that impose conditions more stringent than the ones applicable at the time of entry into force of Decision No. 1/80 can only be allowed if the requirement is justified on public interest grounds, and is proportional, i.e. apt to achieve a legitimate objective and not going beyond what is necessary in order to attain it. In fact, after Dogan and the reach of the standstill requirement there established, any new integration requirements for family reunion can only be introduced on the grounds of public interest.

The Court invokes Article 79 (4) TFEU, which refers to the prospect of EU measures on integration of non-EU citizens, to establish that an integration objective can indeed constitute an overriding reason in the public interest (para 55– 56). However, the Danish law at stake in this case did not pass the proportionality test. In the eyes of the Court, the two year deadline which imposes the integration requirement is not indicative of the potential for successful integration of the child, nor of the intentions of the parents as regards ‘shielding’ their children from the host country’s society (of note is also the opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi on the non-existence of correlation between a prolonged stay in a third country and the possibilities for integration, at para 48–49 of the opinion). To the contrary, the deadline imposed does not consider the individual circumstances of the case, may lead to automatic and systemic refusals of family reunification which are not suitable to be appealed, and may lead to discrimination against children in similar situations.

Comments

Denmark introduced the requirement of successful integration for family reunification with children in 2004. The rules had a dual objective: to get rid of the practice of children’s so called ‘re-education journeys’ to the parents’ homeland, as well as to prevent children from being left outside of Denmark as long as possible before they reach adult age, in order to be educated and influenced by their homeland’s culture, traditions, values, and norms. The maximum age at which a child living abroad can obtain family reunion was lowered to fifteen years old. In order to make sure that those children who would live in Denmark as adults would be integrated, they are expected to relocate with their parents as early as possible in order to be exposed to the national culture, language, norms, and values, especially through schooling.

From a critical perspective, the objections that can be raised against the national law are essentially three.[1] First, when applying the requirement for successful integration, the lack of the integration of the sponsor parent weighs more than the appraisal of the integration potential of the child. Integration in Danish law is connected to participation in the labour market, but also to assimilation of national values and norms. Unemployed and non-integrated immigrants are rarely granted the possibility to be family reunited with their children in Denmark. Family sponsored migration from non-Western countries has been reduced via a string of convoluted rules that have diminished this channel of legal migration. Integration requirements are in this context employed in order to limit migration via family reunification.

Second, as also noted by the CJEU, the national authorities have employed a narrow and literal interpretation of the rules, funding the evaluation on the detailed requirements listed in the  preparatory work to the national law (duration of stays in Denmark and in the home country, in which country the child has spent most of her upbringing and gone to school, which language the child speaks, etc.). This limits the discretionary power of the authorities and impairs genuinely considering the individual circumstances of the case, including the best interest of the child. The requirement of the potential for a successful integration thus looks more like a legal construction that renders possible the automatic rejection of family reunification applicants that have spent too many years in their parents’ home country and who do not speak Danish, and where the parent has not been able to prove that s/he is well integrated.

Third, the requirement will always be applied to children of eight years or older, where the child has stayed with the other parent outside of Denmark, when more than two years have passed since the parent could legally apply for family reunification. In these cases, it will be impossible to fulfil the requirement of potential for successful integration. In this optic, integration becomes a key factor for evaluating also the best interest of the child. The child's legal status is made dependent on the parent's, and the instrumental interpretation of the principle of the best interest of the child entails that it is the opportunity for the child to develop a social connection to the host country’s culture and society which weighs more than the possibility to live with a parent. Yet, this also means denying family reunification to children as young as eight years old.

In this light, the limits of the Genc judgment are two, in my view: First, it only concerns Turkish nationals, possibly leaving space for continuing to enforce the arbitrary and non-proportional integration requirement onto other third country nationals and their children. The second limit is that it only concerns employed Turkish nationals, perhaps regrettably highlighting that the right to family life is precluded for non-economically active citizens. A week after Genc, the CJEU held the same stand and stated in Khachab that a national rule requiring a (non-EU and non-Turkish) sponsor parent to be in possession of sufficient resources (basing that prediction on previous income) before granting family reunification is compatible with the Family Reunification Directive. Hence at the same time that the protection of the family life of Turkish workers in the EU appears to increase, other third country nationals may still experience discrimination and limits to their family life.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

JHA4: chapter I:6

---

[1] Adamo, S. What is ‘A Successful Integration’? Family Reunification and the Rights of Children in Denmark. Retfærd. Nordic Journal of Law and Justice, Year 39, Volume 1/152, 2016, 38–58.