Relocation of Asylum-Seekers in the EU: Law and Policy

Steve Peers

I last looked at the legal issues surrounding the refugee crisis two weeks ago, focussing on the international law dimension of the issue. But I left out the issue of relocation of asylum-seekers, pending further developments. Subsequently the EU has adopted a second, more controversial Decision on relocation of asylum-seekers within the EU this week (against the opposition of several Member States), following soon after the first Decision on this issue earlier in September. These measures are both provisional, in force for a total of two years, but there’s also a proposal for a permanent system of provisional measures. I will be looking at the relocation issue (including the pending proposal) in more detail in a report for a think-tank soon, but for now I’ll look briefly at three aspects of these measures: (a) the main content; (b) their legality, particularly since some Member States have threatened to sue to annul the second Decision; and (c) the merits of the relocation policy.

Content of the Decisions

First of all, two points about terminology. Some press reports refer to these Decisions ‘resettling’ refugees within the EU, but that’s not accurate. In both EU and international law, ‘resettlement’ refers to admitting people in need of protection from their country of origin or neighbouring countries. The EU uses the word ‘relocation’ instead, when addressing the issue of moving persons between Member States.

But that’s the process; how should we refer to the persons concerned? Technically, the most accurate term is ‘asylum-seekers’, since the relocation Decisions only apply to those who have applied for asylum but whose claim has not yet been determined. So I will use that term in this post. But since the Decisions only apply to those whose application is quite likely to succeed (more on that below), it should not be forgotten that the subsequent refugee determination procedure will likely conclude that the large majority of these asylum-seekers (but not quite all of them) are in fact refugees, or otherwise need protection. It would certainly be misleading to use the term ‘migrants’, since this word is sometimes interpreted as meaning that the people concerned have no protection need.

The first Decision

The first Decision provides for relocating asylum-seekers from Italy and Greece. It only applies to asylum-seekers who have applied for asylum in one of those States, and if that State would normally be responsible for considering the application under the Dublin rules. This will normally be the case, since the asylum-seeker will have crossed the border of Italy or Greece without authorisation. But in some cases, the Dublin rules would give priority to another Member State (if the asylum-seeker has close family there, for instance), and so in those case the Dublin rules would still apply, instead of the relocation procedure. 

The relocated asylum-seekers will be split 60/40 between Italy and Greece: 24,000 from Italy and 16,000 from Greece. They will be allocated to other Member States on the basis of optional commitments made by those other States. (The UK, Ireland and Denmark have opt-outs; see discussion of the UK opt-out here). While the intention was to relocate 40,000 people, Member States could ultimately not agree to offer that many relocation spaces, falling several thousand short (see the accompanying Resolution of Member States).

Relocation will be selective, applying only to those nationalities whose applications have over a 75% success rate in applications for international protection (refugee status, and subsidiary protection), on the basis of quarterly Eurostat statistics. On the basis of the most recent statistics, this means that only Syrians, Iraqis and Eritreans will qualify. This might change over time, however, on the basis of each new batch of statistics.

In principle, the selection of asylum-seekers to be relocated will be made by Italy and Greece, who must give ‘priority’ to those who are considered ‘vulnerable’ as defined by the EU reception conditions Directive. However, the preamble to the Decision makes clear that the ‘contact points’ of the relocating Member States (national officials) will indicate a preference for specific asylum-seekers they are willing to accept. To this end, the preamble states that ‘specific account should be given to the specific qualifications and characteristics of the applicants concerned, such as their language skills and other individual indications based on demonstrated family, cultural or social ties which could facilitate their integration into the Member State of relocation’. But this preference is not binding: the main text of the Decision states that the relocation States must accept the asylum-seekers nominated by Italy and Greece, except that they can refuse relocation ‘only where there are reasonable grounds for regarding’ an asylum-seeker as a danger to their national security or public order or where there are serious reasons for applying the exclusion provisions in the qualification Directive (concerning acts such as war crimes, terrorism and genocide).

Relocation can only apply to asylum-seekers who have already been fingerprinted pursuant to the Eurodac Regulation. This simply restates an existing EU law obligation to fingerprint everyone over 14 who applies for asylum or is found crossing the external border without permission, although that obligation is sometimes not applied in practice. Also, ‘applicants who elude the relocation procedure shall be excluded from relocation’, although this rather states the obvious.

The relocation process should usually take no more than two months after the relocating Member State has indicated how many asylum-seekers it will take. Member States of relocation will be responsible for considering the application. After relocation, asylum-seekers will not legally be able to move between Member States, in accordance with the normal Dublin rules; if they do so, the Member State of relocation must take them back. The preamble to the Decision also notes that, to deter ‘secondary movements’ Member States can limit the suspensive effect of appeals against transfers, impose reporting obligations, provide benefits in kind, and issue national entry bans. They should refrain from issuing travel documents allowing the asylum-seekers to visit other countries. There might be carrots, as well as sticks: as an incentive to stay in the Member State of relocation, the Commission has proposed that relocated asylum-seekers should be allowed to work straight away, rather than after a 9-month wait (the longest period Member States can require under the reception conditions Directive). 

As for the asylum-seekers themselves, there is no requirement that they consent to their relocation or have the power to request it. The Decision only requires Italy and Greece to inform and notify the asylum-seekers about the relocation, and the preamble states that they could only appeal against the decision if there are major human rights problems in the country to which they would be relocated. So neither the relocation itself, nor the choice of Member State that a person will be relocated to, is voluntary. It is possible, however, that the asylum-seekers left behind in Italy or Greece will be disappointed that they are not picked. There is no specific remedy for them to challenge their non-selection, although arguably to the extent that Italy and Greece select people who are not vulnerable for relocation, vulnerable persons could challenge their non-inclusion, in light of the legal obligation to select vulnerable persons as a priority.  Asylum-seekers do have the right to insist that their core family members (spouse or partner, unmarried minor children, or parents of minors) who are already on EU territory come with them to the relocated Member State.

Finally, other Member States have an obligation to assist Italy and Greece, while those Member States must in return establish and implement an asylum action plan. If they do not, then the Commission can suspend the Decision as regards either country. Member States relocating asylum-seekers receive a lump sum of €6000 per person from the EU budget to help with costs. The Decision applies until 17 September 2017, and covers asylum-seekers who arrived after 15 August 2015.

The second Decision

The second Decision follows the same basic template as the first Decision, but there are some key differences. First of all, it applies to 120,000 asylum-seekers, on top of the 40,000 provided for – but not fully committed – in the first Decision (the first Decision remains legally valid; it wasn’t amended or repealed by the second one).

Secondly, the numbers of relocated asylum-seekers in the second Decision is not based upon voluntary commitments by Member States, but upon specific numbers set out in an Annex to the Decision. While most Member States agreed to these numbers (the Decision needed a qualified majority vote of ministers in the Council to pass), clearly not all did: Slovakia, Romania, Hungary and the Czech Republic voted against the Decision. This means that there is a legal obligation to take these specific numbers of people.

Thirdly, the distribution of relocation is much different. Reflecting events on the ground over the summer, which has seen a much bigger influx of potential asylum-seekers into Greece, the second Decision provides for relocating 50,400 from Greece, but only 15,600 from Italy. The remaining 54,000 were meant to be relocated from Hungary, but Hungary did not want to be seen as a ‘frontline State’. So those 54,000 are ‘on ice’ for now. They will be relocated in a year’s time either from Italy and Greece on the same basis as under this Decision, or relocated on a different basis in light of changes in circumstances (subject to approval from the Council in either case).

Fourthly, Member States can request a temporary delay of 30% of their intake of asylum-seekers in ‘exceptional circumstances’, if it gives ‘duly justified reasons compatible with the fundamental values’ of the EU, such as human rights and non-discrimination. This delay can then be authorised by the Council on a proposal from the Commission. The preamble to the Decision indicates that such circumstances ‘could include, in particular’ a sudden inflow that places ‘extreme pressure’ upon even a well-prepared asylum system, or a ‘high probability’ of such an inflow.

Fifthly, the preamble contains stronger language as regards the ‘secondary movement’ of asylum-seekers. Member States can take measures as regards social benefits and remedies, and can ‘should’ detain asylum-seekers in accordance with the Returns Directive if no alternative means of preventing secondary movements are available.

Sixthly, in addition to the lump sum of €6000 per person from the EU budget for Member States of relocation, Italy and Greece will receive €500 per person to help with costs. Finally, the Decision will also apply for two years, but it will apply to all those who have arrived in Italy or Greece since the end of March this year, not just from mid-August.

Legality of the Decisions

Both decisions are based on Article 78(3) of the TFEU, which is a revised version of the ‘emergency power’ relating to immigration issues that has been in the Treaties since 1993 – but was never used until this month.

Article 78(3) reads as follows:

In the event of one or more Member States being confronted by an emergency situation characterised by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may adopt provisional measures for the benefit of the Member State(s) concerned. It shall act after consulting the European Parliament.

This should be seen in the context of the purpose of Article 78(1), which states that the EU shall have:

a common policy on asylum, subsidiary protection and temporary protection with a view to offering appropriate status to any third-country national requiring international protection and ensuring compliance with the principle of non-refoulement. This policy must be in accordance with the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees, and other relevant treaties.

Article 78(2) specifies that the EU shall have power to adopt measures to create ‘a common European asylum system’, listing seven areas where it can act by means of the ordinary legislative procedure. (Note that the proposed permanent system for relocation would be based on Article 78(2), not Article 78(3), so the legality of that proposal raises different issues; I’m not considering that proposal here).

Several elements of Article 78(3) are obvious: there must be a Commission proposal (which there was for both decisions); the Council votes by qualified majority (this isn’t expressly mentioned in the clause, but it’s the default rule); and the European Parliament (EP) is only consulted, whereas it has its usual joint decision-making power as regards other asylum legislation. It’s implicit that Article 78(3) measures can only relate to asylum, due to the placement of this clause in Article 78. Moreover, prior to the Treaty of Lisbon, the previous version of this clause had been free-standing, and therefore applicable to all immigration and asylum issues; its placement in the asylum Article was surely no accident and must therefore be legally relevant.

The strongest legal argument against the validity of the second Decision is a procedural one. CJEU case law has always stated that where the EP has to be consulted on a measure, it must be reconsulted if the essential elements of the measure are then changed after it was initially consulted. That certainly applies here, because the removal of Hungary from the list of frontline States changed an essential element of the law. Against this, it might be argued that there is no obligation to reconsult, or a less stringent obligation to reconsult, in ‘emergency’ cases. But if the claim is successful on this point, it won’t accomplish much: the Council will only have to consult the EP again, and the CJEU might (as it often does) keep the Decision in force in the meantime, since the legal flaw is purely procedural.

As to the substance of the emergency measures power, first of all it must implicitly be consistent with Article 78(1), forming part of a ‘common’ policy, ensuring compliance with ‘non-refoulement’ and being in accordance with the Geneva Convention. The two Decisions meet those criteria; some alternative suggestions like closing the external border or returning people to unsafe countries would not.

Next, several terms in Article 78(3) have to be defined: an ‘emergency situation’, a ‘sudden inflow’, a ‘provisional measure’ and the ‘benefit’ of Member States. The idea of an ‘emergency’ suggests a situation which Member States find particularly difficult to handle, and the current crisis certainly qualifies for that. Some have questioned whether the inflow is ‘sudden’, given that it has been building up for years, with the Syrian civil war starting back in 2011. But the overall numbers have clearly increased sharply in 2015; the scale of that increase surely qualifies as a ‘sudden’ inflow, even if the inflow did not start overnight.

Surely it is up to the Member States in question to determine if they will ‘benefit’ from the measures concerned; that’s why it was legally necessary to remove Hungary from the list of beneficiaries. Just because another policy might, in the view of other Member States, be preferable, doesn’t mean that the Member States concerned will not benefit. Anyway, it’s manifestly clear that Italy and Greece will benefit from having fewer asylum-seekers on their territory, as things now stand.

There’s a strong literal argument that the measures in question can only benefit Member States, as distinct from (say) Serbia – although the EU could still assist Serbia by other means. But that issue doesn’t arise, since the two Decisions are only relocating asylum-seekers from Member States. A purely consequential impact on third States (fewer people will transit Serbia) isn’t sufficient to infringe this rule.

This leaves us with the definition of ‘provisional measures’. The notion of ‘provisional’ means that it must be limited in time. Since the Treaty of Lisbon removed the previous limitation to six months, this means that measures can last for longer than that. Although there may be a legal argument that two years is too long, a period of one year (during which time a permanent system may well be agreed) is surely legal. So the most a successful claim could do here is curtail the length of the validity of the second Decision, not annul it completely. If a provisional measure is renewed, or replaced with a similar provisional measure, the ‘provisional’ nature of the powers would be infringed, but we have not got to that stage yet.   

What ‘measures’ can be adopted? Can they amend existing legislation? This is relevant because the two Decisions derogate from the Dublin rules, as any relocation system would have to do. The EP’s role has been circumvented because it was only consulted. While I previously held the view that for this reason, emergency asylum measures could not derogate from EU asylum legislation, I no longer think that’s correct. Because the Treaty refers to a ‘common’ asylum policy, it must follow that the power to adopt emergency measures would be nugatory if it couldn’t amend existing legislation.

Does the EU have power to adopt quotas of asylum-seekers? A power to adopt quota rules is ruled out under Article 79(5) TFEU in the case of those looking for work. But those limitations only apply to ‘that Article’, and the Treaty drafters chose to regulate asylum issues, including reception conditions for asylum-seekers and the status of refugees (which concern access to employment) on the basis of Article 78 instead. Indeed, as noted already, there’s no right to work for asylum-seekers on the basis of EU law unless they have been waiting nine months for a decision (although Member States can choose to be more generous if they wish), and some asylum-seekers will be too young to seek work or otherwise not seek work due to family responsibilities or illness, for example. So asylum-seekers aren’t within the scope of Article 79. Moreover, the issue of relocation quotas had been discussed several times before, to the Treaty drafters must have been aware of it. If they had wanted to rule out quotas for asylum-seekers in Article 78(3), they would therefore surely have done so expressly. Article 79(5) has an a contrario effect.

Should Article 78(3) be narrowly interpreted? The Treaty drafters chose to use broad wording, and indeed Article 80 TFEU refers broadly to the principle of solidarity and burden-sharing ('including', ie not limited to, financial support). Unlike Treaty provisions which stress the narrowness of the EU’s powers, such as the powers over health or education, Article 78 repeatedly refers to a ‘common’ or ‘uniform’ policy (there are more such references in Articles 67 and 78(2)). The Treaty drafters placed limits on the scope of the EU’s immigration policy (as we have seen already); and in the same Title of the Treaty, there are various special rules relating to competence or voting over various aspects of border controls, civil law, police cooperation, and criminal law. It’s quite striking that no comparable limits exist as regards the EU’s asylum powers. One may reasonably argue that there should be such limits, but I am not convinced that there are such limits at the moment.

Just because those powers exist, however, does not mean that they should necessarily be used. So finally I will turn to the question of whether relocation is a good idea in general, and whether it is wise to force it upon recalcitrant States – even if it is legal.

Appraising the relocation policy

In principle, the objectives of the relocation policy are entirely valid. Article 80 TFEU refers to the need for solidarity and burden-sharing among Member States as regards asylum, and this reflects also the burden-sharing principle of international law, set out in the preamble to the Geneva Convention on refugees. The numbers who have arrived in Greece and Italy in recent months are clearly unmanageable for those countries to handle alone, although it should not be forgotten that some of the (potential) asylum-seekers concerned have moved on to other Member States under their own steam in the meantime. While solidarity also can (and does) take the form of financial support and additional personnel, reception centres cannot be built overnight and officials from other Member States cannot simply become part of the Greek or Italian civil service for a while.

If anything, the relocation Decisions are insufficient. It’s clearly an overstatement to say that the EU has ‘done nothing’ to help those countries: the Decisions won’t relieve all the pressure upon Italy and Greece, but equally it should in principle relieve some of it. According to the preamble to the second Decision, it will relieve Greece and Italy of 43% of the asylum-seekers who clearly needed international protection (ie the nationalities with high success rates in asylum claims) who arrived there over July and August. But this is less impressive than it first appears, since it assumes that the further 54,000 asylum-seekers now ‘on ice’ will be relocated from those countries, whereas this is not yet certain. And while the asylum-seekers in question will be relocated over two years, the numbers referred to in the preamble arrived over two months. Although the first Decision will also relieve some pressure, the percentage of the asylum-seekers from priority countries who will arrive in Italy and Greece over the next two years who will be relocated will therefore be much less than 43%. It is even possible that the more systematic application of the obligation to fingerprint applicants will mean that Italy and Greece would end up responsible for more applicants from the priority countries than before. 

Overall, then, taking into account the numbers of asylum-seekers not subject to the Decisions because they are not from a priority country, the two Decisions are likely to prove insufficient. This can be addressed in practice by further such Decisions (or the proposed new permanent system for addressing these issues) in the near future.

The question of whether it is possible to reduce the numbers of asylum-seekers who arrive at the EU’s external borders in the first place is outside the scope of my analysis here – although this will ultimately determine whether a mass influx continues to occur in the years to come. 

As for the details of the Decisions, there are two particularly controversial issues: the role of asylum-seekers, and the wisdom of enforcing quotas upon unwilling Member States. On the first point, it is problematic to compel asylum-seekers to move to a country that they do not wish to be in, since this has already proved unworkable in the original Dublin context. It would have been preferable at least to give asylum-seekers the opportunity to express a (non-binding) preference (with reasons) for particular Member State, or perhaps a list of several preferred Member States. That would increase the likelihood that asylum-seekers will stay put, since they are would be in a Member States where they prefer to be. It will also increase the likelihood that they will integrate into the host State once obtaining protection status (as most people subject to the Decisions will), given that they may prefer particular destinations because they have extended family members, friends or acquaintances there. But it will probably not be possible to respect every asylum-seeker’s preferred destination – or every asylum-seeker who wants to relocate.

In the absence of any attempt to consider the asylum-seekers’ preferences, Member States instead fell back upon the idea of punishing them if they make secondary movements. Although the Dublin system has notably not worked well at ensuring that asylum-seekers always remain in the State which is responsible for their application, it has worked better when asylum-seekers have been fingerprinted, so that it is easy to ascertain the responsible Member State; and relocation under the Decisions will only be possible for those who have been fingerprinted. While the Decisions correctly state that asylum-seekers who make secondary movements have to be taken back (pursuant to the Dublin Regulation), the preamble to the second Decision wrongly claims that they could be detained pursuant to the Returns Directive. In fact, since that Directive doesn’t apply to asylum-seekers (see the CJEU rulings in Kadzoev and Arslan), the narrower grounds for detention in the Dublin Regulation would apply instead, if the person concerned applies for asylum.

It’s also not clear exactly what benefits sanctions and remedies restrictions could be legally applied to asylum-seekers who don’t stay in the Member State of relocation, beyond the possibility of limiting the suspensive effect of a legal challenge. As regards benefits, the CJEU ruled in Cimade and GISTI that benefits must still be paid to asylum-seekers even if they have moved to another Member State (by that Member State), until the point when they are transferred back to the responsible Member State under the Dublin rules. This is now reflected in the preamble to the Dublin III Regulation. It might prove more fruitful to take up the Commission’s suggestion of allowing relocated asylum-seekers to work at an earlier date.

On the second point, historically calls for asylum burden-sharing have relied upon moral suasion, not legal imposition. The relocation process will in any event be difficult to carry out if the outvoted Member States refuse to cooperate with it. (It’s not clear if they will suspend their commitments under the first Decision too – although note that Hungary made no such commitments in the first place). The Commission can begin infringement proceedings for non-cooperation, but this will take time, and the Member States in question might prefer to pay a fine (the sanction for non-compliance with a CJEU infringement ruling) than cooperate with relocation.

While the recalcitrant Member States’ objections to burden-sharing are not very convincing, more efforts should have been made to offer them an alternative. The original suggestion of a financial contribution to alleviate the costs of the Member States with the biggest burden was dropped, since it was (wrongly) perceived as a sanction, rather than as an alternate type of burden-sharing. Perhaps a better idea would have been to offer the option of assisting the neighbouring countries hosting Syrians, Iraqis and Eritreans, either by resettling more people directly from those countries or by making bigger financial contributions to those countries (and thereby reducing ‘push’ factors). Either option could have indirectly relieved the burden on Greece or Italy.

Finally, to what extent can the outvoted Member States (or others) reduce their obligations under the Decisions? As we have seen, the second Decision allows them to reduce their intake temporarily, if the Council approves. They must have good reasons, in particular relating to reception capacity. Given the exceptional nature of the rule, it is hard to see how other reasons can easily be accepted; certainly paranoia cannot. And the grounds for the request must be compatible with EU values, so Islamophobia is equally an impermissible ground too.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

Photo credit: Istvan Zsiros

‘Hotspots’ for asylum applications: some things we urgently need to know

Frances Webber, barrister, journalist and lecturer; vice chair, Institute of Race Relations; co-editor of Macdonald's Immigration Law and Practice, 5th and 6th editions (2001, 2005) and of Halsbury's Laws: British Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Law (2002); Author of Borderline Justice: the fight for refugee and migrant rights (Pluto, 2012)

Through the mechanisms it is setting up for the relocation of refugees from Italy and Greece, the EU is trying to regain control of refugee movement in the EU. The tough screening process it is setting up at points of entry into the EU seems designed as a crude instrument to separate out a minority of ‘good’ refugees from what EU ministers want to convince us are a majority of ‘bad’ economic migrants, and to dispatch the latter rapidly and efficiently. But life is not that simple, and the hotspots’ screening procedures could result in large numbers of people being returned to unsafe or unviable situations without proper consideration of their claims.

According to the Commission's explanation of 'hotspots', as part of the package decided on in September,  EU agencies including Frontex and Europol, as well as the EU’s asylum agency will help national officials in Greece and Italy to identify, fingerprint, screen and register asylum applicants, organise relocation to other member states of those who qualify and remove from the territory those ‘who either did not apply for international protection or whose right to remain on the territory has ceased’. (See Article 7 of the second Council Decision on relocation of asylum-seekers).  The European Commission has said that these functions will be performed in ‘hotspots’ in Greece and Italy. Four locations in Italy are already apparently operating, with a total capacity of 1,500:, with another two promised for the end of the year. In Greece, a ‘headquarters hotspot’ is to be set up in Piraeus, where asylum seekers arriving on the islands will be gathered and processed. 

Organisations such as Doctors of the World welcomed the announcement as providing some official framework for reception, which they hope will allow them to operate in a more regulated environment. But questions arise immediately. What will the hotspots look like? Will refugee applicants be detained there? Are they to be refugee camps or removal centres? Matteo Renzi suggests they will be EU-run refugee camps, while Francois Hollande sees them as deportation camps – which suggests detention and coercion. And how are decisions to be made, and reviewed?

Who benefits?

We know from the Council decisions of 15 and 22 September that only those nationalities with a recognition rate (as refugees or persons needing international protection) of 75 percent or more will be accepted for relocation. As Steve Peers points out in his previous blog post on relocation, those who benefit from the process (for instance, Syrians, Iraqis and Eritreans, according to current statistics) will be allocated on a no-choice basis (although family unity must be respected), while host countries can express a preference for the kinds of asylum seekers they are prepared to take. No prizes for guessing those at the top and bottom of any preference list. For those relocated, attempts to move from their new host country to somewhere more sympathetic, less racist or where more compatriots live will be met with speedy return to the allocated host. Beggars can’t be choosers.

Peers covers the problems of relocation in his piece. I want to raise questions about the screening process, and what happens to those who are not selected for relocation. Will tests be administered to determine whether applicants are genuinely of the nationality they claim? According to the EU Commission’s paper, Frontex already deploys screening and ‘debriefing’ experts in Italy and Greece (presumably to ask questions about routes taken to get there, with a view to gathering intelligence about smugglers), in addition to ‘advance-level document experts’. These ‘experts’ are likely to be seconded civil servants from member states’ interior ministries. As such, will their mindset be attuned to detecting fraud rather than responding to need? What documents will they be scrutinising? Will possession of a genuine and valid Syrian, Iraqi or Eritrean passport (for instance) be a prerequisite to acceptance?  If not, what will nationality-testing entail? And given the shambolic nature of the language and knowledge tests imposed by the Home Office in the UK to determine asylum claimants’ nationality, what appeal or review rights will there be against a decision that someone is not in fact Syrian, or Eritrean or Iraqi?

And what will happen to those not from the big three refugee-producing countries? Presumably, the idea behind the hotspots is that all claims for international protection which do not lead to relocation will be dealt with there. If so, will claimants remain there for the duration, and if not, where and how will the residual group of claimants not selected for relocation live while their claims are processed? And how will their claims be processed? What will the timescales be? In the pressured environment of the camps, where speedy processing will be a priority, claims for international protection are unlikely to receive the careful and sympathetic assessment required by the 1979 UNHCR Handbook. So what will the procedures be? Crucially, what rights of appeal will there be against negative decisions?

The ‘safe countries’ list

It is presumably to facilitate speedy decision-making that the Commission’s package includes a proposed regulation for a list of safe countries of origin, containing countries of the western Balkans – Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro and Serbia – and Turkey. While the proposed list does not mean automatic rejection of claims, its presumption that the country is a safe one for nationals to return to is a strong one, and forms the basis of an accelerated procedure which, as we know from the UK experience (the 'detained fast-track' process, currently suspended after judicial recognition of its unfairness to applicants), easily becomes a self-fulfilling process of rejection. The Commission itself acknowledges the un-safety of most of these countries for Roma, for LGBTI and for other minorities, and for Kurds, journalists and ‘others’ (such as political opponents) in Turkey. As Steve Peers points out in his blog post, ‘Safe countries of origin: assessing the new proposal’, Turkey does not belong on any safe country list; nearly a quarter of asylum applications by Turkish citizens were successful. 

Accelerated removals

But if fair determination procedures are not in place, or if it soon becomes apparent that the hotspots are not a gateway to protection, or that application could lead to relocation to a hostile country, why would those who need international protection apply? The Council decisions state the obvious – that only those who have sought protection are eligible for relocation. But Frontex’s removal remit covers not just those whose claims are exhausted and so have no claim to remain on the territory, but also those who have not claimed protection. Does this mean that Frontex officials have a roaming mandate to go around Italy and Greece rounding up all those who have not registered a claim for asylum? The opportunity to claim international protection should be available at any time, up to the point of removal; but how will this right be guaranteed?

Without clear and robust safeguards in place, the EU’s relocation package could turn out to be a figleaf for a quiet but massive removal operation against, rather than a protection operation for, those arriving on Europe’s shores. 

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

Photo credit: www.ekathimerini.com

The new EU Migration Agenda takes shape: analysis of the first new measures

Steve Peers

This week the European Commission took its first steps towards implementing its new EU Migration Agenda (previously discussed here). A number of the items in the agenda have already been addressed (for instance, the military mission against smugglers on the Libyan coast, as discussed here). Others will be addressed later: a broader reform of legal migration law and changes to the rules on asylum procedures and the ‘Dublin’ rules on responsibility for asylum-seekers.

The first batch of measures contained five different elements. First of all, the Commission launched a public consultation on the reform of the existing EU law providing for a ‘Blue Card’ for the admission of highly-skilled non-EU migrants. I have commented previously here on the implementation of this law and the reforms to it which should be adopted.

Secondly, the Commission released an Action Plan against migrant smuggling. This mainly elaborates upon several ideas mentioned already in the main agenda. This includes: a revision of EU anti-smuggling law, planned for 2016, to increase smugglers’ penalties and clarify humanitarian exceptions from the rules; possible new rules on immigration liaison officers in 2016; a Handbook on expulsion in 2015; a possible revision of the rules on trafficking victims, in 2016, to include ‘victims’ of smuggling; a revision of the legislation on Frontex (the EU border agency), to give it more powers relating to expulsion; changes to the rules on the Schengen Information System in 2015-16, so that all Schengen Member States’ entry bans are applicable across the Schengen area; a handbook on prevention of migrant smuggling in 2017; readmission agreements with sub-Saharan countries; and stronger enforcement of the rules prohibiting employment of irregular migrants. Most of these measures concern all irregular migrants, not just those who were smuggled to the EU.

Thirdly, the Commission adopted a Recommendation on the resettlement of refugees directly from outside the EU to EU Member States. As a Recommendation it is non-binding, and as an act of the Commission, it does not need the approval of the Council or the European Parliament. According to the new Immigration Agenda, there will be EU funds attached to each resettled refugee, so Member States are encouraged to resettle people. It is a useful measure to ensure that a bigger number of persons are rescued without having to risk their lives or pay smugglers to cross the Mediterranean, although the overall numbers are likely to be modest.  In the event that Member States do not make use of the Recommendation to resettle refugees, the Migration Agenda promises a proposal for a binding measure, although it might be hard to find sufficient support in Council for its adoption.

Fourthly, the Commission issued guidance on the fingerprinting of asylum-seekers, as provided for in the EU’s Eurodac legislation, which sets up a database of such fingerprints in order to apply the ‘Dublin’ rules more effectively. In the Commission’s view, any irregular border-crosser who refuses to give fingerprints ought to be detained, expelled and subjected to an entry ban, in accordance with EU asylum law and the Returns Directive. Alternatively, Member States could force them to take fingerprints, with a possible exception for pregnant women and minors. Frankly, the correct application of the EU’s Dublin system is not worth the health of life of a single unborn child.

Moreover, the Commission appears to be confused about the details of the relevant legislation. It would be necessary to prove that refusal to take fingerprints ‘avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the removal process’ to justify detention under the Returns Directive; but the purpose of the fingerprinting is mainly to apply the Dublin asylum rules, not to ‘prepare the return and/or carry out the removal process’, which is the legal basis for detention of irregular migrants under the Returns Directive. Furthermore, the rules on entry bans in that Directive make no reference to the issue of fingerprinting. As for asylum-seekers, the paper is correct to say that they can be detained in order to ‘verify their identity and/or nationality’ in the EU’s Reception Conditions Directive. However, for asylum-seekers who have been fingerprinted already by a Member State and then apply for asylum in a second Member State, the Commission fails to mention that the Dublin rules apply. They permit detention only where there is a ‘significant risk of absconding’, which does not automatically follow from a refusal to be fingerprinted.

Fifthly, the Commission proposed a Decision on relocation of asylum-seekers between Member States. This is the only one of this week’s proposals which would (if adopted) be legally binding. Like most Commission proposals, this needs a qualified majority of Member States to support it in the Council; unlike most EU law, the European Parliament need only be consulted. It seems from press reports that there will be a ‘blocking minority’ of Member States preventing its adoption, unless some of them change their position. It’s also possible that it will be agreed, but with major changes. But for now, let’s look at what the proposal would do if adopted.

The main thrust of the proposal is to derogate from the usual ‘Dublin’ rules as regards Italy and Greece, and distribute about 40% of the asylum-seekers which would normally be the responsibility of those Member States under the Dublin rules to other Member States. Due to opt-outs, the other Member States will not include Denmark or the UK, although it seems possible that Ireland will opt in. The proposal also will not apply to the non-Member States bound by the Dublin rules (Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein). It would effectively be a regime within a regime, with only 25 or 26 of the 32 Dublin States applying it.

The relocated asylum-seekers will be split 60/40 between Italy and Greece, and will be allocated to other Member States on the basis of the criteria set out in the Annexes to the proposal. Relocation will be selective, applying only to those nationalities whose applications have over a 75% success rate in applications for international protection. It’s clear from the proposal that the Commission believes that only Syrians and Eritreans will qualify. The Member State of relocation will be responsible for considering the application, and asylum-seekers and refugees will not be able to move between Member States, in accordance with the normal Dublin rules. (After five years’ residence, refugees can move between Member States, according to the EU’s long-term residence Directive).

Besides the nationality criterion, who will be relocated? Asylum-seekers must be fingerprinted in order to qualify. The selection of asylum-seekers will be made by Italy and Greece, who must give ‘priority’ to those who are considered ‘vulnerable’ as defined by the EU reception conditions Directive. This refers to a long list of people:

‘such as minors, unaccompanied minors, disabled people, elderly people, pregnant women, single parents with minor children, victims of human trafficking, persons with serious illnesses, persons with mental disorders and persons who have been subjected to torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence, such as victims of female genital mutilation’

Implicitly, the other Member States must accept the asylum-seekers nominated by Italy and Greece, except that they can refuse relocation if it’s ‘likely that there are national security or public order concerns’.

What about the asylum-seekers themselves? There is no requirement that they consent to their relocation or have the power to request it. The proposed Decision only requires Italy and Greece to inform and notify the asylum-seekers about the relocation, and the Commission suggests that they could only appeal against the decision if there are major human rights problems in the country to which they would be relocated. So neither the relocation itself, nor the choice of Member State that a person will be relocated to, is voluntary. This is problematic, since forcing asylum-seekers to a country that they don’t want to be in is one of the key problems facing the Dublin system already.

Of course, it’s possible that like children left in an orphanage who weren’t picked by new parents, there will be rather more asylum-seekers disappointed that they were not selected for relocation.  Do they have the right to a legal challenge? Arguably yes, to the extent that Italy and Greece select people who are not vulnerable for relocation, in light of their legal obligation to select vulnerable persons as a priority.  

Asylum-seekers do have the right to insist that their core family members (spouse or partner, unmarried minor children, or parents of minors) who are already on EU territory come with them to the relocated Member State. It’s not clear if Member States could count the transfer of family members towards their overall quota. If the asylum-seekers obtain refugee status in the State of relocation, they could also apply for family reunion under the EU’s family reunion Directive.

Similarly, it’s not clear if Member States can count towards their overall quota asylum-seekers who would normally be the responsibility of Italy and Greece, but who have already found their way on to another Member State’s territory. This might be termed relocation sur place. According to the rules in the Decision, this would in any event depend upon the willingness of Italy and Greece to designate such asylum-seekers for relocation. And as the Commission notes, persons who would already be the responsibility of Greece cannot be sent back there anyway due to the collapse of the asylum system in Greece, according to the CJEU ruling in NS (the position regarding Italy is more qualified: see the discussion of last year’s Tarakhel judgment). Of course, it is possible that the relocation of significant numbers of asylum-seekers away from Greece will contribute to solving the systemic problems with that country’s asylum system in the foreseeable future.

Overall, if the Council is willing to agree to the proposed Decision, it is likely to make a significant contribution to solving the problems with the asylum systems of some Member States, although only the more significant review of the Dublin rules promised for 2016 (or a profound improvement in the situation of countries of origin or transit) could provide a long-term solution. It is very striking that while this proposal effectively admits that the Dublin system is profoundly dysfunctional, the separate set of fingerprinting guidelines issued on the same day adopts a tone of head-banging savagery to try and get that system to work.

A final question arising is the impact of the proposed asylum measures on the UK. While the UK has an opt out, some suggest that all asylum-seekers who reach the EU could ultimately obtain EU citizenship and then move to the UK. However, the proposed Decision only relocates asylum-seekers who have already reached the EU, rather than increase the total number of asylum-seekers. Furthermore, a recent fact check suggests that only a modest number of non-EU citizens get Italian nationality each year, and that Italy only grants refugee status to a handful of people. Indeed, the only prominent Italian citizen with an African background currently in the UK is Mario Balotelli - but I don't want to intrude into the private grief of Liverpool football fans.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

Photo: GlobalNation.Inquirer.net

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

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

The Backdrop of the Migration Crisis

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

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

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

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

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

The Factual Background

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

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

The Substance of the Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Remarks by the Advocate General

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

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

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

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

Comment

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

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

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

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

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

JHA4: chapter I:5

Photo credit: The Malta Independent