Tuesday, 3 July 2018

UK citizens in the EU after Brexit: Securing unilateral guarantees after a ‘no deal’ Brexit




Professor Steve Peers, University of Essex*

What happens to EU27 citizens and UK citizens who have moved within the EU in the event of a ‘no deal’ Brexit? In principle their position will be regulated by the withdrawal agreement under negotiations, but since it seems that talks on this agreement are becomingly increasingly difficult the possibility of the UK leaving the EU without any such agreement may have risen. This would leave the two groups of people in limbo, unless an alternative approach to securing their acquired rights is found.

It’s possible that a separate agreement on their rights could be agreed between the UK and the EU: I have suggested a text for such a “ring-fenced” deal here. Another alternative is matching unilateral guarantees. The EU Withdrawal Act, which recently came into force, retains EU27 citizens’ rights in UK law for the time being, and the UK government has already tabled planned changes to the Immigration Rules to give effect to it. This could be matched by national law guarantees for UK citizens in the EU27 States, but for the sake of legal security a better approach would be EU-wide legislation on the issue.

I suggest here a draft Regulation to give effect to that idea. (Denmark would not be covered, so would have to act unilaterally; Ireland could opt in). It is based on the text of the withdrawal agreement (which I commented on here), with several adaptations: retaining free movement for UK citizens who registered under the new system; a cut-off of the withdrawal date (Brexit day), on the assumption that there would be no transition period; and references to UK citizens and their family members only, except where EU27 citizens have been covered by the UK social security system and need recognition of those prior contributions.

It might be questioned whether the EU has the legal competence to adopt laws treating a Member State as a non-Member State before it leaves. However, the Commission has already made several legal proposals on the assumption that the UK is leaving, and if those proposals are legally sound it should follow that this one is also, provided that it does not apply until the withdrawal date. In the event that it were only adopted after the withdrawal date, it could be backdated to ensure that no UK citizens or their family members will be treated as illegal residents. The Regulation would be based on Article 79 TFEU, which gives the EU power to adopt legislation on the legal migration status of non-EU citizens. Although the EU cannot harmonise national law on the numbers of people coming from non-EU countries to seek work (Article 79(5)), this Regulation would concern non-EU citizens already resident on the territory.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 27

Photo credit: ITV news

*Supported by an ESRC Priority Brexit Grant on 'Brexit and UK and EU Immigration Policy'





TITLE I

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 1

Objective

This Regulation sets out the rights of United Kingdom nationals and their family members, who exercised rights pursuant to European Union law before the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.

Article 2

Definitions

For the purposes of this Regulation, and without prejudice to Title III, the following definitions shall apply:

(a) "family members" means:

(i) family members of Union citizens or United Kingdom nationals as defined in point (2) of Article 2 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council;

(ii) persons other than those defined in Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC whose presence is required by Union citizens or United Kingdom nationals in order not to deprive them of a right of residence granted by this Regulation;

irrespective of their nationality and who fall within the personal scope provided for in Article 3 of this Regulation; 

(b) "frontier workers" means United Kingdom nationals who pursue an economic activity in accordance with Article 45 or 49 TFEU in one or more States in which they do not reside;

(c) "host State" means the Member State in which the United Kingdom nationals exercised their right of residence in accordance with Union law before the withdrawal date and continue to reside there thereafter;

(d) "State of work" means a Member State in which the United Kingdom nationals pursued an economic activity as frontier workers before the withdrawal date and continue to do so thereafter;                                                    

(e) "rights of custody" means rights of custody within the meaning of point (9) of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003, including rights of custody acquired by judgment, by operation of law or by an agreement having legal effect.  

(f) "Member States" means the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Croatia, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden;

(g) "Union citizen" means any person holding the nationality of a Member State;

(h) "United Kingdom national" means a national of the United Kingdom, as defined in the New Declaration by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of 31 December 1982 on the definition of the term ‘nationals’1 together with Declaration No 63 annexed to the Final Act of the intergovernmental conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon;

(i) "withdrawal date" means the date on which the United Kingdom ceased to be a Member State, in accordance with Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.

Article 3

Personal scope

1.  Without prejudice to Title III, this Regulation shall apply to the following persons: 

(a) United Kingdom nationals who exercised their right to reside in a Member State in accordance with Union law before the withdrawal date and continue to reside there thereafter; 

(b) United Kingdom nationals who exercised their right as frontier workers in one or more Member States in accordance with Union law before the withdrawal date and continue to do so thereafter; 

(c) family members of the persons referred to in points (a) to (b), where they fulfil one of the following conditions:

(i) they resided in the host State in accordance with Union law before the withdrawal date and continue to reside there thereafter;

(ii) they were directly related to a person referred to in points (a) to (d) of this paragraph and resided outside the host State before the withdrawal date, provided that they fulfil the conditions set out in point (2) of Article 2 of Directive 2004/38/EC at the time they seek residence under this Regulation in order to join the person referred to in points (a) to (d) of this paragraph;

(iii) they are born to, or legally adopted by, persons referred to in points (a) to (d) after the withdrawal date, whether inside or outside the host State, where they fulfil the conditions set out in point (2)(c) of Article 2 of Directive 2004/38/EC at the time they seek residence under this Regulation in order to join the person referred to in points (a) to (d) of this paragraph and fulfil one of the following conditions:

 - both parents are persons referred to in points (a) to (d);

 - one parent is a person referred to in points (a) to (d) and the other is a national of the host State; or       

 - one parent is a person referred to in points (a) to (d) and has sole or joint rights of custody of the child, in accordance with the applicable rules of family law of a Member State, including applicable rules of private international law under which rights of custody established under the law of a third state are recognised in the Member State, in particular as regards the best interests of the child and without prejudice to the normal operation of such applicable rules of private international law;

[footnote: The notion of rights of custody is to be interpreted in accordance with point (9) of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility. Therefore, it covers rights of custody acquired by judgment, by operation of law or by an agreement having legal effect.]

(d) family members who resided in the host State in accordance with Articles 12 and 13, Article 16(2) and Articles 17 and 18 of Directive 2004/38/EC before the withdrawal date and continue to reside there thereafter.

2. Persons falling under points (a) and (b) of Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC whose residence was facilitated by the host State in accordance with its national legislation before the withdrawal date in accordance with Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC shall retain their right of residence in the host State in accordance with this Regulation provided they continue to reside in the host State thereafter.

3. Paragraph 2 also applies to persons falling under points (a) and (b) of Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC who have applied for facilitation of entry and residence before the withdrawal date, and whose residence is facilitated by the host State in accordance with its national legislation after that date.

4. Without prejudice to any right to residence which the persons concerned may have in their own right, the host State shall, in accordance with its national legislation and in accordance with point (b) of Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC, facilitate entry and residence for the partner with whom the person referred to in points (a) to (d) has a durable relationship, duly attested, and who resided outside the host State before the withdrawal date, provided that the relationship was durable before the withdrawal date and continues at the time the partner seeks residence under this Regulation.

5. In the cases referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4, the host State shall undertake an extensive examination of the personal circumstances and shall justify any denial of entry or residence to such persons.  

Article 4

Continuity of residence

Continuity of residence for the purposes of Articles 2 and 3 shall not be affected by absences as referred to in Article 8(2).

The right of permanent residence acquired under Directive 2004/38/EC before the withdrawal date shall not be treated as lost through absence from the host State for a period specified in Article 8(3).                                                     

Article 5

Non-discrimination

Within the scope of this Regulation and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 18 TFEU shall be prohibited in the host State and the State of work in respect of the persons referred to in Article 3 of this Regulation.

 

TITLE II

RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS

CHAPTER 1

Rights related to residence, residence documents

Article 6

Residence rights

1. United Kingdom nationals shall have the right to reside in the host State under the limitations and conditions as set out in Articles 21, 45 or 49 TFEU and in Article 6(1), Article 7(1)(a), (b) or (c), Article 7(3), Article 14, Article 16(1) or Article 17(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC. 

2. Family members who are United Kingdom nationals shall have the right to reside in the host State as set out in Article 21 TFEU and in Article 6(1), Article 7(1)(d), Article 12(1) or (3), Article 13(1), Article 14, Article 16(1) or Article 17(3) and (4) of Directive 2004/38/EC, subject to the limitations and conditions set out in those provisions.

3. Family members who are not United Kingdom nationals shall have the right to reside in the host State under Article 21 TFEU and as set out in Article 6(2), Article 7(2), Article 12(2) or (3), Article 13(2), Article 14, Article 16(2), Article 17(3) or (4) or Article 18 of Directive 2004/38/EC, subject to the limitations and conditions set out in those provisions.

4.  The host State may not impose any limitations and conditions other than those provided for in this Title on the persons referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 for obtaining, retaining or losing residence rights. There shall be no discretion in applying the limitations and conditions, other than in favour of the person concerned.  

Article 7

Right of exit and of entry

1. United Kingdom nationals, their respective family members and other persons, residing in its territory in accordance with the conditions set out in this Title shall have the right to leave the host State and the right to enter it as set out in Articles 4(1) and 5(1) first paragraph of Directive 2004/38/EC with a valid passport or national identity card for United Kingdom nationals, and a valid passport for their respective family members who are not Union citizens or United Kingdom nationals.

After five years following the withdrawal date, the host State may decide no longer to accept a national identity card to enter or exit its territory, if the respective national identity card does not include a chip compliant with the applicable International Civil Aviation Organisation standards related to biometric identification. 

2. No exit or entry visa or equivalent formality shall be required for holders of a valid document issued in accordance with Article 11 or 19 of this Regulation.

3.  Where the host State requires family members who join the United Kingdom national after the withdrawal date to have an entry visa, the host State shall grant such persons every facility to obtain the necessary visas. Such visas shall be issued free of charge as soon as possible and on the basis of an accelerated procedure.  

Article 8

Right of permanent residence

1.  United Kingdom nationals and their family members who have resided legally in accordance with Union law for a continuous period of five years in the host State, or for the duration specified in Article 17 of Directive 2004/38/EC, shall have the right to reside permanently in the host State under the conditions set out in Articles 16, 17 and 18 of Directive 2004/38/EC. Periods of legal residence or work in accordance with Union law before and after the withdrawal date shall be included in the calculation of the qualifying period necessary for acquisition of the right of permanent residence.

2.  Continuity of residence for the purposes of acquisition of the right of permanent residence shall be determined in accordance with Article 16(3) and Article 21 of Directive 2004/38/EC.

3.  Once acquired, the right of permanent residence shall be lost only through absence from the host State for a period exceeding five consecutive years.



Article 9

Accumulation of periods

United Kingdom nationals and their family members who before the withdrawal date resided legally in the host State under the conditions of Article 7 of Directive 2004/38/EC for a period of less than five years, shall have the right to acquire the right to reside permanently under the conditions set out in Article 8 of this Regulation once they have completed the necessary periods of residence. Periods of legal residence or work in accordance with Union law before and after the withdrawal date shall be included in the calculation of the qualifying period necessary for acquisition of the right of permanent residence.  

Article 10

Status and changes

1.  The right of United Kingdom nationals and their family members to rely directly on this Regulation shall not be affected when they change status, for example between student, worker, self-employed person and economically inactive person. Persons who, at the withdrawal date, enjoy a right of residence in their capacity as family members of United Kingdom nationals cannot become persons referred to in points (a) to (d) of Article 9(1).

2.  The rights provided for in this Title for the family members, who are dependent on United Kingdom nationals before the withdrawal date, shall be maintained even after they cease to be dependent.  

Article 11

Issuance of residence documents

1.  The host State may require United Kingdom nationals, their family members and other persons residing in its territory in accordance with the conditions set out in this Title, to apply for a new residence status which confers the rights under this Title and a document evidencing such status which may be in a digital form.

Applying for such a residence status shall be subject to the following conditions:

(a) the purpose of the application procedure shall be to verify whether the applicant is entitled to the residence rights set out in this Title. Where that is the case, the applicant shall have a right to be granted the residence status and the document evidencing it;

(b) the deadline for submitting the application shall not be less than 6 months from the withdrawal date for persons residing in the host State before the withdrawal date. 

The deadline for persons who have the right to commence residence in the host State in accordance with this Regulation shall be 3 months after their arrival or expiry of the deadline referred to in the first subparagraph, whichever is later.

A certificate of application for the residence status shall be issued immediately;

(c) the deadline for submitting the application referred to in point (b) shall be extended automatically by one year where a Member State has notified Commission that technical problems prevent that State either from registering the application or from issuing the certificate of application referred to in point (b). That Member State shall publish that notification and shall provide appropriate public information for the citizens or nationals concerned in good time;

(d) where the deadline for submitting the application referred to in point (b) is not respected by the persons concerned, the competent authorities shall assess all the circumstances and reasons for not respecting the deadline and allow those persons to submit an application within a reasonable further period of time, where there are reasonable grounds for the failure to respect the deadline;

(e) the host State shall ensure that administrative procedures for applications are smooth, transparent and simple and that any unnecessary administrative burdens are avoided;

(f) application forms shall be short, simple, user friendly and adjusted to the context of this Regulation; applications made by families at the same time shall be considered together;

(g) the document evidencing the status shall be issued free of charge or for a charge not exceeding that imposed on citizens or nationals for the issuing of similar documents;

(h) persons who, before the withdrawal date, are holders of a valid permanent residence document issued under Article 19 or 20 of Directive 2004/38/EC or a valid domestic immigration document conferring a permanent right to reside in the host State, shall have the right to exchange that document within the period referred to in point (b)for a new residence document upon application after a verification of their identity, a criminality and security check in accordance with point (p) of this paragraph and confirmation of ongoing residence; such a document shall be free of charge;

(i) the identity of the applicants shall be verified through the presentation of a valid passport or national identity card for United Kingdom nationals, and a valid passport for their respective family members who are not Union citizens or United Kingdom nationals; the acceptance of such identity documents shall not be made conditional upon any criteria other than that of validity. Where the identity document is retained by the competent authorities of the host State while the application is pending, the host State shall return that document upon application without delay and before the decision on the application is taken;

(j) supporting documents other than identity documents, such as civil status documents, may be submitted in copy. Originals of supporting document can be required only in specific cases where there is a reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of the supporting documents submitted;

(k) the host State may only require United Kingdom nationals to present, in addition to the identity documents referred to in point (i) of this paragraph, the following supporting documents as referred to in Article 8(3) of Directive 2004/38/EC:

(i) where they reside in the host State in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 2004/38/EC as workers or self-employed, a confirmation of engagement from the employer or a certificate of employment, or proof that they are self-employed;

(ii) where they reside in the host State in accordance with Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 2004/38/EC as economically inactive persons, evidence that they have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host State during their period of residence and have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host State;

(iii) where they reside in the host State in accordance with Article 7(1)(c) of Directive 2004/38/EC as students, proof of enrolment at an establishment accredited or financed by the host State on the basis of its legislation or administrative practice, and of comprehensive sickness insurance cover and a declaration or equivalent, that they have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host State during their period of residence. The host State may not require this declaration to refer to any specific amount of resources.

With regard to the condition of sufficient resources, Article 8(4) of Directive 2004/38/EC shall apply;

(l) the host State may only require family members who fall under Articles 3(1)(e)(i), 3(2) or 3(3) of this Regulation and who reside in the host State in accordance with Article 7(1)(d) or 7(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC to present, in addition to the identity documents referred to in point (i) of this paragraph, the following supporting documents as referred to in Articles 8(5) or 10(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC:

(i) a document attesting to the existence of a family relationship or of a registered partnership;

(ii) the registration certificate or, in the absence of a registration system, any other proof of residence in the host State of the Union citizen or of the United Kingdom nationals with whom they reside in the host State;

(iii) for direct descendants who are under the age of 21 or are dependants and dependent direct relatives in the ascending line, and for those of the spouse or registered partner, documentary evidence that the conditions set out in Article 2(2)(c) or (d) of Directive 2004/38/EC are fulfilled;

(iv) for the persons referred to in Article 3(2) or (3) of this Regulation, a document issued by the relevant authority in the host State in accordance with Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC.

With regard to the condition of sufficient resources as concerns family members who are themselves Union citizens or United Kingdom nationals, Article 8(4) of Directive 2004/38/EC shall apply;

(m) the host State may only require family members who fall under Articles 3(1)(e)(ii) or 3(4) of this Regulation, in addition to the identity documents referred to in point (i) of this paragraph, the following supporting documents as referred to in Articles 8(5) and 10(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC:

(i) a document attesting to the existence of a family relationship or of a registered partnership;

(ii) the registration certificate or, in the absence of a registration system, any other proof of residence in the host State of the Union citizen or of the United Kingdom nationals whom they are joining in the host State;

(iii) for spouses or registered partners, a document attesting to the existence of a family relationship or of a registered partnership before the withdrawal date;

(iv) for direct descendants who are under the age of 21 or are dependants and dependent direct relatives in the ascending line and those of the spouse or registered partner, documentary evidence that they were related to Union citizens or United Kingdom nationals before the withdrawal date and fulfil the conditions set out in Article 2(2)(c) or (d) of Directive 2004/38/EC relating to age or dependence;

(v) for the persons referred to in Article 3(4) of this Regulation, proof that a durable relationship with Union citizens or United Kingdom nationals existed before the withdrawal date and continues to exist thereafter;

(n) for cases other than those set out in points (k), (l) and (m), the host State shall not require applicants to present supporting documents that go beyond what is strictly necessary and proportionate to provide evidence that the conditions relating to the right of residence under this Title have been fulfilled;

(o) the competent authorities of the host State shall help the applicants prove their eligibility and avoid any errors or omissions in the application; they shall give the applicants the opportunity to furnish supplementary evidence and to correct any deficiencies, errors or omission;

(p) criminality and security checks may be carried out systematically on applicants with the exclusive aim of verifying whether restrictions set out in Article 13 of this Regulation may be applicable. For that purpose, applicants may be required to declare past criminal convictions which appear in their criminal record in accordance with the law of the State of conviction at the time of the application. The host State may, should it consider this essential, apply the procedure set out in Article 27(3) of Directive 2004/38/EC on enquiries to other States regarding previous criminal records;

(q) the new residence document shall include a statement that it has been issued in accordance with this Regulation;

(r) the applicant shall have access to judicial and, where appropriate, administrative redress procedures in the host State against any decision refusing to grant the residence status.

The redress procedures shall allow for an examination of the legality of the decision, as well as of the facts and circumstances on which the proposed decision is based. They shall ensure that the decision is not disproportionate.

2.  During the period referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1 of this Article and its possible one-year extension under point (c) of paragraph 1 of this Article, all rights provided for in this Regulation shall be deemed to apply to United Kingdom nationals, their family members, and other persons residing in the host State in accordance with the conditions and subject to the restrictions set out in Article 13.

3. Pending a final decision by the competent authorities on any application referred to in paragraph 1, as well as a final judgment handed down in case of judicial redress sought against any rejection of such application by the competent administrative authorities, all rights provided for in this Regulation shall be deemed to apply to the applicant, including Article 14 on safeguards and right of appeal, subject to the conditions set out in Article 13(4).

4. Where a host State has chosen not to require United Kingdom nationals, their family members, and other persons residing in its territory in accordance with the conditions set out in this Title, to apply for the new residence status referred to in paragraph 1 as a condition for legal residence, those eligible for residence rights under this Title shall have the right to receive, in accordance with the conditions set out in Directive 2004/38/EC, a residence document which may be in a digital form that includes a statement that it has been issued in accordance with this Regulation.  

Article 12

Issuance of residence documents during the transition period

1.  A host State may allow applications for a residence status or a residence document as referred to in Article 17(1) and (4) to be made voluntarily from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.

2.  A decision to accept or refuse such an application shall be taken in accordance with Article 11(1) and (4). A decision under Article 11(1) shall have no effect until the withdrawal date. 

3.  If an application under Article 11(1) is accepted before the withdrawal date, the host State may not withdraw the decision before that date on any grounds other than those set out in Chapter VI and Article 35 of Directive 2004/38/EC.

4.  If an application is refused before the withdrawal date, the applicant may apply again at any time before the expiry of the period set out in Article 11(1)(b).

5.  Without prejudice to paragraph 4, redress procedures under Article 11(1)(r) shall be available from the date of the decision.  

Article 13

Restrictions of the right of residence

1.  Conduct of United Kingdom nationals, their family members or other persons exercising rights under this Title, that occurred before the withdrawal date shall be considered in accordance with Chapter VI of Directive 2004/38/EC.

2.  Conduct of United Kingdom nationals, their family members or other persons exercising rights under this Title, that occurred after the withdrawal date may constitute grounds for restricting the right of residence by the host State or the right of entry in the State of work in accordance with national legislation.

3. The host State or the State of work may adopt the necessary measures to refuse, terminate or withdraw any right conferred by this Title in the case of abuse of those rights or fraud as set out in Article 35 of Directive 2004/38/EC. Such measures shall be subject to the procedural safeguards provided for in Article 14 of this Regulation.

4. The host State or the State of work may remove applicants who submitted fraudulent or abusive applications from its territory under the conditions set out in Directive 2004/38/EC, in particular Articles 31 and 35 thereof, even before a final judgment has been handed down in case of judicial redress sought against any rejection of such an application.  

Article 14

Safeguards and right of appeal

The safeguards set out in Article 15 and Chapter VI of Directive 2004/38/EC shall apply in respect of any decision of the host State that restricts residence rights of the persons referred to in Article 3 of this Regulation.  

Article 15

Related rights

In accordance with Article 23 of Directive 2004/38/EC, irrespective of nationality, the family members of a Union citizen or a United Kingdom national who have the right of residence or the right of permanent residence in the host State or the State of work shall be entitled to take up employment or self-employment there.  

Article 16

Equal treatment

1. In accordance with Article 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC, subject to the specific provisions provided for in Titles I, II and IV of this Regulation, all United Kingdom nationals residing on the basis of this Regulation in the territory of the host State shall enjoy equal treatment with the nationals of that State within the scope of this Regulation. The benefit of this right shall be extended to family members of United Kingdom nationals and who have the right of residence or permanent residence.

2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the host State shall not be obliged to confer entitlement to social assistance during residence in accordance with Articles 6 or 14(4)(b) of Directive 2004/38/EC, nor shall it be obliged, prior to acquisition of the right of permanent residence in accordance with Article 8 of this Regulation, to grant maintenance aid for studies, including vocational training, consisting in student grants or student loans to persons other than workers, self-employed persons, persons who retain such status and members of their families.



CHAPTER 2

Rights of workers and self-employed persons

Article 17

Rights of workers

1.  Subject to the limitations set out in Article 45(3) and (4) TFEU, workers in the host State and frontier workers in the State or States of work shall enjoy the rights guaranteed by Article 45 TFEU or granted by Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council. These rights include:

(a) the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of nationality as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment;

(b) the right to take up and pursue an activity in accordance with the rules applicable to the nationals of the host State or the State of work;

(c) the right to assistance afforded by the employment offices of the host State or the State of work as offered to own nationals;

(d) the right to equal treatment in respect of conditions of employment and work, in particular as regards remuneration, dismissal and in case of unemployment, reinstatement or re-employment;

(e) the right to tax and social advantages;

(f) collective rights;

(g) the rights and benefits accorded to national workers in matters of housing;

(h) the right for their children to be admitted to the general educational, apprenticeship and vocational training courses under the same conditions as the nationals of the host State or the State of work, if such children are residing in the territory where the worker works.

2.  Where a direct descendant of a worker who has ceased to reside in the host State is in education in that State, the primary carer for that descendant shall have the right to reside in that State until the descendant reaches the age of majority, and after the age of majority if that descendant continues to need the presence and care of the primary carer in order to pursue and complete his or her education.

3. Employed frontier workers shall enjoy the right to enter and exit the State of work in accordance with Article 7 and shall retain the rights they enjoyed as workers there in accordance with Article 7(3) of Directive 2004/38/EC.  

Article 18

Rights of self-employed persons

1.  Subject to the limitations set out in Articles 51 and 52 TFEU, self-employed persons in the host State and self-employed frontier workers in the State or States of work shall enjoy the rights guaranteed by Articles 49 and 55 TFEU. These rights include:

(a) the right to take up and pursue activities as self-employed persons and to set up and manage undertakings under the conditions laid down by the host State for its own nationals, as set out in Article 49 TFEU;

(b) the rights as set out in points (c) to (h) of Article 17(1) of this Regulation.

2.  Article 17(2) shall apply to direct descendants of self-employed workers.

3. Article 17(3) shall apply to self-employed frontier workers, without prejudice to Article 27 concerning the scope of rights.  

Article 19

Issuance of a document identifying frontier workers' rights

The State of work may require United Kingdom nationals who have rights as frontier workers under this Title to apply for a document certifying that they have such rights under this Title. Such United Kingdom nationals shall have the right to be issued with such a document.



CHAPTER 3

Professional qualifications

Article 20

Recognised professional qualifications

1.  The recognition, before the withdrawal date, of professional qualifications, as defined in point (b) of Article 3(1) of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of United Kingdom nationals and their family members by their host State or their State of work shall maintain its effects in the respective State, including the right to pursue the profession under the same conditions as its nationals, where such recognition was made in accordance with any of the following provisions:

(a) Title III of Directive 2005/36/EC in respect of the recognition of professional qualifications in the context of the exercise of the freedom of establishment, whether such recognition fell under the general system for the recognition of evidence of training, the system for the recognition of professional experience or the system for the recognition on the basis of coordination of minimum training conditions;                                                        

(b) Article 10(1) and (3) of Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council in respect of gaining admission to the profession of lawyer in the host Member State;

(c) Article 14 of Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council in respect of the approval of statutory auditors from another Member State;

(d) Council Directive 74/556/EEC in respect of the acceptance of evidence of the knowledge and ability necessary in order to take up or pursue activities of self-employed persons and of intermediaries engaging in the trade and distribution of toxic products or activities involving the professional use of toxic products.

2.  Recognitions of professional qualifications for the purposes of point (a) of paragraph 1 of this Article shall include:

(a) recognition of professional qualifications which have benefited from Article 3(3) of that Directive;

(b) decisions granting partial access to a professional activity in accordance with Article 4f of that Directive;

(c) recognitions of professional qualifications for establishment purposes made under Article 4d of that Directive.  

Article 21

Ongoing procedures on the recognition of professional qualifications

Article 4, Article 4d in respect of recognitions of professional qualifications for establishment purposes, Article 4f and Title III of Directive 2005/36/EC, Article 10(1), (3) and (4) of Directive 98/5/EC, Article 14 of Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 74/556/EEC shall apply in respect of the examination by a competent authority of their host State or State of work of any application for the recognition of professional qualifications introduced before the withdrawal date by United Kingdom nationals and in respect of the decision on any such application.

Articles 4a, 4b and 4e of Directive 2005/36/EC shall also apply in so far as relevant for the completion of the procedures for the recognitions of professional qualifications for establishment purposes under Article 4d of Directive 2005/36/EC.

Article 22

Administrative cooperation on recognition of professional qualifications

1. With regard to the pending applications referred to in Article 21, the Member States shall cooperate with the United Kingdom in order to facilitate the application of Article 21. Cooperation may include the exchange of information, including on disciplinary action or criminal sanctions taken or any other serious and specific circumstances which are likely to have consequences for the pursuit of the activities falling under the Directives referred to in Article 21. 



Title III

Coordination of social security systems

Article 23

Persons covered

1.  This Title shall apply to the following persons:

(a) United Kingdom nationals who are subject to the legislation of a Member State on the withdrawal date, as well as their family members and survivors;

(b) United Kingdom nationals who reside in a Member State, and are subject to the legislation of the United Kingdom on the withdrawal date, as well as their family members and survivors;

(c) persons who do not fall within points (a) to (b) but are United Kingdom nationals who pursue an activity as employed or self-employed person in one or more Member States on the withdrawal date, and who, based on Title II of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, are subject to the legislation of the United Kingdom, as well as their family members and survivors;

(d) stateless persons and refugees, residing in a Member State, who are in one of the situations described under points (a) to (e), as well as their family members and survivors; 

(3) nationals of third countries, as well as members of their families and survivors, who are in one of the situations described under points (a) to (e), provided that they fulfil the conditions of Council Regulation (EC) No 859/2003.

2. These persons shall be covered for as long as they continue without interruption to be in one of the situations set out in paragraph 1 involving both a Member State and the United Kingdom at the same time.

Article 24

Social security coordination rules

1. The rules and objectives set out in Article 48 TFEU, Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009, shall apply to the persons covered by this Title. 

Member States shall take due account of the Decisions and Recommendations of the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems attached to the European Commission, set up under Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 ("Administrative Commission") listed in [Annex II to] this Regulation.

2. By way of derogation from Article 2 of this Regulation, for the purposes of this Title, the definitions in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 shall apply. 

3.  With regard to the persons referred to in Article 23(1)(g) of this Regulation, the reference to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 in this Article shall be understood as reference to Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 and Regulation (EC) No 574/72 respectively.  

Article 25

 Special situations covered

1. The following situations, insofar as they relate to persons  not covered by Article 23, shall be covered by this Title only to the extent set out below:

(a) the following persons shall be covered by this Title for the purposes of reliance on and aggregation of periods of insurance, employment, self-employment or residence, including rights and obligations deriving from such periods in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 883/2004:

(i) Union citizens, as well as stateless persons and refugees residing in a Member State and nationals of third countries who fulfil the conditions of Regulation (EC) No 859/2003, who have been subject to the legislation of the United Kingdom before the withdrawal date but are no longer subject to that legislation;

(ii) United Kingdom nationals, as well as stateless persons and refugees residing in the United Kingdom and nationals of third countries who fulfil the conditions of Regulation (EC) No 859/2003, who have been subject to the legislation of a Member State before the withdrawal date but are no longer subject to that legislation; 

For the purposes of aggregation of periods, both periods completed before and after the withdrawal date shall be taken into account in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 883/2004;

(b) the rules set out in Articles 20 and 27 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 shall continue to apply to a person who has begun a course of planned health care treatment before the withdrawal date in a Member State, while that State was not the competent State until the end of the treatment. The corresponding reimbursement procedures shall also apply even after the treatment ends. They enjoy the right to enter and exit the State of treatment in accordance with Article 7, mutatis mutandis;

(c) the rules set out in Articles 19 and 27 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 shall continue to apply to a person, covered by Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, who is staying at the withdrawal date in a Member State, until the end of the stay. The corresponding reimbursement procedures shall also apply even after the treatment ends;

(d) the rules set out in Articles 67 to 69 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 shall continue to apply to awards of family benefit to which there is entitlement on the withdrawal date to Union citizens, stateless persons and refugees residing in a Member State as well as nationals of third countries who fulfil the conditions of Regulation (EC) No 859/2003, residing in a Member State, who are subject to the legislation of a Member State and have family members residing in the United Kingdom on the withdrawal date; 

(e) in the situations set out in Article 25(1)(d)(i) or (ii), for any persons who have rights as family members pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, such as derived rights for sickness benefits in kind, the Regulation and the corresponding provisions in Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 shall continue to apply for as long as the conditions provided therein are fulfilled.

2. If, following the grant of a pension or a benefit based on periods of insurance, employment, selfemployment or residence in accordance with point (a) of paragraph 1 of this Article, a Member State is competent for the sickness benefits of a person residing in the United Kingdom, that person, as well as his or her family members and survivors, shall be entitled to sickness benefits as set out in Articles 22 to 30, 33 and 34 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (in the case of a pensioner or a pension claimant), or Articles 17 to 21, 33 and 34 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (in the case of a person receiving a benefit other than pension). The corresponding reimbursement procedures shall apply.

This provision shall apply mutatis mutandis as regards family benefits based on Articles 67 to 69 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004.  

Article 26

Development of law and adaptations of Union acts

1. Where Regulations (EC) No 883/2004 and (EC) No 987/2009 are referred to in this Regulation and where those Regulations are amended or replaced after the withdrawal date, the reference to those Regulations shall be read as referring to them as amended or replaced, in accordance with the acts listed in [Annex I] to this Regulation.

2. Regulations (EC) No 883/2004 and (EC) No 987/2009 shall, for the purposes of this Regulation, be understood as comprising the adaptations listed in [Annex II] to this Regulation.

3. The Decisions and Recommendations of the Administrative Commission shall, for the purposes of this Regulation, be understood as comprising the list set out in [Annex I].

TITLE IV

OTHER PROVISIONS

Article 27

Free movement

United Kingdom nationals who have been issued documentation pursuant to Article 11 shall retain the right of free movement to other Member States in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the legislation to give them effect.

Article 28

Publicity

The Member States shall disseminate information concerning the rights and obligations of persons covered by this Regulation, in particular by means of awareness-raising campaigns conducted, as appropriate, through national and local media and other means of communication.  

Article 29

More favourable provisions

1. This Regulation shall not affect any laws, regulations or administrative provisions applicable in a host State or a State of work which would be more favourable to the persons concerned. This paragraph shall not apply to Title III.

2.  Article 5 and Article 16(1) shall be without prejudice to the Common Travel Area arrangements between the United Kingdom and Ireland as regards more favourable treatment which may result from these arrangements for the persons concerned.  

Article 30

Life-long protection

The persons covered by this Regulation shall enjoy the rights provided for therein for their lifetime, unless they cease to meet the relevant conditions.

Article 31

Entry into force and application

1.   This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

2.   It shall apply from the withdrawal date.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, xx date 2018.

Facebook fan pages and EU data protection law: the implications of Unabhängiges Landeszentrum für Datenschutz Schleswig-Holstein v. Wirtschaftsakademie Schleswig-Holstein GmbH







Professor Lorna Woods, University of Essex



Facts of the Case



Many businesses rely on Facebook to support their business using a Facebook fanpage (which requires a specific registration with Facebook) and the Wirtschaftsakademie is one such. In this case, it received a notice from the Unabhängiges Landeszentrum fĂĽr Datenschutz Schleswig-Holstein, a regional data-protection authority in Schleswig-Holstein (‘ULD’), to deactivate the fanpage. The ULD argued that the people coming to the page were not warned that their personal data would be collected by Facebook by means of cookies placed on the visitors’ hard disks. 



For the person running the fanpage, the advantage of using it is the receipt of (anonymous) statistics on site use from Facebook via a tool called ‘Facebook Insights’, a tool which is available free of charge under the standard, non-negotiable terms of use. For Facebook, it allows the acquisition of data to facilitate profiling for the purposes of delivering targetted adverts. The Wirtschaftsakademie challenged the ULD’s order, arguing that it was not responsible for the processing of data by Facebook. A number of questions were referred to the Court of Justice on the interpretation of the Data Protection Directive (Directive 95/46, the DPD), focussing on the questions of:



-          who was responsible for the data (ie who is a controller);

-          which regulatory authority might take action; and if so,

-          whether it would be constrained by the opinions as to the legality of the processing of other competent supervisory authorities. 



The Advocate-General took the view that both the Wirtschaftsakademie and Facebook were controllers and, although Facebook was established in Ireland, following the approach of the Court to jurisdiction in Google Spain and Google (Case C-131/12, discussed here), Facebook’s activities had to be assessed in the light of its activities in Germany.  ULD could thus bring the enforcement action.  In a judgment of the 5th June 2018, the Court of Justice came to the same conclusion.



The Judgment



The Court construed the first two questions referred (on Articles 2(d) and 17 DPD) as asking whether the choice of Facebook as a means of reaching its audience means that a user so doing is responsible for the data processing.  The Court, drawing on the approach in GoogleSpain and emphasising the aim of the DPD being to protect privacy, re-iterated that the concept of “controller” should be interpreted broadly, especially as the definition of “controller” foresees the possibility of joint controllers. Certainly Facebook determines the purposes and means of processing, thus bringing it within the meaning of “controller”. As regards the Wirtschaftakademie, the Court stated that mere use of the network would not make a user a controller, but that the use of fanpages involves more engagement with Facebook, and that engagement influences whose data is collected by Facebook (on the fanpage).  Although the statistics are transmitted to the fanpage administrator in anonymous form,



“Directive 95/46 does not, where several operators are jointly responsible for the same processing, require each of them to have access to the personal data concerned” (para 38).



Whilst Facebook might bear the most responsibility for processing, the Court also noted that where the fanpage is visited by those who do not have a Facebook account (and have therefore not signed up to Facebook’s terms),



the fan page administrator’s responsibility for the processing of the personal data of those persons appears to be even greater, as the mere consultation of the home page by visitors automatically starts the processing of their personal data” (para 41).



Concurring with the opinion of the Advocate General, the Court accepted that joint responsibility was not the same as equal responsibility – responsibility should be assessed on the basis of the case in hand (para 43).  The consequences of this for the supervisory authority - or the co-controllers - are not, however, drawn out.



The Court grouped questions 3 and 4 together to ask, where a non-EU company had multiple EU establishments, which regulator(s) would have the power to act (under Article 28(3) DPD).  As had been noted in Weltimmo (Case C-230/14, discussed here), the supervisory authority’s powers are, in general, limited to its own territory.  Reading Article 28 DPD in the light of Article 4(1) DPD, the Court stated that:



“where the national law of the Member State of the supervisory authority is applicable under Article 4(1)(a) of the directive because the processing in question is carried out in the context of the activities of an establishment of the controller in the territory of that Member State, that supervisory authority can exercise all the powers conferred on it by that law in respect of that establishment, regardless of whether the controller also has establishments in other Member States” (para 52). 



The question then becomes whether the controller satisfies the double test in Article 4(1) – that is, (1) whether the controller has an establishment in the member State in which the supervisory authority is based; and (2) whether the processing is carried out ‘in the context of the activities’ of the establishment.  Re-iterating Weltimmo, the Court stated that:



“establishment in the territory of a Member State implies the effective and real exercise of activity through stable arrangements, and the legal form of such an establishment, whether simply a branch or a subsidiary with a legal personality, is not the determining factor” (para 54).



Facebook maintains an office in Germany through Facebook Germany; the processing need not be by the controller itself but in the context of its activities – a phrase not to be interpreted narrowly (as already established in Weltimmo and Google Spain). The Court noted that the placing of the cookies and the following analysis of the resulting data was intended to enable Facebook to improve its system of advertising by better targetting its commercial communications; in developing this argument the Court expressly adopted the reasoning of the Advocate General. It concluded that ULD was thus competent to intervene.



The Court further held, in dealing with questions 5 and 6, that the determination of lawfulness is for each supervisory authority to undertake as an independent body.  The obligation on supervisory authorities to cooperate with one another does not attribute priority to the views of one supervisory authority over another, nor require a supervisory authority to comply with views expressed by another (para 69-70).



Comments



This case was significant: it determined the power of the supervisory authorities and their respective rights to disagree.  It also cast the net widely as regards the meaning of controller, and as a consequence the personal scope of the DPD, with implications for the practice of tracking and behavioural profiling.  It may be less easy to get content providers to use these platforms if they come with a potentially hefty liability price-tag – though as noted the extent of differential responsibility in this context is not yet known. The ruling made clear that the mere possibility of taking measures against Facebook in Ireland, or a decision by the Irish supervisory authority not to institute measures, would not prevent measures being taken against a jointly responsible local controller who administers a Facebook Page.  Following the ECJ’s ruling, the German data protection authorities have issued guidance as to what users of Facebook fanpages must do to comply with the law (see here and here).



Nonetheless, some are questioning the case’s long-term significance.  The case referred to the DPD; the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is now in force. To what extent is this decision then just a history lesson?  The GDPR did not entirely do away with concepts used in the DPD, so insofar as the GDPR refers to “controller” it would seem that that term should be interpreted in the light of this case; likewise the GDPR expressly envisages the possibility of joint controllers. 



Perhaps the big change is the introduction of the one-stop shop mechanism with the GDPR.  Although the GDPR general approach in Article 55 GDPR to national supervisory jurisdiction is based on Article 28(6) DPD, Article 56 GDPR aims to ensure that a multi-jurisdictional controller deals principally with one regulator. The one-stop shop mechanism is not, however, quite as simple as that.  There are exclusions from and exceptions to this principle (see Article 55(2) and Article 56(2)), as well as mechanisms to ensure that the various national supervisory authorities keep broadly in line with one another.  Thus multiple regulators (from the perspective of service providers such as Facebook) remain a possibility. Article 56(2) provides for a supervisory authority other than the lead supervisory authority to seek jurisdiction. The circumstances in which this could arise are in relation to complaints made by individuals to it; or in relation to possible infringements if they either concern only the local establishment, or substantially affect data subjects only in the local Member State.  In this context, a supervisory authority might take the view that a fanpage targets data subjects in its particular territory. 



Whether or not these would affect Facebook’s ability to deal with just one regulator is one question but what has not yet been considered is the impact going forward on any co-controller.  The GDPR is silent on how jurisdiction is to be assigned in cases where there are joint controllers.  The Article 29 Working Party Guidelines, which have been adopted by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), suggest that the joint controllers should designate the main establishment.



Whether this would be appropriate in the context of unequal bargaining power between the joint controllers – as in the case of Facebook and its users – is uncertain. If Facebook designated as part of its terms of use that the relevant supervisory authority were to be the Irish Information Commissioner, this would mean that the weaker party could be subject to regulation from a ‘foreign’ regulator – perhaps in another language. This may be more difficult for an individual or small business to deal with than for a multinational company.  This issue has yet to be directly addressed.  In sum, it could be argued that the move the GDPR does nothing to remove the exposure to liability which might become a disincentive to businesses which see a fanpage as a low-cost option to continue to use fanpages (and similar platforms).



We might ask, moreover, is it just Facebook fanpages that would be affected by thie Court’s reasoning.  There is a pending case on the installation of like buttons, which again allow tracking, (see Fashion ID GmbH & Co.KG v Verbraucherzentrale NRW eV (Case C-40/17)) but we might ask the question more broadly. What for example would be the position of Google analytics being run on a site? There are many examples where deals between supplier and customer include personal data of those engaging with the customer, without those persons necessarily being aware of it, or having a choice in the matter. A business which signs up to Office 365 may agree to default consents to monitoring of email, diary and contact details of its employees. Would this make the employer a joint controller with Microsoft?  It seems likely that there will be more cases on this – or similar questions – as we move into GDPR territory.



Photo credit: 77reviews.com


Thursday, 28 June 2018

Recognition of Professional Qualifications post-Brexit






Dáire McCormack-George*



*The author is a Ph.D. Candidate in Law and Scholar of Trinity College Dublin, the University of Dublin. This blog post is based on his presentation at the third Radboud University Economic Law Conference, ‘Upgrading Trade and Services in EU and International Economic Law’, 15 June 2018. The author would like to thank the conference participants and attendees for their intriguing and thought-provoking questions. All errors remain the author’s.



Introduction



The present terms of the draft withdrawal agreement between the UK and the EU substantially envisage the provisional application of Directive 2005/36/EC (‘the Recognition Directive’) until the end of the transition period. They also guarantee the continued recognition of qualifications recognised before that date. But what might any post-Brexit agreement on the recognition of professional qualifications between the UK and the EU look like in the light of the EU’s current agreements with its regional and international partners? This post briefly canvases the options and suggests that a CETA or ‘CETA plus’ approach would be a good starting point for any future agreement.



Four Models of Qualification Recognition



The ideal approach in international economic law and EU external relations law is for contracting states to agree to the mutual recognition of professional qualifications obtained in either state. This approach, like the equivalent Single Market system incorporated in the Recognition Directive, provides for automatic and/or certain lesser forms of recognition, thus facilitating, to differing degrees, the free movement of persons and services. In the context of the EU’s international agreements, the EEA Agreement and EC-Swiss Agreement provide the best examples of such an approach insofar as those agreements substantially incorporate and apply the entirety of the EU qualification recognition acquis to nationals of those respective states. Such a position, of course, reflects the highest degree of mutual economic integration possible.



A second approach is evident in CETA. According to the terms thereof, the EU and Canada are obliged to ‘encourage’ professional organisations and representative bodies in their jurisdiction to draw up ‘Mutual Recognition Agreements’ or ‘MRAs’. CETA provides a rough template of what such MRAs should address, such as, amongst other things, the verification of equivalency; evaluation of substantial differences; compensatory measures; and the identification of the conditions for recognition. While the MRA template is non-binding, it nonetheless provides a helpful starting point for professional organisations in their negotiations. CETA therefore leaves it to the responsible authorities of each state to encourage professional organisations to draw up a MRA and, consequently, the domestic, regional and international market for mobility in each such profession. At present, no MRAs have been adopted, although the Architects’ Council of Europe has expressed a desire to develop a MRA with its equivalent Canadian body in the coming years.



The third approach is very similar to CETA, but one step down—‘CETA minus’. This approach requires the contracting parties to encourage professional organisations in the respective states to develop MRAs but, unlike CETA, no such MRA template is set out in the terms of any such agreement. Terms of this kind are found in some of the EU’s stabilisation and association agreements (eg, Bosnia and Herzegovina Stabilisation and Association Agreement, EC-Kosovo Stabilisation and Association Agreement, EC-Montenegro Stabilisation and Association Agreement, EU-Ukraine Association Agreement), as well as its international trade and economic partnership agreements (eg, EU-Andean Trade Agreement, Economic Partnership Agreement with CARIFORUM states, EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement, EC-Singapore Agreement, EC-South Africa Trade, Development and Cooperation Agreement). The fact that no MRA template is included in these agreements is indicative of the fact that such MRAs are unlikely to be negotiated whereas, under CETA, such agreements are readily envisaged and, in some cases, negotiation is already under way.



The final approach is the least obvious but most interesting. This approach is found not in any term concerning the mutual recognition of professional qualifications but in equal treatment guarantees in respect of workers or service providers. Given the need to treat third-country workers or service providers equally in accordance with such terms, EU member states are, in principle, thereby obliged to recognise the qualifications of third-country nationals in the same manner in which those qualifications of its own nationals or nationals of another EU member state are recognised. Whether the recognition of professional qualifications falls under such equal treatment guarantees has yet to be addressed specifically by the Court, but in principle same could fall within the scope thereof. Equal treatment clauses of this kind are found in the EC-Turkey Agreement, the Cotonou Agreement, EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, EC-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, as well as in several other stabilisation, association and partnership agreements with countries in the Neighbourhood and Mediterranean. This approach is, however, the least stable for two reasons. First, the scope of application of equal treatment clauses in such agreements is generally unclear. Second, and relatedly, the distinction between workers and service providers tend to affect their scope.



Two cases of recent vintage before the CJEU illustrate this point most clearly. In Case C-265/03 Simutenkov, a Russian professional football player was required to hold a ‘non-Community’ licence to play football, a requirement which the Court of Justice concluded constituted unlawful discrimination under the terms of the EC-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. By contrast, in Case C-101/10 Petkov the Court held that equal treatment in working conditions does not include access to a profession itself. Specifically, the Court held that as the equal treatment clause at issue was contained in the workers title of the EC-Bulgaria Agreement but not in the title on service provision, the scope of the equal treatment clause therein did not apply to certain regulated professions. Problematic here is the unclear distinction between workers and service providers, a distinction which is, increasingly, being challenged by researchers in the area of service and labour migration. And further, the approach which the CJEU takes depends very much on the specific wording and location of the equal treatment guarantee in the relevant agreement. The context, thus, is vital.



Post-Brexit Realities



To recap, there are essentially four approaches to qualification recognition presently evident in the EU’s external relations: full, automatic recognition; no recognition by default but recognition likely in future; no recognition by default and recognition in future unlikely; and uncertain recognition. Of these, CETA or a ‘CETA plus’ approach seems to me to be most appropriate for any post-Brexit agreement. Why so? My reasons (three) are as follows. First, CETA suggests that the contracting parties are ready and willing to recognise qualifications in the near future. It does not require total or partial qualification recognition across all sectors but is rather driven by market demand. At present, it is of course difficult to assess precisely what the labour and service market demands will look like in the EU and UK post-Brexit. But it is certainly plausible that at least some professions will want and need to mutually recognise qualifications so as to (i) maintain the highest of professional standards and (ii) satisfy domestic labour and service market demand. As such, the provision of a template for MRAs in CETA is most helpful and would be a good starting point for any post-Brexit agreement.



Second, insofar as international agreements reflect certain socio-economic and cultural preferences of the parties, CETA would be a good model for any post-Brexit EU-UK agreement because the UK and Canada are relatively similar in those dimensions. For example, services, professional and otherwise, increasingly constitute both Canada and the UK’s export markets and their domestic labour markets. We therefore see similar domestic demand in both countries for low-skilled and high-skilled labour manifested in these countries’ well-documented labour migration regimes. This is surely linked to the broadly liberal economic policies that both the UK and Canada have adopted over the course of their recent (and distant) histories. And in social and cultural terms, the UK and Canada share a linked culture and history given the imperial relationship of dominium between the former and the latter.



A third and final reason is pragmatic. Given that CETA has already been negotiated, and given the length of time it took to negotiate that agreement, it would be quite sensible and convenient for the UK and the EU to rely on their existing work. It is for these reasons, therefore, that the CETA model is, out of those approaches previously negotiated between the EU and its international partners, a most appropriate model for any post-Brexit deal, insofar as it relates to the mutual recognition of professional qualifications.


Barnard & Peers: chapter 27, chapter 14

Photo credit: Mirror.co.uk

Wednesday, 27 June 2018

Regulators without Frontiers? European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA) and the Audiovisual and Media Services Directive 2.0






Professor Lorna Woods, University of Essex



The European Commission established ERGA, by a Decision in 2014, to facilitate the implementation of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD, or Directive 2010/13/EU) and thus further the internal market.  This seems to have been a development of the High Level Group of Regulatory Authorities, which was organised by the Commission (its inaugural meeting was 27 March 2003) and brought together the Member State authorities responsible for the enforcement in this field for twice yearly meetings. The aim was to reinforce cooperation between national regulatory authorities with the aim of ensuring the consistent application of the AVMSD.  It may be seen as forming part of a trend at EU level to create networks – even those involving Member State actors – to support or even intensify harmonisation. As such they may be part of a shift away from decentralised enforcement to a more centralised approach.  Such a development is by no means certain, but it suggests that discussions about the role and powers of any such body has a more than technical significance.



The Decision establishing ERGA described its tasks as:



(a) to advise and assist the Commission, in its work to ensure a consistent implementation in all Member States of the regulatory framework for audiovisual media services;

(b) to assist and advise the Commission, as to any matter related to audiovisual media services within the Commission's competence. If justified in order to advise the Commission on certain issues, the group may consult market participants, consumers and end-users in order to collect the necessary information;

(c) to provide for an exchange of experience and good practice as to the application of regulatory framework for audiovisual media services;

(d) to cooperate and provide its members with the information necessary for the application of the Directive 2010/13/EU, as provided for in Article 30 of Directive 2010/13/EU, in particular as regards Articles 2, 3 and 4 thereof (the basic rules on cross-border broadcasting).



ERGA’s establishment was thus not foreseen by the 2007 version of the AVMSD, and ERGA operated in addition to the Contact Committee that had been created by Article 29 of the directive.  Implicitly, this suggests that the Contact Committee was not sufficient in the Commission’s view for consistent and effective implementation of the AVMSD across the Member States. A European Parliament resolution from 2004 already ‘[r]egret[ed] that the Contact Committee established under the television without frontiers is mostly composed of representatives of the national government ministries and not by members of independent media regulatory authorities’. 



In the eyes of some, the Contact Committee did not – as a matter of form – allow for the cooperation of the national regulatory authorities, as those regulators did not necessarily participate in the Contact Committee. That situation could adversely affect consistency in pan-EU application of the AVMSD and give rise to concerns about enforcement, especially in the cross-border context and the risks of an unequal playing field (as between the approaches of the various Member States). The introduction of another forum for experts to share experience also raises questions about the difference between ERGA and the Contact Committee (if any) and their respective roles – especially given that there is already a platform for media regulators (EPRA), albeit one that lies outside the EU framework. 



Is the significance of the proposal an attempt to delineate between effective enforcement (which would fall to ERGA) and the development of policy (which is the responsibility of the more political body, the Contact Committee)? This point has indeed been made by the Chair of ERGA. Or is ERGA just ‘more European’ than the Contact Committee by virtue of its members’ independence from national political objectives, for example?  That ERGA is about more than effective enforcement finds some support in the report of EPRA which describes ERGA as holding ‘strategic EU policy-oriented discussions’ and ‘intend[ing] to adopt common positions or declarations on the implementation of the audiovisual EU regulatory framework’.



Moving to the directive, Art. 30A of the revised AVMSD (re-)establishes ERGA, a seemingly uncontroversial point from the Commission’s proposal which was unchanged through the legislative process. The Commission envisaged that ERGA would be composed of national ‘independent regulatory authorities’ in the field of audiovisual media services, thus linking this to the new provisions on the independent regulatory authorities introduced in Article 30 (containing provisions to ensure independence).  By contrast, the Contact Committee is ‘composed or representatives of the competent authorities of the Member States’ and is chaired by a Commission representative.  Apart from an attempt by the European Parliament to install 4 MEPs on the Contact Committee (unsuccessfully), this structure remained unchanged.  So while the Contact Committee may have representatives from the relevant national regulatory authorities, it may not in respect of all Member States.



The difference in membership is significant: the Commission’s proposal sought to ensure that it was the independent regulators, rather than Government ministers or senior civil servants, which participated in ERGA. The Commission here would no longer be controlling the meetings (as chair) but be ‘down-graded’ to participant.  This too is important in terms of ensuring that ERGA itself is independent from the Commission, as well as from Member States and commercial interests.  The wording has been amended slightly through the legislative process to include the reference to national regulatory authorities and/or bodies in the field of audiovisual media services.  This change may be semantic to reflect the actual nature of the relevant institutions, but arguably weakens the link to the independent regulators required by Article 30.  Insofar as this independence requirement might be seen as a fact making these regulators more EU focussed rather than open to national policy initiatives (as has been seen in other sectors, e.g. telecommunications), the change might be an attempt to limit the supranational element of the proposal. This is in contrast to the Contact Committee, which could well have (national) political undercurrents, given that its membership might include politicians and civil servants as well as or instead of technical experts. 



The original Commission proposal more or less tracked the tasks ascribed to ERGA in its 2016 decision with the addition of the task of giving opinions, when so requested, ‘..on the issues envisaged in Articles 2(5b) [new provisions on allocation of jurisdiction], 6a(3) [co-regulatory systems and the development of Union codes of conduct], 9(2) [self/co-regulation in relation to food and drink that are high in salt, sugars or fat (HFSS)], 9(4) [sharing best practice/union codes of conduct in respect of HFSS foods and drink] and on any matter relating to audiovisual media services, in particular on the protection of minors and incitement to hatred’.  This may reflect the power of the Commission, under Article 3(1) of the Decision, to consult ERGA ‘on any matter relating to audiovisual media’ - wording that is reflected in the recitals to the AVMSD (recital 37). With the focus on new forms of governance, it could be said that the Commission envisaged ERGA as having a significant role that maybe went beyond the idea of enforcement alone, though the involvement in jurisdiction and anti-circumvention decisions is in itself important (though note that the database containing the details of which service provider is established where is the responsibility of the Commission rather than – as suggested by the Parliament in its AMD 52, the responsibility of the Commission and ERGA).



These provisions did not remain unchanged. The initial view of the European Parliament’s joint rapporteurs was that ERGA should remain a consultative body without decision-making power and that more competences should be given to the Contact Committee (with a revised constitution to include four MEPs). To this end, the Parliament proposed that the Contact Committee should be provided with relevant information as regards Article 3 [freedom of reception/derogation procedures], 4 [circumvention provisions] and 7 [accessibility provisions] – the first two points of which are now in the directive. 



The Council’s view of ERGA’s role here was also more limited than the Commission’s proposal, though it seems that there were some differences in views between the Member States. Council amendments limited ERGA to giving technical advice – though what ‘technical’ in this context means is rather uncertain – does it relate to matters relating to technology (surely not) or instead advice in the practical implementation of the rules? It seems that general policy advice may lie outside ERGA’s competence, reflecting in broad terms the division of roles between ERGA and the Contact Committee. The Council proposals also resulted in the deletion of ERGA’s role in the reference to self and co-regulation in Article 9.  The Council also pushed back against the Commission’s control of ERGA in that the Commission proposal envisaged that the Commission was to be empowered to adopt ERGA’s rules of procedure.  According the Council’s view, this falls to ERGA itself.  Under the 2016 Decision, ERGA had a limited ability to raise issues. Article 2(2) provided that:



The chairperson of the group may advise the Commission to consult the group on a specific question.



This task does not appear in the list of tasks enumerated in the AVMSD – it is, perhaps, a reflection of the fact that ERGA does not or should not have a policy role.



ERGA seems to be more limited than the Contact Committee. The tasks of the Contact Committee are quite open-ended. It is to ‘facilitate effective implementation’ of the AVMSD – all of it – but in addition its scope is extended to ‘any other matters on which exchanges of views are deemed essential’ (Article 29(2)(a) and recital 32a). There is overlap with the tasks of ERGA in that both are concerned in the exchange of best practice in relation to the derogation provisions in Article 3(5). The AVMSD identifies further specific areas where the Contact Committee is to be consulted. For example, it is the Contact Committee and not ERGA that is to be consulted on the development of Union codes of conduct (the development of which is stated to be ‘in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality (Article 4a(2) 3rd para)).  In the context of the development of guidance on the calculation of market share (Article 13(5a)) and listed events (Article 14(2)), the Commission is empowered to consult the Contact Committee not ERGA. While ERGA may be requested to give an opinion, the Contact Committee may provide opinions on its own initiative. Further, in addition to responding to requests from the Commission, the Contact Committee may also respond to Member States’ requests. The Contact Committee’s role extends to ‘examin[ing] any development arising in the sector on which an exchange of views appears useful’ (Article 29(2)(f)).  This gives the Contact Committee an agenda setting function which can also be seen in the fact that the Contact Committee discusses what should be included in the reports that are submitted by the Member States to the Commission on implementation of the AVMSD (see guidance issued by Contact Committee).



In sum, ERGA is confirmed as part of the apparatus for consistent enforcement of the AVMSD.  While it may be the case that there is a distinction between the policy discussions and the coordination of enforcement, it seems that there have been different views within the institutions as to the role of ERGA and these might not go away on the coming into force of the revised AVMSD. While we wait to see how ERGA operates in practice and interacts with the Contact Committee it can be said that, on a sliding scale of pan-EU regulators ranging from EU agencies at the top to informal groupings at the bottom, the ERGA lies near the bottom with its narrowly drawn, technical advisory role.



Photo credit: flickr