Can Member States seize asylum-seekers’ assets?

Kees Groenendijk (Professor Emeritus, Radboud University Nijmegen) and Steve Peers

In recent days, several EU and non-EU countries have been in the news for taking asylum-seekers' assets upon arrival. Is this compatible with EU law? We examine first of all national practice, then the legislative history of the relevant EU rules, then reach our conclusions.  

Denmark

In November 2015 the Danish government presented among a catalogue of 34 measures to discourage people from seeking asylum in Denmark, to introduce the possibility to confiscate cash, jewellery and other assets of asylum seekers in other to make them contribute in the costs of their reception. They proposal caused heated debate after a Minister suggested that wedding rings could be also confiscated. In January the Social-Democratic Party voiced that it would only support this proposal of the centre-right minority government, only assets above 1,340 euro could be confiscated. The new law is to be voted on 26 January.

Similar practices or rules are to be found in the national law of other Member States.

Switzerland, only few asylum seekers concerned

According to Dutch newspapers, Swiss legislation requires asylum seekers who enter the country with more than 1,000 Swiss francs have report and hand over the surplus to the Swiss authorities. The rule only covers money, not other valuables such as personal jewellery. Of the 45,000 asylum seekers coming to Switzerland in 2015, only 112 had to hand in a surplus, totalling around € 150,000 that year. Not really an impressive amount. Most asylum seekers, apparently, do not carry large amounts of money, once they arrive in Western Europe. Besides, under Swiss law beneficiaries of protection with income from employment, have to pay 10% of that income to contribute to reception costs during ten years.

Germany, an old practice?

The German legislation on reception of asylum seekers, the Asylbewerberleistungsgesetz, provides, already several decades that asylum seekers can be forced to contribute from their own assets and income to the cost of their reception. Asylum seekers have to declare their assets and income. The rules for applicant for public social assistance are applicable. From the assets only 200 euro and the goods necessary for exercising a profession or employment are exempted (§ 7(5) of the law). German national TV news reported on 21 January 2016 that in Bavaria asylum seekers were asked by the police to hand over their cash in excess of €750. In Baden-Wurttemberg the threshold is €350. The federal law leaves room for difference in application between the Lander. A spokesman of the Baden-Wurttemberg minister of integration stated that although cash was taken from refugees in individual cases following police spot-checks, searches are not carried out on every refugee. He was quoted as saying "In the context of a general police check it was established that individual refugees had cash with them" and "Refugees are not being systematically searched for cash or valuables".

Netherlands, only contributions from income not from assets

The Junior Minister for Immigration recently told the press that that he was not going to follow the Danish and German example and force asylum seekers to hand over small amounts of cash and jewellery. His spokesman explained this is not on the agenda right now, since we do not expect that it will reduce the influx.” (Volkrant 23 January 2016) Already for decades asylum seekers in the Netherlands if lawfully employed (only possible after six months and until an asylum status is acquired for 24 weeks per year only) have to pay the surplus above 185 euro of his monthly income as a contribution in reception costs.

Compatible with EU law?

Are such rules and practices on seizure of assets in order to contribute in reception costs compatible with EU law, and especially with the Reception Conditions Directive 2013/33? We do not deal here with the question whether such confiscation of valuables and jewellery is compatible with Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 ECHR.

The relevant provisions are to be found in Article 17(3) and (4) of the 2013 recast Reception Conditions Directive, reading:

“3.   Member States may make the provision of all or some of the material reception conditions and health care subject to the condition that applicants do not have sufficient means to have a standard of living adequate for their health and to enable their subsistence.

4.   Member States may require applicants to cover or contribute to the cost of the material reception conditions and of the health care provided for in this Directive, pursuant to the provision of paragraph 3, if the applicants have sufficient resources, for example if they have been working for a reasonable period of time.

If it transpires that an applicant had sufficient means to cover material reception conditions and health care at the time when those basic needs were being covered, Member States may ask the applicant for a refund.”

Identical provisions were already present in Article 13(3) and (4) of the original Reception Conditions Directive 2003/9. They returned unchanged in the 2013 recast of the Directive. In order to understand those provisions it may be useful to have a short look at their legislative history. The various drafts are set out in more detail in the Annex, but we will summarise them here.

Legislative history of EU rules on financial contributions by asylum seekers

The Commission in its proposal for the original 2003 Directive (COM(2001)181) inserted an Article 19 on financial contributions. Member States could require applicants who can afford to do so to contribute to the cost of their material reception conditions. The relevant decisions should be taken individually, objectively and impartially and reasons shall be given. An effective judicial remedy against such decisions should be available, making explicit reference to Article 47 EU Charter.

During the first negotiations on this Article reaction eight Member States made proposals for amendments. Six Member States proposed to refer to “the general principle of the real need of the applicant, which would lead to entitlement to material benefits” (document 11320/01, p. 33). Germany proposed that “some of the applicant's income should be protected in all cases”. That proposal only covered the asylum seeker’s income. But it implied that all the income above a certain threshold could be seized by a Member State. The Netherlands made a similar proposal linking the asylum seeker’s contribution to his income: “if the applicant has a certain income, a contribution may be asked of him to cover some or all of the costs”. Both proposals intended to regulate a possibly contribution in reception costs, but did not include the asylum seekers’ assets as an object of seizure.

In January 2002 the text of Article 19 was consolidated with two other Articles in a new Article 18, entitled ‘Financial means test’ (document 5300/02). The Dutch proposal, concerning contribution out of income from employment was included. The German proposal, implying that a Member State could seize all income above a certain fixed threshold, did not find its way in this and later versions of provisions on financial contributions by asylum seekers. During the negotiations in February 2002 this Article was considerably shortened (a.o. replacing the general means test by the condition that the applicants do not have sufficient means to cover their basic needs, and deleting the reference to income from employment) and it was renumbered Article 17 (document 6253/02). Only three Member States made suggestions: Portugal and Greece pleaded for more reduction of the reception conditions, once an asylum seeker or his family member had been allowed access to the labour market. Germany proposed to integrate Article 17 in the general Article on material reception conditions.

Early March 2002, the Asylum Working Party examined the amended proposal based on drafting suggestions from the Spanish Presidency (document 6906/02). Parts of the former Article 17 were now included in Article 13, apparently following German suggestion.

In April 2002 on suggestion of Germany the words “and health care” were added in par. 3 of Article 13. Moreover, the words “for example if they have been working for a reasonable period of time” were added in par. 4, re-introducing an explicit link with participation in the labour market again (document 7802/02). This version of Article 13 of the amended proposal was accepted by Coreper and by the Council in 2002 and became part of the Directive adopted with unanimity on 27 January 2003.

In addition, the 2013 recast Directive now states that Member States can refuse or withdraw benefits if asylum-seekers have ‘concealed financial resources’ (Article 20 of the 2013 Directive). The CJEU, in its CIMADE and GISTI judgment, has ruled that Article 20 sets out an exhaustive list of grounds for reducing or withdrawing benefits.

Analysis

If this legislative history is combined with the general principles of EU law and the EU Charter, we conclude:

(1) The issue of financial contributions by asylum seekers in material reception costs from their own means was been discussed repeatedly during the negotiations on the Directive.

(2) This issue was discussed repeatedly also in relation to the access of asylum seekers to the labour market in the Member State and the income derived from such employment.

(3) The Directive allows Member States to impose a means test for access to material reception conditions, but this does not entail confiscation of assets. The test is not whether the asylum seeker has more than a certain fixed amount of money or assets, but whether the asylum seeker does have sufficient means to have a standard of living adequate for his health and to enable his subsistence.

(4) Since (a) the issue of financial contributions by asylum seekers in material reception costs is covered by the directive and (b) the Directive sets out minimum standards in order to avoid second movements between Member State (recitals 7 and 8), Member States are not allowed to apply less favourable rules only more favourable rules (see recital 15); the Court of Justice repeatedly held that Member States cannot introduce other conditions than those provided for in the EU Directive or Regulation, see the judgments in Ben Alaya, Koushkaki and Air Baltic. Also, by analogy with the CIMADE and GISTI ruling, the grounds in the Directive to refuse or regulate access to benefits are surely exhaustive.

(5) Article 13(3) allows Member States to make the grant of material reception conditions and health care subject to the condition that applicants do not have sufficient means to have a standard of living adequate for their health and to enable their subsistence. It follows that such decision to exclude an asylum seeker from material reception conditions can only be made after the Member State first has established that applicants have sufficient means to have a standard of living adequate for their health and to enable their subsistence in the Member State. In accordance with the general principle of proportionality in EU law, it is questionable whether a Member State could refuse any access to the benefits system, just because an asylum-seeker has a small amount of cash or valuables. Access should only be refused where the applicant either has an ongoing alternative source of funds, or the asylum-seeker has so much wealth that he or she could live off it for a considerable period of time.

(6) Article 13(4) allows Member States to require applicants to contribute to the cost of the material reception conditions and of the health care, when the applicants have sufficient resources. The conditions of paragraph 3 explicitly apply here as well. The Commission with regard to Article 19 of its proposal rightly stated: “Decisions on applicants’ contribution should be taken individually, objectively and impartially and reasons must be given if they are negative in order to make possible their review as accurate as possible.”

While, in the final version of the Directive this clause applies to the reduction or withdrawal of benefits, not the obligation to contribute toward costs, the general principles of EU law still require that national administrative decisions linked to EU law must be fair (see the CJEU’s YS and M and S ruling on asylum procedures, discussed here; and the Mukarubega and Boudjliba judgments on the return of irregular migrants, discussed here). This means that any decision on asylum-seekers’ contributions has to be an individual decision giving reasons, taking into consideration the individual situation of each asylum seeker.

Such decisions must also comply with other general principles of Union law, in particular the principle of proportionality, which means that any confiscation of property must be necessary to achieve a genuine government end. It is hard to see how it is necessary to confiscate property when a less severe measure (delaying or curtailing benefit payments by an equivalent amount, in accordance with the rules on a means test) could achieve the same objective. Again, the principle suggests that asylum-seekers should only be required to contribute where applicants either have an ongoing alternative source of funds, or have so much wealth that they could live off it for a considerable period of time.

It must also be possible to challenge any decision made by a national authority on confiscation, in accordance with Article 47 (the right to an effective remedy) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

(7) In conclusion: a national rule allowing authorities to confiscate all means of an asylum seeker above a fixed amount, irrespective of the individual circumstance on the grounds mentioned in point 4 and 6 above is not compatible with Union law.

(8) Of course, Denmark and Switzerland are not bound by the Directive, Denmark because of its opt-out and Switzerland because it is not a Member State. Ireland opted out as well. But all other Members State are bound by Directive 2013/33 and the UK is opted in and is bound by the original Reception Conditions Directive 2003/9.

*The paragraph on Germany was amended on 27th January 2016 to add further detail.
Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

JHA4: chapter I:5

Photo: Danish police officer and asylum-seeker

Photo credit: www.channelnewsasia.com

Annex

Legislative history of Article 13(3) and (4) of Directive 2003/9 = Article 17(3) and (4) of Directive 2013/33 on financial contributions by asylum seekers in reception costs

In the Commission’s proposal for the original 2003 Directive COM(2001)181 there was a separate Article 19 reading:

Article 19

Financial contribution

1. Member States may require applicants who can afford to do so to contribute to the cost of

their material reception conditions or to cover it. Decisions to provide material reception

conditions not free of charge shall be taken individually, objectively and impartially and

reasons shall be given.

2. Member States shall ensure that applicants have the right to bring proceedings before a court against the decisions referred to in paragraph 1 and that they have access to legal assistance.

The Explanatory Memorandum to this Article 19 read:

“This Article concerns the financial contribution applicants for asylum may be asked to

provide if they are provided with material reception conditions.

(1) This paragraph allows Member States to require applicants who can afford it to contribute

to the cost of their material reception conditions. The purpose is to meet the Council’s

concern regarding the requirement of “inadequate” resources of the applicants for

asylum. In any case Member States should ensure that applicants for asylum have the

possibility of being housed as even applicants with sufficient financial means might find

it impossible to find suitable housing. Decisions on applicants’ contribution should be

taken individually, objectively and impartially and reasons must be given if they are

negative in order to make possible their review as accurate as possible.

(2) In conformity with the Charter of fundamental rights (Article 47) and in line with the

case law of the Court of Justice, this paragraph ensures that the decisions taken according

to paragraph 1 can be reviewed by a judicial body (including an administrative judicial

body such as the Conseil d’Etat in France) at least in the last instance.”

The first reaction of Member States on this Article was in document 11320/01, p. 33:

“D/E/NL/P/S and UK: reference should be made to the general principle of the real

need of the applicant, which would lead to entitlement to material benefits.

D: some of the applicant's income should be protected in all cases.

NL: stipulate that if the applicant has a certain income, a contribution may be asked of him

to cover some or all of the costs.

D and UK: establish a general principle laying down that Member States may decide

whether or not the applicant requires material benefits.

L and A: make provision for the case in which an applicant is invited to stay in the territory

of a Member State by a national who, if applicable, has served as guarantor for the purpose

of obtaining a tourist visa. In this case, it should be possible to call on the national to

contribute to the costs.

A: reservation on the second sentence in that it creates an obligation to notify these

decisions in writing.

3 A and S: reservation on the financial aspects of legal assistance.

D and UK: a general provision on forms of appeal at the beginning of the Directive should

be sufficient.

In January 2002 the text of Article 19 was consolidated in a new Article 18, consolidating several provisions of the proposal (document 5300/02):

“Article 18 (consolidating Articles 14 bis, 15(4) and 19)

Financial means test

1. Member States may make the grant of all or some of the material reception conditions,

as well as the requirement that applicants and their accompanying family members

cover or contribute to the cost thereof, subject to a financial means test of applicants and

their accompanying family members in accordance with the provisions of this Article.

2. Member States may also reduce or withdraw material reception conditions within a

reasonable period after applicants or their accompanying family members commence an

employment activity in accordance with Article 13, applying the test established in

paragraph 1.

3. Applicants and their accompanying family members may be subject to one or more of

the measures provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 when it is confirmed that they have

sufficient means.

4. Decisions under this Article shall be taken individually, objectively and impartially and

reasons shall be given.”

In February 2002 this Article was considerably shortened (a.o. deleting the means test and the reference to income from employment) and renumbered as Article 17, reading together with the footnote by Member States and the Commission (document 6253/02):

“Article 17 (formerly 18)1

Financial means criteria

1. Member States may make the grant of all or some of the material reception conditions subject to the condition that applicants do not have sufficient means to cover their basic needs.

2. If it transpires that an applicant had sufficient means to cover these basic needs at the time

when material reception conditions were being provided, then Member States may ask these

to refund.2

3. Decisions under this Article shall be taken individually, objectively and impartially and

reasons shall be given. 3

1 D : this provision should be placed at the end of Article 15.

2 P, supported by EL, suggested adding the following :

"3. Member States may also reduce or withdraw material reception conditions within a

reasonable period after applicants and their accompanying family members have been

allowed access to the labour market in accordance with Article 13, applying the test

established in paragraph 1.

4. In the cases referred to in paragraph 3, if they are not financially independent, Member

States shall grant them the food allowance mentioned in Article 8 and access to basic

social care."

(present paragraph 3 would become 5).

3 Cion : reinsert a paragraph which was included in 12839/01 ASILE 49 (former

Article 14A(6)) :

"Member States shall ensure that before the decisions referred to in paragraph 2 are notified to

the applicants for asylum [and their accompanying family members] the other Articles of

Chapter III of this Directive are applied".

At its meeting on 5 and 6 March 2002, the Asylum Working Party examined the amended proposal based on drafting suggestions from the Spanish Presidency, document 6906/02. Parts of the former Article 17 were now included in Article 13, apparently following the suggestion made before by Germany with regard to that former Article 17.

Article 13

General rules1

1. Member States shall ensure that material reception conditions are available to applicants when they make their application.

2. Member States shall make provisions on material reception conditions to ensure a standard of living adequate for the health and the well-being of applicants.

Member States shall ensure that standard of living is met in the specific situation of persons

who have special needs, in accordance with Article 17, as well as in relation to the situation of

persons who are in detention.

3. Member States may make the grant of all or some of the material reception conditions subject to the condition that applicants do not have sufficient means to have a standard of living adequate for their health and well-being.2

4. Member States may require applicants to cover or contribute to the cost of the material

reception conditions and of the health care provided for in this Directive, pursuant to the

provision of paragraph 3, when the applicants have sufficient resources.

5. Material reception conditions may be provided in kind, or in the form of financial allowances or vouchers or in a combination of these provisions.

Where Member States provide material reception conditions in the form of allowances or

vouchers, their amount shall be set in accordance with the principles set for in this Article.

1 A : a general rule providing for exceptions to be applied by Member States in extraordinary

situations should be introduced.

2 B, D, F and P : the term "well-being" is s too vague and should be defined.

NL, S, UK : say "to enable their subsistence" instead of "to have a standard of living adequate

for their health and well-being".

In April 2002 on suggestion of Germany the words “and health care” were added in par. 3. Besides the words “for example if they have been working for a reasonable period of time” were added in par. 4, introducing an explicit link with participation in the labour market again (document 7802/02).

This version of Article 13 of the amended proposal was accepted by Coreper and by the Council. It became part of the Directive adopted on 27 January 2003

Tarakhel v Switzerland: Another nail in the coffin of the Dublin system?

Professor Steve Peers, University of Essex

Introduction

Despite the EU’s purported adherence to high standards of human rights protection, the EU’s Dublin system, which allocates responsibility for each asylum-seeker’s application to a single Member State, has repeatedly run foul of human rights standards. Yesterday’s judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’, or ‘Strasbourg Court’) in Tarakhel v Switzerland, and the recent judgment of the same court in Sharifi v Italy and Greece, have further confirmed the problems in making this system compatible with ECHR obligations.

In fact, the Tarakhel judgment goes further than the prior judgments, which had merely exposed the lack of sufficient human rights protection in the EU legislation, as applied by Member States. Rather, it is now clear that the approach of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in interpreting the Dublin rules is also incompatible with the ECHR.

Background

The Dublin rules initially appeared as part of the Schengen Convention, which bound only certain Member States. They were then set out in the form of the Dublin Convention, signed in 1990. This Convention was replaced by an EC Regulation (known as the ‘Dublin II Regulation’) from 2003. That Regulation was in turn replaced by the Dublin III Regulation, adopted in 2013, which applies to all applications made after 1 January 2014. Furthermore, the Dublin rules have been extended to the non-EU countries associated with the Schengen system, by means of treaties with Norway and Iceland on the one hand, and Switzerland and Liechtenstein on the other.

The previous leading cases on the compatibility of the Dublin regime with human rights were (for the Strasbourg court) the 2011 judgment in MSS v Belgium and Greece, and (for the CJEU) the judgment in NS, delivered later that same year. In MSS, the ECtHR ruled that Greece had violated Article 3 ECHR (the ban on torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment) in three ways: its treatment of the Afghan asylum-seeker in question in detention; its failure to secure adequate living conditions for him after release from detention; and its highly deficient asylum procedure. The evidence of these violations was found in numerous reports by NGOs and international bodies. The Court also ruled that Belgium had violated Article 3 ECHR because it had returned the same asylum-seeker to Greece (in accordance with the Dublin rules), even though it must have known of the situation there. For good measure, the Court also ruled that Belgium had violated Article 13 ECHR (the right to an effective remedy), since Belgium did not provide for sufficient reviews of the merits in cases such as this one.

Subsequently, the CJEU ruled in NS that asylum-seekers could not be returned to Greece, pursuant to the Dublin rules, because of systematic deficiencies in the asylum system in that country. Removals in such cases would constitute a breach of Article 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (the equivalent of Article 3 ECHR). However, the Court distinguished such major breaches of fundamental rights from minor violations of EU or international rules relating to refugees, which would not require Member States to refrain from applying the Dublin rules.

Before the ECtHR could rule in Tarakhel, the CJEU clarified its position in its judgment in Abdullahi, delivered late in 2013. The Court started out by emphasising the presumption that all EU Member States protected human rights, noting that there was now second-phase legislation establishing the Common European Asylum System. It then characterised the Dublin rules as essentially regulating the relationship between Member States, referring in particular to the optional ‘sovereignty’ and ‘humanitarian’ clauses in the Dublin II Regulation, as well as the possibility of conciliation or separate arrangements between Member States. It followed that when two Member States agreed which of them was the Member State of first authorised entry (triggering responsibility under the Dublin rules), an asylum-seeker could ‘only’ challenge that decision by ‘pleading systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the conditions for the reception of applicants for asylum’ in the Member State which was deemed responsible for the asylum application.

Finally, the recent Sharifi judgment of the Strasbourg Court established that Italy’s interception of asylum-seekers from Greece in the Adriatic, and their forced return to Greece, violated Article 3 ECHR as well as the ban on collective expulsions in the Fourth Protocol to the ECHR. In doing so, it confirmed a key corollary of the MSS ruling: Member States breach the ECHR if they stop asylum-seekers fleeing an unsafe country directly from crossing their borders. Although the rules on freedom to travel for third-country nationals in the Schengen Convention do not give asylum-seekers the right to move between Schengen States (unless, improbably, they have a visa or residence permit, or the visa requirement is waived for their country of origin), the ECHR nevertheless gives asylum-seekers the freedom to travel between Schengen countries (or any States) in such circumstances. Also, the right to move to another country extends beyond the three-month time limit on intra-Schengen travel, since asylum-seekers can in principle stay until their claim is finally rejected.

The Tarakhel judgment

Yesterday’s judgment concerned a family of eight Afghans, who entered the EU by crossing the Italian border first. This made Italy responsible for their applications under the Dublin rules. However, the family soon left the asylum-seekers’ reception centre which they were assigned to in Italy, on the grounds that conditions there were inadequate for families. They moved to Austria, which triggered the Dublin rules, asking Italy to take charge of them. Italy agreed, but before their transfer to Italy could be carried out, they moved on to Switzerland. That country in turn asked Italy to take charge of the family; Italy tacitly accepted.

However, they challenged their removal to Italy on the grounds that their treatment in that country, if they were removed there, would violate Article 3 ECHR. They lost their case in the Swiss courts, so asked the ECtHR to rule that their removal to Italy would constitute a breach of Article 3, as well as Article 8 ECHR (the right to family life). They also alleged a breach of Article 13.

The ECtHR rejected the Article 13 claim on the merits, since the Swiss courts had examined the merits of their legal arguments and they were allowed to stay on Swiss territory in the meantime. It held that it was not necessary to examine the Article 8 argument. Most importantly, by a majority of 14-3, it found that there was a breach of Article 3 ECHR.

Yet there are important differences between the MSS judgment and the Tarakhel judgment. Yesterday’s judgment does not state that Italy’s asylum system has effectively collapsed, as was the case in Greece. In particular, there were no allegations in Tarakhel relating to flaws in Italy’s asylum procedures, or as regards detention. The argument instead was solely about living conditions in Italian detention centres.

The ECtHR began by reiterating its case law from MSS about reception conditions for asylum-seekers. While Article 3 ECHR did not guarantee a home or financial assistance, in cases involving EU Member States the Court took account of their specific obligations in that respect under the EU’s reception conditions Directive. Also asylum-seekers were an ‘underprivileged and vulnerable group’, and it was possible that extreme poverty could raise issues under Article 3. The Court also referred to other prior case law on the need to ensure that child asylum-seekers, who were in a position of ‘extreme vulnerability’, enjoyed ‘protection and humanitarian assistance’.

Next, the Court reiterated the usual rule that Article 3 prevents removal if ‘substantial grounds have been shown for believing’ that there is a ‘real risk’ of treatment contrary to Article 3 in the state of destination. The same rule could be used to rebut the assumption that countries applying the Dublin system were all safe. In this context, the ECtHR referred to the CJEU’s ‘systemic deficiencies’ test set out in the judgment in NS, but made no reference to the ruling in Abdullahi that this was the ‘only’ ground for challenging the application of the Dublin rules. However, the ECtHR also ‘notes’ the recent EM judgment of the UK Supreme Court, which expressly stated that ‘systemic deficiencies’ were not the only ground for such challenges. Overall, the Court stated that these tests had to be applied by examining ‘the applicant’s individual situation in light of the overall situation prevailing’ in the state of destination.

Applying these rules to this case, the applicants had made three complaints about the situation of the Italian reception system. The first complaint, about the slowness of identification procedures, was dismissed out of hand, since the applicants had in fact been identified quickly. As for the second complaint, the Court accepted the evidence that there were not enough places for all asylum applicants. Thirdly, as for the reception conditions within the available facilities, a number of problems had been identified by the UNHCR and the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner.

Taken as a whole, then, the Court ruled that the ‘current situation in Italy can in no way be compared to the situation in Greece at the time of the MSS judgment’, where only a small fraction of asylum-seekers could be accommodated and ‘the conditions of the most extreme poverty…existed on a large scale’. So there could not be ‘a bar to all removals of asylum seekers to that country’. Having said that, the Court accepted that there was some risk that asylum-seekers might not get accommodation, or that the accommodation would be inadequate.

As for the individual position of the applicants, that was not comparable to the facts of the MSS case either.  The family in this case were taken care of immediately by the Italian government, rather than detained and then left to fend for themselves. But again, having said that, the Court was concerned that, in light of the vulnerability of asylum-seekers, and children in particular, there was no guarantee of (adequate) accommodation for families seeking asylum in Italy. So Switzerland could not send the family to Italy unless they obtained sufficient assurances on this point. This alone constituted a breach of Article 3 ECHR.

Interestingly, the majority judgment makes no reference to the alternative possibility of asylum-seekers obtaining private family housing at the expense of the State, which the CJEU developed in its recent Saciri judgment on the reception conditions Directive.

Comments

With great respect, there are many flaws with the CJEU’s judgment in Abdullahi. That judgment confuses Regulations (directly applicable in national legal systems) with Conventions (essentially governing relations between States). It places undue reliance on provisions of the Dublin II Regulation which were never applied in practice (conciliation) or were irrelevant to the case at hand (separate arrangements between Member States). It ignores the CJEU’s own case law on the ability to challenge Member States’ application of the Dublin II rules as regards unaccompanied minors (MA), humanitarian situations (K) or withdrawn applications (Kastrati). Its scope is unclear: does it only apply when Member States agree that the criterion regarding irregular entry is applicable, or in other cases as well? In any event, the judgment needs to be rethought in light of the Dublin III Regulation, which considerably expanded the procedural rights of asylum-seekers in the Dublin context. Why do that, if they can only challenge their transfer if there is a complete breakdown in the asylum system of the State responsible for their application?

But the most fundamental flaw in the Abdullahi judgment is exactly that: the CJEU’s statement that at least in some cases, the determination of the responsible Member State can ‘only’ be challenged if there are ‘systemic deficiencies’ in the asylum system of that State. Is that statement still correct after Tarakhel?

Certainly the statement is wrong if the CJEU meant (as it appeared to say) that both the asylum procedure and the reception conditions systems have to have failed in the responsible Member State, before a transfer to that State can be challenged. In Tarakhel, there is no issue raised regarding the asylum procedure in Italy. More generally, the Italian reception system is not in complete breakdown: the Tarakhel family faces neither extreme poverty nor vile detention conditions, but merely some risk that accommodation will either not be available or that it will be somewhat unpleasant. Accordingly, the Swiss obligations are nuanced: there is no ban on transfers, merely a procedural obligation to make arrangements with the Italian authorities.

It isn’t clear whether Tarakhel abandons the CJEU’s assumption that only ‘systemic deficiencies’ in the asylum system of a responsible State can justify a challenge to a Dublin transfer, or whether the judgment merely modifies the notion of ‘systemic deficiencies’ considerably, lowering the threshold for its application. On the first hypothesis, ‘systemic deficiencies’ are just one example of a situation that could lead to rebuttal of the assumption that another Dublin State is safe. Uncertainty about adequate reception conditions for families is another. But surely this cannot be an exhaustive list.

On the second hypothesis, a ‘systemic deficiency’ would not exist only where an asylum system had entirely collapsed, but where some particular aspect of the system was malfunctioning regularly to some extent. By analogy, a car needs to be fixed not only when the brakes entirely fail to work, but also when the windshield wipers occasionally malfunction. The risk is far greater in the first case, but the second case shouldn’t be ignored either. Again, the problems in Tarakhel cannot be the only example of a flaw in the asylum system of a responsible Member State that needs to be fixed before asylum-seekers can be transferred there.

There isn’t much difference between these two possible interpretations of Tarakhel. Although the first interpretation is in principle more open-ended than the second one, it shouldn’t take too much imagination to argue that any particular problem an asylum-seeker might face in the responsible Member State is ‘systematic’ in this very broad sense. The second interpretation does give the CJEU more leeway to back down from its head-banging judgment in Abdullahi, and explain that this was also what it had meant by ‘systemic deficiencies’ all along.

Of course, given the strong insistence on the efficiency of the Dublin system in the Abdullahi judgment, this is obviously not what the Court had meant at the time. Yet the clear message from the Tarakhel case is that there is not a simple binary distinction between cases when all Dublin transfers should stop, on the one hand, and cases when all Dublin transfers should go ahead at full speed, on the other. Instead, like a traffic light, yesterday’s judgment creates an intermediate category of cases in which national administrations must proceed with caution. This will undoubtedly make the Dublin system more costly and complex to administer, but that is often the only way to ensure that human rights are protected effectively.  

Barnard & Peers:  chapter 9, chapter 26

Non-EU benefit claimants and implications for the EU's relations with Switzerland

Professor Steve Peers, University of Essex

Even the most xenophobic of British tabloids is unlikely to greet today's judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) with the headline, 'Scrounging Swiss'. Yet the judgment, concerning the correct legal base of an EU measure extending revised social security rules to Swiss citizens, raises interesting questions concerning the extension of social security rules to third states in general, and on the EU's relations with Switzerland in particular.

Background

This the second in a series of three cases (to date) in which the UK has challenged the 'legal base' of Council Decisions which establish the EU's position as regards the extension of revised EU rules on social security coordination to particular third countries. The first case (C-431/11, UK v Council) concerned the European Economic Area (EEA), a treaty extending the EU's internal market to Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. The UK lost that challenge in September 2013. This case (C-656/11, UK v Council) concerns the extension of those social security rules to Switzerland, pursuant to the EU's free movement agreement with that country. A third case, still pending (C-81/13, UK v Council) concerns the extension of those rules to Turkey.

In all these cases, the Council has taken the view that the correct 'legal base' for its decision is Article 48 TFEU, which concerns the coordination of social security for employed and self-employed workers within the EU. Since the Treaty of Lisbon, this has provided for a qualified majority vote, although a Member State can pull an 'emergency brake' on proposed legislation if it believes that 'important aspects' or the 'financial balance' of its social security system will be affected by the proposal in question. The UK, on the other hand, has argued that the correct 'legal base' for these measures is Article 79 TFEU, which concerns the EU's common immigration policy.

This provision gives the UK (along with Ireland and Denmark) an opt-out. The UK intended to use this opt-out to reduce the cost of the provision of foreign benefits, although the total amount of the benefits paid out is surely not enormous. It may even be less than the cost of bringing this litigation.

It should be noted that the Council has taken a number of other decisions regarding social security rules for associated countries, based on Article 79 TFEU as the UK has advocated. In the Commission's view, set out in an interesting communication on social security and third countries, Article 48 should be used where the EU has a particularly close association with the country concerned, but otherwise Article 79 should be used.

Judgment

In the previous judgment concerning the EEA, the Court ruled that Article 48 TFEU had to be used because: the EEA was a particularly close association between the EU and the countries concerned; the decision aimed to extend the whole EU internal market to those countries; the relevant provisions of the TFEU and EEA treaty were the same; the EEA has particular rules on the legal effect of EEA law; the decision also applied to EU citizens in the third countries concerned; the decision merely updated prior commitments; and it would be difficult to ensure free movement in the event of parallel regimes. Article 79 TFEU could not be used, because it was 'manifestly irreconcilable' with the context and objectives of the EEA.

Most of those points were unique to the EEA, and so the UK had hoped that the previous judgment could be confined to its facts. However, the CJEU extended this case law to cover the EU/Swiss decision as well. It reasons were that: Switzerland has a 'vast' number of treaties with the EU which aim to strengthen the EU/Swiss economic relationship, even though the Swiss had voted not to participate in the EU internal market, via means of the EEA; the EU/Swiss treaty has the same wording as Article 48 TFEU; and the decision simply extends the revised EU rules to the third country concerned. 

The CJEU also ruled that Article 48 TFEU can apply to third-country nationals where an association agreement (which was the basis for the approval for the 'package' of seven EU agreements with Switzerland, in 1999) has already extended EU social security rules to the country concerned, and the decision in question merely aims to update the references concerned. Finally, the CJEU rejected the UK's argument that Article 48 could not apply to the rules on social security for those Swiss citizens not exercising economic activities (who are outside the scope of Article 48), on the grounds that this aspect of the new decision was purely ancillary to the rules on employed and self-employed persons.

So Article 48 TFEU can apply even if the relationship is not as special as the EEA, does not extend the full internal market to the country concerned, and does not contain the particular rules on the legal effect of EEA law. The most recent judgment makes no reference to the complication of having parallel regimes either. Moreover, the UK's best argument - that third country nationals not exercising economic activities were beyond the scope of Article 48 TFEU - has now been shot down by the Court.

It is surely likely, by analogy with this judgment, that the UK will lose its challenge to the Council decision regarding social security for Turkish citizens. Moreover, the Coumcil's decisions relating to social security for other associated third countries, based on Article 79, might even be legally questionable. This is because the Court's judgment today could be understood to mean that the implementation of any specific aspects of the EU's association agreements involve the use of the relevant legal base relating to internal EU law - given that, as the CJEU has always held, all association agreements aim to extend aspects of the EU's internal law to the third country concerned (Case 12/86 Demirel).

Broader implications

The CJEU makes no reference to the recent Swiss referendum, which established a legal requirement for the Swiss government to renegotiate the free movement treaty with the EU within three years, to establish a possible quota on free movement. Of course, the judgment does not concern termination of the EU's treaties with Switzerland, but rather their implementation. But it implicitly rejects any argument that the Treaty provisions on association agreements (now Article 217 TFEU) must always be used for decisions relating to such agreements. The Advocate-General's opinion in the previous EEA social security case had argued that Article 217 had to be used, but the Court did not follow that view.

It is therefore arguable that the EU could decide to denounce one or all of the other treaties in the 1999 package based on the particular legal base for the treaty concerned - such as the transport legal base for the treaty on aviation, for instance. If this is correct, most or all of these decisions to denounce could be taken by a qualified majority vote, so this would strengthen the EU's negotiating position with Switzerland when it comes time to renegotiate the main treaty on free movement of persons. It cannot be forgotten that the EU and the Swiss agreed in 1999 that the seven agreements were a package - and that the denunciation of one treaty would mean the denunciation of all of them.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 24