The Commission’s draft EU-US Privacy Shield adequacy decision: A Shield for Transatlantic Privacy or Nothing New under the Sun?

  

Dr. Maria Tzanou (Lecturer in Law, Keele University)

On 6 October 2015, in its judgment in Schrems, the CJEU invalidated the Commission’s decision finding that the US ensured an adequate level of protection for the transfer of personal data under the Safe Harbour framework on the basis that US mass electronic surveillance violated the essence of the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed in Article 7 EUCFR and the right to effective judicial protection, enshrined in Article 47 EUCFR (for an analysis of the judgment, see here).

             

On 2 February 2016, the Commission announced that a political agreement was reached on a new framework for transatlantic data flows, the EU-US Privacy Shield, which will replace the annulled Safe Harbour. On 29 February 2016, the Commission published a draft Privacy Shield adequacy decision followed by seven Annexes that contain the US government’s written commitments on the enforcement of the arrangement. The Annexes include the following assurances from the US: Annex I, a letter from the International Trade Administration of the Department of Commerce, which administers the programme, describing the commitments that it has made to ensure that the Privacy Shield operates effectively; Annex II, the EU-US Privacy Shield Framework Principles; Annex III, a letter from the US Department of State and accompanying memorandum describing the State Department’s commitment to establish a Privacy Shield Ombudsperson for submission of inquiries regarding the US’ intelligence practices; Annex IV, a letter from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) describing its enforcement of the Privacy Shield; Annex V, a letter from the Department of Transportation describing its enforcement of the Privacy Shield; Annex VI, a letter prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) regarding safeguards and limitations applicable to US national security authorities; and, Annex VII, a letter prepared by the US Department of Justice regarding safeguards and limitations on US Government access for law enforcement and public interest purposes.

Similar to its predecessor, Privacy Shield is based on a system of self-certification by which US companies commit to a set of privacy principles. However, unlike Safe Harbour, the draft Privacy Shield decision includes a section on the ‘access and use of personal data transferred under the EU-US Privacy Shield by US public authorities’ (para 75). In this, the Commission concludes that ‘there are rules in place in the United States designed to limit any interference for national security purposes with the fundamental rights of the persons whose personal data are transferred from the Union to the US to what is strictly necessary to achieve the legitimate objective.’ This conclusion is based on the assurances provided by the Office of the Director of National Surveillance (ODNI) (Annex VI), the US Department of Justice (Annex VII) and the US Secretary of State (Annex III), which describe the current limitations, oversight and opportunities for judicial redress under the US surveillance programmes. In particular, the Commission employs four main arguments arising from these letters to reach its adequacy conclusion: Firstly, US surveillance prioritises targeted collection of personal data, while bulk collection is limited to exceptional situations where targeted collection is not possible for technical or operational reasons (this captures the essence of the principles of necessity and proportionality, according to the Commission). Secondly, US intelligence activities are subject to ‘extensive oversight from within the executive branch’ and to some extent from courts such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). Thirdly, three main avenues of redress are available under US law to EU data subjects depending on the complaint they want to raise: interference under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA); unlawful, intentional access to personal data by government officials; and access to information under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Fourthly, a new mechanism will be created under the Privacy Shield, namely the Privacy Shield Ombudsperson who will be a Senior Coordinator (at the level of Under-Secretary) in the State Department in order to guarantee that individual complaints are investigated and individuals receive independent confirmation that US laws have been complied with or, in case of a violation of such laws, the non-compliance has been remedied.

The draft Privacy Shield framework may have been hailed as providing an ‘essentially equivalent’ level of protection for personal data transferred from the EU to the US, but despite the plethora of privacy-friendly words (‘Privacy Shield’, ‘robust obligations’, ‘clear limitations and safeguards’) one cannot be very optimistic that the new regime will fully comply with the Court’s judgment in Schrems. A first problematic aspect with the US assurances is that they merely describe the US surveillance legal framework and the relevant safeguards that already exist. In fact, the only changes that were introduced in the US following the Snowden revelations was the issuance of Presidential Policy Directive 28 (PPD-28) (in January 2014) which lays down a number of principles on the use of signal intelligence data for all people; and the passing of the USA Freedom Act which modified certain US surveillance programmes and put an end to the mass collection of Americans’ phone records by the NSA (in June 2015).  Finally, in February 2016, the US Congress passed the Judicial Redress Act which was signed into law by President Obama. Given that one can reasonably assume that the Court was aware of these developments when laying down its judgment in Schrems in October 2015, it seems that, with the exception of the Ombudsperson, Privacy Shield does not change much in US surveillance law. In fact, the Commission has entirely based its draft adequacy analysis on a mere detailed description of this law without any further commitment that this will improve in any way in order to comply with EU fundamental rights as interpreted by the CJEU.

While the assurance that US surveillance is mainly targeted and does not take place in bulk is important, there is no reference to the fact that US authorities access the content of the personal data that was deemed to violate the essence of the right to privacy in Schrems. Furthermore, even if the US authorities engage only in targeted surveillance, the CJEU has held in Digital Rights Ireland that the mere retention of private-sector data for the purpose of making them available to national authorities affects Articles 7 and 8 EUCFR and might have a chilling effect on the use by subscribers of platforms of communication, such as Facebook or Google and, consequently, on their exercise of freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 11 EUCFR. Individuals, when faced with surveillance, cannot know when they are targeted; nevertheless, the possibility of being the object of surveillance has an effect on the way they behave. Insofar as Article 47 EUCFR and the right to effective judicial protection is concerned, the Commission itself notes in its draft adequacy decision that the avenues of redress provided to EU citizens do not cover all the legal bases that US intelligence authorities may use and the individuals’ opportunities to challenge FISA are very limited due to strict standing requirements.

The creation of the Ombudsperson with the important function of ensuring individual redress and independent oversight should be welcomed as the main addition of the draft Privacy Shield. Individuals will be able to access the Privacy Shield Ombudsperson without having to demonstrate that their personal data has in fact been accessed by the US intelligence activities and the Ombudsperson, who will be carrying out his functions independently from Instructions by the US Intelligence Community will be able to rely on the US oversight and review mechanisms. However, there are several limitations to the function of the Privacy Shield Ombudsperson. First, the procedure for accessing the Ombudsperson is not as straightforward as lodging a complaint before a national Data Protection Authority (DPA). Individuals have to submit their requests initially to the Member States’ bodies competent for the oversight of national security services and, eventually a centralised EU individual complaint handling body that will channel them to the Privacy Shield Ombudsperson if they are deemed ‘complete’. In terms of the outcome of the Ombudsperson’s investigation, the Ombudsperson will provide a response to the submitting EU individual complaint handling body –who will then communicate with the individual- confirming (i) that the complaint has been properly investigated, and (ii) that the US law has been complied with, or, in the event of non-compliance, such non-compliance has been remedied. However, the Ombudsperson will neither confirm nor deny whether the individual has been the target of surveillance nor will the Ombudsperson confirm the specific remedy that was applied. Finally, Annex III stipulates that commitments in the Ombudsperson’s Memorandum will not apply to general claims that the EU-US Privacy Shield is inconsistent with EU data protection requirements. In the light of the above, the Privacy Shield Ombudsperson does not seem to provide the redress guarantees of a supervisory authority such as the DPAs as the AG had asked in his Opinion in Schrems.

Draft Privacy Shield is problematic for another reason as well: it puts together the regulative framework for commercial transactions with the regulation for law enforcement access to private sector data. These are, however, different issues and they should be dealt with separately. It is important to encourage and facilitate transborder trade, thus flexible mechanisms allowing for undertakings self-compliance with data protection principles should continue to apply. But, the challenges of online surveillance on fundamental rights are too serious to be covered by the same regime and some ‘assurances’ that essentially describe the current US law. Two solutions could possibly deal with this problem: Either the US adheres to the Council of Europe Convention No. 108 and abandons the distinction between US and EU citizens regarding rights to redress or a transatlantic privacy and data protection framework that ensures a high level of protection of fundamental rights and the transparency and accountability of transnational counter-terrorism operations (the so-called ‘umbrella agreement’) is adopted. Regrettably, the current form of the umbrella agreement is very problematic as to its compatibility with EU data protection standards- or even human rights standards in general, and, therefore, does not seem to provide an effective solution to the issue.

      

A recently leaked document reveals that the Article 29 Working Party has difficulties in reaching an overall conclusion on the Commission’s draft adequacy decision and supports the view that Privacy Shield does not fully comply with the essential guarantees for the transfer of personal data from the EU to the US for intelligence activities.

Should the Commission nevertheless decide to proceed with the current draft, it is highly possible that the CJEU will be called in the future to judge the adequacy of Privacy Shield in a Schrems 2 line of cases.

Photo credit: www.teachprivacy.com

Is the EU-Turkey refugee and migration deal a treaty?

Maarten den Heijer*, Thomas Spijkerboer**

*Assistant professor of international law at the Universiteit van Amsterdam

**Professor of migration law at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

In the European Parliament, questions were asked about the legal nature of the EU-Turkey Statement of 18 March, pursuant to which Greece has started to return asylum seekers to Turkey this week. Apparently, the EU’s procedure for negotiating and concluding treaties with third countries, laid down in in Art. 218 TFEU, has not been followed. The European Parliament wants to know whether the Council nonetheless considers the Statement to be a treaty, and, if not, whether Turkey has been informed about the non-binding nature. Importantly, for treaties “covering fields to which the ordinary legislative procedure applies” (asylum and immigration is such a field), the Council may only conclude a treaty with a third country after obtaining consent of the European Parliament (Art. 218(6)(a)(v) TFEU).

It seems that legal experts of the Commission and the Council have identified the issue. Shortly after the EU-Turkey Statement, the Commission proposed to amend the Relocation Decisions relating to Italy and Greece, in order to transfer some of the relocation commitments concerning asylum seekers arriving in Italy and Greece to Syrians in Turkey. The proposal appears to contradict the view that the EU-Turkey Statement of 18 March did not intend to produce legal effects. However, in consideration 4 of the proposal’s preamble, the presented rationale for the amendment is the Statement of the EU Heads of State or Government of 7 March 2016, in which the Members of the European Council (and not Turkey) agreed to work towards the Turkish proposal of resettling, “for every Syrian readmitted by Turkey from Greek islands, another Syrian from Turkey to the Member States, within the framework of the existing commitments”. The Commission would seem to be navigating around the EU-Turkey Statement as the ground for amending the 22 September Council Decision, possibly fearing that to do otherwise may lend support to the argument that the Statement is, in fact, a treaty.

It could be argued that the statement is not a treaty in the meaning of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties or an international agreement in the meaning of Article 216 TFEU, precisely because it is merely a “statement”. This is the view of Steve Peers on this blog: “Since the agreement will take the form of a ‘statement’, in my view it will not as such be legally binding. Therefore there will be no procedure to approve it at either EU or national level, besides its endorsement by the summit meeting. Nor can it be legally challenged as such. However, the individual elements of it – new new Greek, Turkish and EU laws (or their implementation), and the further implementation of the EU/Turkey readmission agreement – will have to be approved at the relevant level, or implemented in individual cases if they are already in force.” Karolína Babická appears to share this view: “The EU-Turkey statement as such is not legally binding. It is only a politically binding joint declaration. It is not challengeable as such but its implementation in practice will be possibly challenged in court.”

A further reason not to view the statement as a treaty is that it does not use terms as shall and should, which are normally used in international law to indicate obligations of result (shall) or obligations of effort (should). Instead, the more indistinct term ‘will’ is used. On the other hand, the Statement says that the EU and Turkey “have agreed on the following additional points”. Article 216 TFEU uses the term ‘agreement’ when referring to a treaty with third countries. If two parties agree to something, can the result be anything less than an “agreement”? Or is the meaning of the term agreement in Art. 216 TFEU different from its ordinary meaning?

If one would embrace the thought that the Statement of 18 March is not a treaty or agreement because it is designated as “Statement” and uses the term “will”, it would follow that the EU could neglect the constitutional safeguards of Art. 218 TFEU by changing the form or terminology of a particular text. It would be rather odd if the EP and CJEU could be sidetracked by such clever ruses. It would mean that the applicability of constitutional safeguards depends entirely on choices regarding the design instead of content made by Commission or Council.

That the form is not decisive is confirmed in the case law of the International Court of Justice. In Aegean Sea, the question was whether a joint communiqué, issued after a meeting between the Prime Ministers of Greece and Turkey, in which they agreed that a territorial dispute dividing the two countries should be resolved by the ICJ, constituted a treaty on the basis of which the ICJ had jurisdiction over the case. The Court held:

95. The Brussels Communiqué of 31 May 1975 does not bear any signature or initials, and the Court was informed by counsel for Greece that the Prime Ministers issued it directly to the press during a press conference held at the conclusion of their meeting on that date. The Turkish Government, in the observations which it transmitted to the Court on 25 August 1976, considered it "evident that a joint communiqué does not amount to an agreement under international law", adding that "If it were one, it would need to be ratified at least on the part of Turkey" (para. 15). The Greek Government, on the other hand, maintains that a joint communiqué may constitute such an agreement. To have this effect, it says, "It is necessary, and it is sufficient, for the communiqué to include-in addition to the customary forms, protestations of friendship, recital of major principles and declarations of intent-provisions of a treaty nature" (Memorial, para. 279). Counsel for Greece, moreover, referred to the issue of joint communiqués as "a modern ritual which has acquired full status in international practice".

96. On the question of form, the Court need only observe that it knows of no rule of international law which might preclude a joint communiqué from constituting an international agreement to submit a dispute to arbitration or judicial settlement (cf. Arts. 2, 3 and 11 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties). Accordingly, whether the Brussels Communiqué of 31 May 1975 does or does not constitute such an agreement essentially depends on the nature of the act or transaction to which the Communiqué gives expression; and it does not settle the question simply to refer to the form - a communiqué - in which that act or transaction is embodied. On the contrary, in determining what was indeed the nature of the act or transaction embodied in the Brussels Communiqué, the Court must have regard above all to its actual terms and to the particular circumstances in which it was drawn up.

The ICJ found that the terms of the communiqué, using terms as “decision” and “obligation” were indicative of the parties intending to bind themselves. However, it transpired from the context, namely previous and later negotiations and diplomatic exchanges between the parties, that they had not yet undertaken an unconditional commitment to submit the continental shelf dispute to the Court.

In Qatar/Bahrain, the question was whether minutes of a meeting between two Foreign Ministers constituted a treaty. The ICJ held:

24. The 1990 Minutes refer to the consultations between the two Foreign Ministers of Bahrain and Qatar, in the presence of the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, and state what had been "agreed" between the Parties. In paragraph 1 the commitments previously entered into are reaffirmed (which includes, at the least, the agreement constituted by the exchanges of letters of December 1987). In paragraph 2, the Minutes provide for the good offices of the King of Saudi Arabia to continue until May 1991, and exclude the submission of the dispute to the Court prior thereto. The circumstances are addressed under which the dispute may subsequently be submitted to the Court. Qatar's acceptance of the Bahraini formula is placed on record. The Minutes provide that the Saudi good offices are to continue while the case is pending before the Court, and go on to Say that, if a compromise agreement is reached during that time, the case is to be withdrawn. 25. Thus the 1990 Minutes include a reaffirmation of obligations previously entered into; they entrust King Fahd with the task of attempting to find a solution to the dispute during a period of six months; and, lastly, they address the circumstances under which the Court could be seised after May 1991. Accordingly, and contrary to the contentions of Bahrain, the Minutes are not a simple record of a meeting, similar to those drawn up within the framework of the Tripartite Committee; they do not merely give an account of discussions and summarize points of agreement and disagreement. They enumerate the commitments to which the Parties have consented. They thus create rights and obligations in international law for the Parties. They constitute an international agreement.

On that basis, the ICJ concluded the dispute to be within its jurisdiction. It follows that the question of whether a text is a treaty does not depend on form but on whether the parties intended to bind themselves. Whether there is such intent, depends on the terms used and the context in which the text was drawn up.

There is no reason to assume that this reasoning does not apply to the EU (which is not a party to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties). In interpreting agreements concluded between the EU and third countries, the CJEU consistently observes that even though the Vienna Convention does not bind either the Community or all its Member States, a series of provisions in that convention reflect the rules of customary international law which, as such, are binding upon the Community institutions and form part of the Community legal order (C-386/08, Brita, par 42). Presumably, the definition of a treaty in Art. 2(1)(a) VCLT belongs to customary international law. The 1986 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations, which has not yet entered into force, uses the same definition and expands it to agreements concluded between international organizations or an international organization and a state.

Both the text and context of the EU-Turkey Statement support the view that it is a treaty. The parties “decided” to end the irregular migration from Turkey to the EU, and, to that purpose, they “agreed” on a number of action points. These include a commitment on the part of Turkey to accept returned migrants and a commitment on the part of the EU to accept for resettlement one Syrian for every one Syrian returned to Turkey. Further, the Statement reaffirms the joint action plan of November 2015 and mentions that it is already being implemented. Indeed, several implementation reports have been drawn up since November 2015, from which it is clear that the previous action plan has been activated (here and here). The EU-Turkey Statement now at issue is also being implemented. For example, the Greek parliament has passed a law allowing migrants arriving in the country to be returned to Turkey. On Monday 4 April 2016, Turkey accepted the first returned asylum seekers from Greece. All this indicates that the EU-Turkey Statement was meant to sort legal effects. This, in turn, indicates that both parties intended to bind themselves and that, therefore, it is a treaty.

One way to argue that the EU-Turkey statement is not an agreement in the sense of Article 216 TFEU would be to posit that it merely reconfirms already existing obligations from previous agreements (such as the EU-Turkey and Greece-Turkey Readmission Agreements). But textually as well as contextually, that argument is difficult to uphold. First, the substantive part of the agreement opens with the decision to return all irregular migrants to Turkey. Even though this sentence is followed by qualifications about compatibility with international and European law and even the explicit statement that this does not constitute collective expulsion, this is a highly novel (and legally very questionable) element, which can hardly be construed as a restatement of pre-existing obligations. The same is true for the EU commitments to resettle Syrians from Turkey and the additional funding for the Facility for Refugees in Turkey of 3 billion euro. Secondly, it is well known that the pre-existing readmission obligations (on the basis of the EU-Turkey and Greece-Turkey Readmission Agreements) were barely being applied. Therefore, the fact that Turkey agreed that, as of 20 March 2016, all irregular migrants were to be accepted is a substantively novel element. The idea that the EU-Turkey Statement merely repeats pre-existing legal obligations is not convincing.

Does the fact that the internal EU rules were possibly not followed mean that the Statement does not have legal effect? Probably not, as the Statement was agreed by the Members of the European Council, whom Turkey could have considered to have full powers to bind the EU. Article 46 VCLT provides that a party may not “invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent unless that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental importance”. Paragraph 2 of that provision provides that a violation is manifest if it would be objectively evident to any State conducting itself in the matter in accordance with normal practice and in good faith. In Qatar/Bahrain, the ICJ did not consider it relevant that Qatar had not followed the procedures required by its own Constitution for the conclusion of treaties: “Nor is there anything in the material before the Court which would justify deducing from any disregard by Qatar of its constitutional rules relating to the conclusion of treaties that it did not intend to conclude, and did not consider that it had concluded, an instrument of that kind; nor could any such intention, even if shown to exist, prevail over the actual terms of the instrument in question.” (par. 29).

We are therefore of the view that the EU-Turkey Statement is a treaty with legal effects, despite its name and despite internal EU rules not having been observed.

Why is the binding nature relevant?

That the Statement is a treaty implies not only that the EU and Turkey must uphold its terms; it also opens up a debate out is legal effects, including possible challenges against its legality in view of possible conflict with other rules and treaties, such as human rights. The fact that the Statement has already been concluded and is therefore no longer merely ‘envisaged’, means, however, that it is no longer possible to obtain an opinion of the CJEU “as to whether an agreement envisaged is compatible with the Treaties” (Art. 218(11) TFEU). It is still possible for one of the EU institutions or a Member State to bring an action for annulment of the act of the European Council to conclude the agreement with Turkey. Such an action was successfully brought in Commission v France (C-327/91), when the ECJ declared void the act whereby the Commission sought to conclude a competition agreement with the US, for reason of the Commission not being empowered to do so. However, this left the Agreement with the US itself intact, which is in conformity with the rule of Article 46 VCLT.

In view of the default position in international law that all treaties are equal, it further is difficult to argue that the Statement is void because of a possible conflict with human rights such as guaranteed in the ECHR or within the EU legal order, such as the right to asylum and the prohibitions of non-refoulement and collective expulsion. Only if the EU-Turkey Statement conflicts with jus cogens, is it to be considered void and may Member States not give effect to it (Art. 53 VCLT).

It is however possible for individuals (such as those being returned from Greece to Turkey) to challenge the implementation of the EU-Turkey agreement before national courts, arguing that it conflicts with fundamental rights. This in turn, may lead to a referral to the CJEU or a complaint before the ECtHR. Is the agreement in violation of human rights? As has been argued by UNHCR (here and here) and many others (eg here), the agreement may well raise issues under (at least) the prohibition of refoulement (is Turkey safe and is there a risk of expulsion from Turkey?), the right to liberty (is systematic detention in Greece allowed?) and the prohibition of collective expulsion (are the returnees able to challenge their return on individual basis, including before a court?). However, the Statement does not prescribe how, exactly, returns are to be effectuated and does not oblige Greece to systematically detain all asylum seekers who enter the country from Turkey. The Statement says that returns are to “take place in full accordance with EU and international law, thus excluding any kind of collective expulsion” and that “[a]ll migrants will be protected in accordance with the relevant international standards and in respect of the principle of non-refoulement.” Further, migrants are to be “duly registered and any application for asylum will be processed individually by the Greek authorities in accordance with the Asylum Procedures Directive.” It would seem therefore that the Statement itself does not directly violate international norms – it leaves the Member States sufficient freedom to implement the obligations in harmony with human rights. It follows that the Member States (Greece) must implement the agreement in harmony with human rights: “Where a number of apparently contradictory instruments are simultaneously applicable, they must be construed in such a way as to coordinate their effects and avoid any opposition between them. Two diverging commitments must therefore be harmonised as far as possible so that they produce effects that are fully in accordance with existing law.” (ECtHR Nada v Switzerland, par 170).

Conclusion

This brings us to two concluding observations. First, the devil of implementing the EU-Turkey deal is in the detail. Although its effectiveness in terms of stopping irregular migration by creating a deterrent effect may depend on returning all persons arriving in Greece as quickly as possible, fundamental rights may well halt returns in individual cases or result in lengthy procedures. It is indeed the question whether the appropriate human rights framework is in place in Greece (as is observed by UNHCR).  Second, the EP is right in asking critical questions about the Council not following the rules for concluding a treaty (also see earlier questions about the EU-Turkey deal of 29 November 2015). Although one could take the view that time did not allow to await an Opinion of the CJEU, the agreement was not concluded with Turkey overnight and there would at least seem to have been opportunity to ask consent from European Parliament (Art. 218(6) says that, in an “urgent situation”, EP and Council may agree on a time-limit for consent). That the institutional role of the EP has been neglected confirms the worrying trend that intergovernmental decision-making is taking over in the Union, and that national interests increasingly often prevail over the common values of the Union. This is bad for European democracy.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 24, chapter 26

JHA4: chapter I:5

Photo credit: rabble.org.uk

‘Wisdom and goodness to the vile seem vile’: Towards a third phase of the Common European Asylum System?

Steve Peers*

How to fix the EU’s troubled Common European Asylum Policy? The Commission has given its views today in the form of a discussion paper, with plans for further legislation. Will this fix the problems?

The first phase of the EU’s Common European Asylum Policy was set in place in the form of legislation adopted over 2003-05. The second phase is based on legislation adopted between 2011-13. (For more details, see volume 3 of the Commentary on EU Immigration and Asylum Law, which I co-authored). Today’s communication effectively outlines the plans for a third phase – without actually using that phrase. It examines many facets of EU asylum policy, and also mentions immigration policy. I’ll look at the announced plans in turn.

It’s worth making two general points at the outset. First, the UK is bound by the first-phase asylum laws, but not by the second-phase laws, other than the Dublin rules, Eurodac, and the law setting up the European Asylum Support Agency. It can opt out of any of the third-phase laws, but if it opts out of new laws amending those laws which it’s already bound by, the EU Council could decide to end the UK’s participation in those laws, on condition that operating a different system for the UK is effectively impossible. (Ireland is in broadly the same position).

While it’s sometimes asserted that ‘the EU court controls UK asylum laws’, the UK chose to opt into those first-phase laws, and used its veto to ensure that they were consistent with existing UK law. The only British cases on asylum which have ever reached the EU court have been about the Dublin system. And eventual access to citizenship of a Member State by asylum-seekers is far harder to obtain than some imagine it to be.

Secondly, any proposals the Commission makes will have to be approved by a qualified majority of participating Member States (in the EU Council) and by the European Parliament. Obviously there’s no guarantee of obtaining either in this controversial area.

The Dublin system

The discussion paper devotes the most space to the plans to reform the EU’s Dublin system, currently set out in the Dublin III Regulation. The principal problem with this Regulation is its allocation of responsibility in most cases to the first EU state which the asylum-seeker entered. With its declining economy and a sharp increase in the number of asylum-seekers, Greece cannot handle this burden. Although the EU has already tried to address this problem, in the form of two Decisions relocating some asylum-seekers away from Italy and Greece (discussed here), this has not worked well in the absence of Member State willingness to apply the system: barely 1,000 of the promised 160,000 have been relocated. In addition, the second Decision has been challenged by two cases in the EU Court (see discussion here of one of these cases).

How to address this? The Commission suggests two options: a sort of compensation system that would kick in once a Member State had particular burdens, or a quota system reallocating all asylum-seekers across the EU. The former option is based on the current relocation decisions; it should be noted that the Commission already proposed amendments to the Dublin rules along these lines last September, but there seems to be little interest in this proposal. There could be adjustments to the current Dublin rules (so that responsibility would no longer cease due to lapse of time), and the relocation rules (so that more categories of asylum-seekers were covered, not just those with a 75%+ acceptance rate).

The second option would allocate all asylum-seekers in principle between Member States based on standard rules, with exceptions where there are family links for instance. Where the EU has designated a ‘safe’ country, though, the first Member State of entry would remain responsible, for the sake of efficiency. Obviously the intention here is to keep in place the new rules which aim to return people from Greece to Turkey quickly.

Either way, the Commission suggests possibly repealing the EU’s temporary protection Directive, a law designed to deal with mass influxes that has never actually been invoked to deal with any of them. (On its possible use to deal with the current crisis, see discussion here).

Eurodac

The Commission plans changes to the Eurodac Regulation, which currently requires taking and storing fingerprints of all asylum-seekers and irregular border crossers, mainly for the purpose of checking at a later stage if they have already applied for asylum or where they originally entered (for the purpose of applying the Dublin rules). Currently the database allows police access as well as checking of irregular migrants (separately from the asylum procedure). The Commission plans to make proposals for changes to match the changes to the Dublin rules as well as to make much more use of the system for migration control. This will parallel the smart borders proposals for an entry-exit system (also made today).

Procedures Directive

The intention is to replace the current Directive with a Regulation, setting out ‘comprehensive harmonisation’ and a genuinely ‘common procedure’, which would ‘reduce incentives to move to and within the EU’. There would be new rules on ‘key aspects of the asylum procedure’ which are currently optional, as regards admissibility (ie whether the asylum-seeker had, or should have sought, protection in a non-EU country), ‘the use of border and accelerated procedures’, the treatment of repeat applications, ‘and the right to remain in the territory’ during applications and appeals. This would harmonise the length of the initial application process and the appeals (the second-phase Directive already has common rules on the former issue, although not for the fast-track version of it).

On this point the Commission is particularly keen to harmonise ‘safe country’ rules, both as regards ‘safe country of origin’ (ie is the asylum-seeker safe in her own country?) and ‘safe third country’ rules (should he have applied for asylum elsewhere?). On the first aspect, the Commission wants the EP and Council to agree the proposal it made back in September 2015 for a partly common list (designating the Western Balkans and Turkey as ‘safe’: discussed here). But neither institution has rushed to adopt the Commission proposal. The intention is for more harmonisation relating to countries where many applicants come from. But as I pointed out in my previous analysis this proposal wrongly includes Turkey – despite its dubious human rights record – for cynical political reasons, and does not provide enough safeguards for those who claim may be genuine.

The Commission also wants to harmonise the use of the ‘safe third’ country concept, and set up a process of defining a common list in future. This would avoid awkward problems where differences between Member States divert flows of asylum-seekers or cause a ‘protection lottery’ with divergent decisions for similar cases. But it remains to be seen how these standards are applied. Given that (as discussed here) the Commission and Member States support the absurd designation of  Turkey as a ‘safe third country’ – despite its non-application of the Geneva Convention to most asylum-seekers and evidence of refoulement, unsafe treatment, and low standards – the prospect of further moves in this direction are unappealing.

Qualification Directive

The Commission has been carrying out an evaluation of the qualification Directive (which defines the concept of ‘refugee’ and ‘subsidiary protection’ status, and the rights which each group receive, but there is no mention of that here. The main concerns of the paper are twofold: further harmonisation of the rights received, including ‘differentiation’ of the two types of status, as subsidiary protection is ‘inherently more temporary’. This contradicts the second-phase Directive, which accepted that subsidiary protection was often not temporary and harmonised the two forms of status in most respects: see discussion of the first EU court judgment here. Secondly, protection will be granted ‘only for so long as they need it’.

This means that the Directive will be replaced by a Regulation, and the intention seems to be harmonisation downwards: ‘to reduce both undue pull factors and secondary movements’. There will be a ‘regular check’ to see if protection can justifiably be taken away, although this is consistent with the Geneva Convention, which refers to ‘cessation’ of refugee status when circumstances change in the country of origin. There will be standard rules on identity documents (although note that the Geneva Convention has already provided for a standard travel document for refugees). In the long term, there could be mutual recognition of decisions and a transfer of protection (on the latter issue, see my earlier paper). This reflects the Treaty obligation to create a status ‘valid through the Union’ – although the Commission cannot bring itself to refer to this concept.

Reception conditions

The Commission plans ‘targeted’ amendments to the reception conditions Directive, which governs the day-to-day life of asylum-seekers outside the procedural aspects of their asylum claim.  There’s no detail of these plans but the intention is to ‘reduce incentives to move to Europe’ and within the EU, while still ensuring ‘humane’ treatment.

Reducing ‘secondary movements’

As evident already, a main purpose of the paper is to stop asylum-seekers moving within the EU – a reversal of the usual logic of EU legislation. The paper elaborates further on this, referring to ‘proportionate sanctions’ for those who leave the responsible Member State. This will entail an obligation to send back the asylum-seeker to the responsible State (does that mean the options to consider the application in the Dublin Reg will be dropped?), a fast-track examination procedure without an automatic right to remain during the appeal, detention or restriction of movement, removal of benefits (overturning the judgment in CIMADE and GISTI on this point), and reduced credibility of the claim, on the basis of ‘existing provisions in the acquis’ dealing with last-minute applications. There will also be punishments for those who move without authorisation after obtaining refugee or subsidiary protection status, including a ‘status review’, and the five-year waiting period to obtain long-term residence status will be restarted every time they do so. There will be a common document issued to asylum-seekers, making clear that they cannot leave the responsible Member State except for ‘serious humanitarian reasons’.

The European Asylum Support Office

Currently this EU agency has a modest role supporting national asylum decision-makers. The Commission wants to enlarge its role, allowing it to evaluate Member States’ compliance with asylum standards, and suggesting changes they should make in national practice. If there were no compliance, the Agency could provide ‘enhanced support’, and there would be ‘measures’ to prevent ‘any incentive for Member States or asylum seekers not to respect the rules’. In particular, the Commission would have the power to decide on ‘operational measures’ to be taken by a Member State where the Agency found a breach of asylum standards, as regards case-handling and reception support, linked to the parallel actions by the EU Border Guard. (Obviously the drafters of the paper are thinking of Greece here).

The Agency would also have the power to offer detailed guidance (as it does occasionally already) on the substance of asylum law, with a reporting mechanism and case-auditing. The Agency would also have a key role assessing whether third countries are ‘safe’, giving its opinions to the Commission on this point.  It will also operate the revised Dublin system, on the basis of criteria not leaving it any discretion (it’s not possible to give EU agencies discretionary policy-making powers, according to the EU court).

Finally, the agency would have a reserve of national experts it could call on, and extra financial resources, linked to the new money for humanitarian assistance within the EU. In the longer term, the Agency could be given the role of making first-instance decisions in place of national authorities, although the Commission realistically acknowledges that this prospect is on the far horizon. Indeed, that horizon is darkened by flocks of low-flying pigs.

Safe routes for entry

While much of the paper is focussed on getting the Dublin system to work, this is balanced somewhat by discussion of safe routes for entry. First of all, this refers to existing ‘soft law’: a general recommendation on resettlement (which means the movement of people from non-EU countries to the EU), and the controversial 1:1 deal between Turkey and the EU, in effect ‘trading’ resettlement places for readmission of non-Turkish refugees from the EU (discussed here).

The Commission will build on this to propose (as promised before) EU legislation on resettlement, which will set out a ‘common approach to safe and legal arrival in the EU’ for people who need protection. There will be general rules, addressing admission and distribution, the status of resettled persons, financial support, and punishment for secondary movements between Member States.  These general rules will then be applied in individual cases as regards specific countries or groups of people. For specific countries, resettlement might only be offered on a quid pro quo basis, related to readmission: this echoes the controversial 1:1 deal with Turkey. It should be noted that readmission treaty negotiations are about to start between the EU and Jordan, which is another major host country for Syrian refugees.

The paper also talks about other safe legal routes for entry. Existing laws on admission of workers, students and researchers should be made accessible to refugees, although the Commission makes no commitment as regards EU legislation dealing with that issue. Private sponsorship should be encouraged by developing EU ‘best practice’. The Commission also promises to look at the issue of humanitarian permits. The most obvious way to do this in the near future is by including provisions in the EU visa code, which is currently being amended – as I have previously advocated and as supported by the European Parliament.

Legal migration

The Commission argues in general that the EU needs more legal migration for economic and demographic reasons. It suggests several means to this end. First of all, it plans to amend the EU’s Blue Card Directive on highly skilled workers, to encourage admission and make this law (which has had limited success) more attractive. (On the Directive in practice, and possible reforms, see my discussion here).

Secondly, the Commission might make a proposal for an EU law on admission of entrepreneurs. Next, it will consider a proposal on admission of service providers from non-EU countries. It will also review the effectiveness of other existing EU legislation on labour migration, in particular in order to prevent exploitation of workers. Finally, the paper includes some general words about cooperation with third countries.

Comments

Today’s paper seems entirely focussed on the feasibility of the Dublin system, with all other aspects of asylum law subsumed to supporting that objective. Never in the course of human history has such a small tail wagged such a big dog. The implication (only hinted at once) is that Dublin must be saved so that Schengen can be saved. At no point does the Commission ask itself whether Dublin can be saved – or whether Schengen should be.

The problem is that it is hard to see how Dublin could be made to work, especially now that large increases in migration flows have made its malfunctioning a huge political issue. Allowing asylum-seekers to leave Greece and Italy in large numbers for other Member States is politically unacceptable for those other Member States, and has led to internal border checks being reimposed and the construction of new walls across the continent. Insisting that Greece – its economy impoverished by a combination of poor domestic and Eurozone governance – should bear the burden alone is untenable, and both the EU court and European Human Rights court ruled that Greek asylum standards were insufficient even before the twin economic and migration crises took full effect. The reasonable attempt to reduce the Greek burden a little by means of the relocation Decisions has been ineffective.

It’s hard to see how a slightly different version of the relocation system can be made to work either. And why would the Member States collaborate in a fully-fledged quota system, which they are likely to find even less attractive than the relocation rules?

All this explains the recent EU turn towards a ‘Plan B’: simply returning most or all those who reach Greece straight back to Turkey. Time will tell soon enough how workable this alternative is: it may also prove unfeasible if people switch to different routes, are not deterred from arriving, or successfully challenge the legality of the deal. Certainly, the Commission’s assumption is that enough people will still arrive to cause a political problem. So the most important elements of today’s paper are the twofold intention to punish secondary movements and to deter people from coming at all. (I won’t comment on the legal migration part, which simply reiterates existing plans).

It’s clearer how the Commission would like to punish secondary movements. The plans here resemble nothing more closely than a liberal parent who has finally lost his patience with his misbehaving children, resulting in a disproportionate authoritarian overreaction. Some of the plans are legally questionable: for instance, the CIMADE and GISTI judgment (ruling that asylum-seekers should retain benefits even if they are the responsibility of another Member State under the Dublin system) was based partly on the EU Charter. A legislative amendment overturning it might therefore be challenged as a breach of the Charter. So might new rules on detention (cf the recent CJEU judgment on challenges to existing detention rules).

Sensible parents use carrots as well as sticks. Why not offer asylum-seekers a modest cash bonus in kind if they accept allocation to a Member State under the relocation rules? Or let them have earlier access to work if they stick to the rules? Or simplified and quicker long-term residence status? 

Returning to the analogy of the angry parent, the Commission has clearly found, like King Lear: 

How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is

To have a thankless child

Yet its response is, in its own way, as irrational as his.

As for new rules to deter people from coming to the EU in the first place, the Commission threatens much, but is silent on most of the details. One is reminded of Lear again:

I will do such things,—
What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be
The terrors of the earth

But Lear did not have to contemplate convincing the European Parliament, EU Member States or the courts of his unformed plans. So there are political, legal and practical limits to what the Commission can successfully propose. Member States will be reluctant, as ever, to curtail much of their significant remaining discretion over asylum procedures. The European Parliament will probably not rush to roll back the improved standards which it spent five years fighting for. Anyway, the underlying logic of the Commission’s argument is doubtful. If high asylum standards in the EU are such a pull factor, why are there so many more refugees in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and East Africa? Won’t a sharper difference between refugee and subsidiary protection status encourage more appeals and secondary movements too?

The only semblance of balance in the Commission’s paper is its focus on safe passage. But it’s spent two years resisting safe passage in the context of the reform of the EU visa code, using the weak argument that humanitarian visas are not meant for short-term entry. But they fall within the scope of the rules on visas with ‘limited territorial validity’, where the normal rules on visas (such as the time limit) are expressly disapplied. The mention of humanitarian permits in this paper now looks like an excuse to defer dealing with the issue. Similarly, the EU could and should have developed a proper resettlement policy years ago. There’s still no mention of any numbers in this context: compare to the recent suggestions from the UNHCR. And expecting a quid pro quo for the humanitarian gesture of resettlement doesn’t get any less cynical with repetition.

Overall, this is a very disappointing paper from the Commission. There are certainly abuses of the asylum system, but EU legislation already has many possibilities to address them, as regards fast-tracking decisions and appeals, reduced benefits and detention. There’s little evidence here of a balanced, rational and coherent response to the crisis. In fact, this looks rather more like panic.

Of course EU asylum law does not develop in a political vacuum. Member States had a key role agreeing these laws, and the main role implementing them and driving the reaction to the crisis. No criticism of the ‘EU response to the crisis’ should ignore what is ultimately driving that response: the neo-nationalist political parties which are in government in several Member States and form the main opposition in several more. But is endless concessions to these parties really the right strategy? They will always be able to outflank the political mainstream when it comes to anger, fear and ignorance. It’s always better to stand and fight for what you really believe in than to pretend to agree with your opponents’ fundamentally different views.

*Disclaimer: I have been an independent consultant on the impact assessment relating to the reform of the Dublin system and the Blue Card Directive, and the evaluation of the qualification Directive. This does not restrict me from giving my own views on the Commission’s plans. 

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

JHA4: chapter I:5

Photo credit: www.ekathimerini.com

EU Consumers’ Actions for Damages: Quo Vadis?

By Sonsoles Prieto, EU competition law practitioner, London*

By the end of this year, the EU Damages Directive (“the Directive”) - designed to encourage consumers and small businesses to claim for damages against competition law offenders - must be implemented by the Member States.

Thirteen years ago, in 2003 Wouter P.J. Wils, member of the Legal Service of the European Commission, when answering the question whether private enforcement of EU Antitrust Law should be encouraged, concluded that there did not appear to be a clear social need for such action.  The overall perception seems to have changed significantly since.  However, we are not yet fully adjusted to this new challenge.

Background

Adopted in December 2014, the Directive requires all EU Member States – and all EEA states – to “ensure that any natural or legal person who has suffered harm caused by an infringement of competition law is able to claim and to obtain full compensation for that harm”. Even if the Commission has already fined offending parties, every person who has suffered losses as a result of competition violations i.e. being priced out of the market, is entitled to bring damages claims before national courts.

The EU Member States are must implement the new Directive by December 2016.  National legislators must incorporate several eye-catching changes, such as files disclosure, class actions, liability in solidum (not for leniency recipients), and an unfettered presumption that a cartel causes loss or passing-on effects.

The new regulation arrives almost parallel to US Courts’ abatement of their extraterritorial jurisdiction in antitrust cases, as evidenced by Motorola Mobility v. AU Optronics.  The signal has been sent:  US anti-trust leadership is clearly over.

Class actions

Parallel to the Directive, the Commission adopted a Recommendation inviting the Member States to facilitate, by the end of July 2015, effective collective redress for victims of antitrust wrongdoers that facilitate compensatory relief.  If required, new harmonised measures will be “mis en place” by summer 2017.

While opt-out damages actions are already a commonplace in the UK, thanks to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the threat of a shift towards the US style, may apparently have had a bearing on the Commission’s recommendation of opt-in actions as preferred procedure. (Note that  in an opt-in system, claimants must communicate their acceptance in order to be bound by the result; in an opt-out scenario the action is brought on behalf of all claimants except those who have actively chosen not to participate).

The choice between an opt-in or opt-out system is particularly relevant. Whether a potential claim merits or not the time and high costs, including lawyers and economic experts, is the first consideration to be aware of.  And here, two points are raised: (i) the Directive is addressed to consumers and small businesses to obtain compensation for losses suffered, and (ii) an Opt-out system has proved crucial to class actions where the individual claim is small.  Why, then, not choose opt-out proceedings?  Could a claims aggregator cover this gap?

The phantom menace of US class actions

The greatest difference between the EU and US class action system is the aim pursued by private enforcement: corrective justice through law or preventing infringements from taking place.  Bearing this in mind, the US has a longstanding practice on deterring companies from infringing anti-trust rules, therefore, going beyond compensation for loss.

On the contrary, the Commission holds private damages enforcement as a compensation for loss, focussing on corrective justice, but not exclusively.  It is also underlined that private enforcement should coexist with public enforcement, but preserving the attractiveness of tools used by competition authorities, in particular, leniency and settlement programmes to pursue infringements.  Neither the Directive, nor the earlier Green Paper prioritises one of these divergent goals, adding unnecessary confusion to the already complex structure of EU legislation.

Once again, the phantom menace of US style class actions excesses seems have lead the EU legislator to ban contingency fees, and to limit damages to the harm caused.  The Commission choice for harm caused (including lost profit and pre-judgment interest but not treble damages: Art. 3 of the Directive), also refrains from following the USA model.

Is the Commission scared of US class actions’ excesses?  Is there another reason?  Could the desire to maintain a strong public enforcement be behind all this?  Not everything is as bad in the US system and as good in the EU system as the picture painted by some voices inside the Commission.  Anti-trust/competition Law is in constant development, and the US damages approach has been refined over the years.  By way of example, higher accuracy in the evaluation of standing and pleading requirements, mandatory causal link rules, and the latest amendments, which grant parties to immediately review class action certification orders, in order to avoid unfair settlement practices regardless of the merits of the claim.

Therefore, the Commission’s safeguards, such as protection of leniency program and files disclosure, are aimed at protecting a public monopoly on competition enforcement over private, rather than trying to avoid US class actions’ excesses.  It is right to do so, but, - and this is the major criticism of the Directive - it fails on its compensation objective, and, hence, consumer protection.

Are damages claims assets?  

The right to buy claims from victims of competition law infringements is observed under Article 2.4 of the Directive.  Thus, new pooling players, driven by private profit motives (already well known in US), are allowed to settle in our judicial system.  These third-parties (claims aggregators) acquire the rights of multiple consumers harmed by one infringement to bring a lawsuit.

How are these new players funded?  How different is this alternative way of financing from US contingency fees?  The underlying reason could be (awfully for some European civil servants) too similar:  the need to identify suitable sources of financing litigation.

The Commission is unswerving in its determination to encourage consumers to bring damages claims before national courts for competition violations.  Without a third-party, there is absolutely nothing that consumers and small businesses can do due to the high amount of legal expenses and risks.  Claims aggregators will buy damages actions for a fixed price plus a variable amount in case of success.  However, is this not the same as contingency fees?

Practical significance

Notably, the European market is becoming an attractive field for third-parties specialised in the collection of follow-on actions in antitrust litigation.  Every single competition infringement, if suitable, could potentially bring a class action.  However, litigation is always risky, and despite some early enthusiasm, a mandatory caution should be applied in any class action case selection.

Third-parties will need significant amounts of money. Recent rulings, such CDC’s multimillionaire claim on the German cement cartel case, where the Higher Regional Court of Dusseldorf dismissed the class action as the proposed financial vehicle had insufficient funding, have shown the need of a strong economic foundation.

Thus, international outsourcing entities offering solutions to victims of competition infringements have emerged in the European market: the Joint Venture between Buford’s and Hausfeld or, Buford’s biggest competitor, Bentham[16], who is financially supporting class actions against Volkswagen AG and Tesco.  These examples are just the beginning of a predictable intense activity – see the UK pensioners’ class action seeking compensation from Pride Mobility Products for breaches of competition law – and will be potentially followed by actions for damages on Libor submissions (Royal Bank of Scotland among other banks), FX manipulations, as well as against Melco and Hitachi car parts’ cartel.

Conclusion

Although it is recognised that the EU’s anti-trust goal is to prevent, curb or end violations of competition rules, the main goal has always been to ensure consumer protection, without which, the whole orchestra is clearly deficient. The new law will, in all likelihood, increase private competition class claims in Europe.  Rulings on these initial cases will certainly pave the way and could bring new cases to light.

Let us hope, however, that concessions granted by the Commission to public enforcement – leniency or files disclosure among others – will not prevent the Directive reaching its main objective:  to motivate consumers and small businesses to sue and to be compensated.  Irrefutably, it is a warning against antitrust law offenders who will see higher negative financial consequences of potential infringements, even if deterrence is not the main objective.

*Reblogged from the Anti-Trust and Competition Law blog

Barnard & Peers: chapter 17

Meme: by Clemens Kaupa on pinterest