The Calais crisis: which Member State is responsible?

Steve Peers

Several thousand migrants are living in poor conditions near Calais, many apparently intent on making it to the UK. Their attempts to find passage via the Eurotunnel are severely delaying travel on both sides of the border. Which country is responsible for them: the UK or France?

At the outset, we should note that this is in a way a clash between two different types of movement within the EU. On the one hand, we have the free movement that the EU specifically tries to encourage: the free movement of goods in the lorries, persons in the trains, and transport services in either context. On the other hand, we have what the EU calls ‘secondary’ movements of (potential) asylum-seekers, which it specifically tries to discourage. EU internal market law is adopted to facilitate the first type of movement, while EU asylum law is harmonised to reduce the incentive for the second type.

Of course, the migrants don’t actually want to shut EU free movement down, since that would defeat their whole purpose. They merely want the lorries to slow down long enough to stow away on board, then continue on their journey – in effect bringing the two types of movement together. It’s the government attempts to prevent this that leads to near-gridlock.

But which of those governments is responsible? Let’s examine the issue first from the migrants’ perspective, and then from the free movement perspective. (While some consider the word ‘migrant’ offensive, I will continue to use it. In my view, it simply refers to a category of people, like teachers or nurses. It would make sense to refer to them as ‘asylum-seekers’ or ‘refugees’ only if it were clearly the case that almost all of them had applied for asylum or qualify as refugees; the available information doesn’t indicate this clearly enough. The word ‘migrant’ doesn’t deny their humanity; it simply explains their situation.)

Immigration and asylum law

Some of the migrants have applied for asylum in France, and so their position is governed by EU asylum law. This includes the Dublin Regulation, which determines which Member State is responsible for their application. That may not be France, but rather the Member State which they first entered – if France can prove that they entered there. If France cannot prove that another Member State is responsible, then it must assume responsibility. The UK would only be responsible for their applications if they have close family members in the UK, living there as refugees or asylum-seekers.

In the meantime, while the asylum-seekers are on French territory, the EU’s Directive on reception conditions for asylum-seekers applies. The EU Court of Justice has specifically ruled, in a case involving France, that this Directive applies to the State where asylum-seekers are currently located, even if the Dublin rules say those asylum-seekers should be transferred to another Member State. It only applies to that other Member State once the asylum-seekers are actually transferred there. This ruling obviously applies a fortiori to asylum-seekers who simply want to travel to another Member State and apply there instead. The whole point of the Dublin Regulation is to deny asylum-seekers exactly that choice. Although the Regulation fails epically in practice to stop asylum-seekers trying to choose the State they would like to apply in, the Directive still applies to ensure minimum living standards for asylum-seekers in the State they are present in.

What does that mean in practice? The Directive requires the Member State where the asylum seekers are present to ensure basic standards as regards welfare and accommodation, among other things. It appears from press reports that these standards are not respected as regards the migrants near Calais.

Furthermore, the latest EU Directiveon asylum procedures, which applied from last week, sets deadlines to deal with asylum claims. That part of the Directive doesn’t apply until 2018, but it could be argued in the meantime that the principle of effectiveness of EU law (which the CJEU has frequently applied in immigration law cases) requires asylum claims to be dealt with efficiently, not just ignored.  As for the substance of asylum law, some press reports suggest that France gives asylum to Eritreans much less often than the UK (and much of the rest of the EU). This may be due to a flawed application of the EU’s Qualification Directive. If this is not being fixed in the French courts by an asylum-seeker’s appeal or a judicial review by NGOs, then the Commission should identify the specific error in interpretation of the law and bring infringement proceedings against France.

But not all of those migrants have applied for asylum. For those people, since it seems unlikely that any of them are legal migrants, this must mean that they are irregular migrants. Their position in France is therefore governed by the EU’s Returns Directive, which specifies that the Member States must issue irregular migrants with a return order and try to enforce their expulsion to a country of origin or transit as soon as possible. The EU Court recently ruled that Member States could not simply issue irregular migrants with a fine and make no effort to remove them. It must equally follow that Member States cannot turn a blind eye to their existence, when (as in the Calais case) a large number of them are openly staying on Member States’ territory.

The Returns Directive does not create an absolute obligation to remove irregular migrants. First of all, a Member State can choose to regularise their position at any time. Secondly, if they apply for asylum, EU asylum law applies, until the end of the asylum process, when they are either recognised as needing protection or their application fails its final appeal. In the latter case, the Returns Directive then applies again. Thirdly, it may prove impossible in practice to remove them to their State of origin or transit, because there is not enough proof of where they come from.  In that case, they remain in a kind of limbo, unless the State chooses to regularise them. Irregular migrants are entitled to emergency health care and essential treatment of illness during their stay. As far as we can tell from press reports, it does not appear that the French authorities are making any active effort to return the irregular migrants in Calais to their countries of origin or transit pursuant to the Directive.  

Free movement law

The CJEU has ruled, in a case involving France, that Member States have a responsibility to prevent free movement of goods being disrupted by private individuals. While States have a margin of discretion exactly how to deal with that private behaviour, it is not unlimited. In that case, farmers’ groups had been vandalising lorries full of other Member States’ produce for years on a regular basis, and many of the perpetrators were known to the police. France was therefore liable for doing nothing very effective to stop this. It was compensating the victims, but this was not enough.

On the other hand, in the case of Schmidberger, Austria was not liable for allowing a disruption to trade by private protesters who briefly blocked a transit route. According to the CJEU, the protesters’ right to demonstrate overrode the free movement of goods, given that the disruption didn’t last very long.

What about industrial action? This is also a separate source of the current restrictions on movement between the UK and France. On this point, the CJEU has been quite critical of trade union action that restricts free movement: in the controversial cases of Viking Line and Laval, it ruled that while EU law recognized trade unions’ right to strike and take other collective action, these rights were easily overruled by EU free movement rules. But those cases concerned the freedom of establishment and free movement of services; the current strikes in France affect the free movement of goods. An EU Regulationadopted after the earlier French case states that while States have an obligation to deal with private disruptions to the movement of goods, this is without prejudice to the right to strike.

Applying these cases to the current problems at the UK/France border, it’s not clear whether the disruptions caused by strikes are an unjustifiable restriction on free movement.  The strikes seem only to concern pay and conditions, whereas in Laval and Viking Line, while the disputes were also indirectly about pay and conditions, they were mainly directed at shutting down free movement due to perceived ‘social dumping’.

What about the disruptions linked to the migrants’ attempts to travel to the UK?  While EU law does recognize a right to asylum, it’s possible to apply for that right in any Member State, and so it is not necessary to travel to the UK to that end. The number of migrants would surely be reduced if France applied its obligations to: process asylum applications; decide on Eritrean claims correctly; and remove irregular migrants who had not applied for asylum. France must also extend basic standards of welfare and housing to asylum-seekers, whether that acts as a 'pull' factor or not. 

Is the UK liable in any way? The UK does exercise border controls on French territory, pursuant to a treatybetween the two countries on ‘juxtaposed controls’, agreed in the context of the Channel Tunnel. But the UK’s obligations under that treaty do not extend to admitting asylum-seekers or other irregular migrants who want to use the tunnel to travel to the UK. More broadly, the UK’s border checks in France don’t turn any part of France into British territory, just as the reciprocal French border checks in the UK don’t turn any bits of Kent French, or transfer St. Pancras station to the Paris metro system.

So France is responsible for the impact on free movement, due to its separate breaches of EU immigration and asylum law. This shouldn’t be seen as a selfish or parochial conclusion; after all, it’s not really radical to say that States are generally responsible for what happens on their territory. That’s the normal rule of public international law, and it’s linked to the basic principle of State sovereignty. The EU rules in this case reflect that principle.

Having said that, allocating responsibility does not as such solve the problem. It would be open to the French government to denounce the treaty on juxtaposed controls, with a negative impact on the UK. So it makes sense for the UK government to offer a contribution to solve the problem, even if it is not obliged to do so. The government has already accepted this principle, paying for the construction of a security fence. And it would equally make sense to make a contribution as regards immigration issues, for instance the costs of removal or basic support, linked to a requirement to move to other parts of France to receive that support.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

Photo credit: BBC  

Read More

The financial services industry and the European Central Bank: the UK has won a battle, but can it win the war?

 

Steve Peers

Until yesterday, two trends seemed consistent in the jurisprudence of the EU courts. First of all, the UK kept losing cases relating to the interests of its financial services industry: on short-selling (discussed here), the financial transactions tax (discussed here) and bankers’ bonuses (discussed here). Secondly, the UK kept losing cases concerning its opt-outs from EU law (for instance, on social security and the immigration opt out, see here).

However, yesterday’s judgmentof the EU’s General Court on the UK’s challenge to the European Central Bank (ECB) policy on securities clearing systems bucks both trends. What are its implications for the UK's financial services industry, and for the UK's relationship with the EU?

The judgment

The UK challenged a ‘Policy Framework’ published by the ECB, which set out the role of the ‘Eurosystem’ (the ECB and the national central banks of Eurozone states) as regards payment, clearing and settlement systems. Sweden supported the UK, while Spain and France supported the ECB; the Commission stayed neutral. The UK objected to the Policy Framework provisions which stated that any central counterparties (CCPs) that held more than 5% of the credit exposure for one of the main euro-denominated product categories had to be legally incorporated and fully controlled from within the euro area. This would inevitably mean that a portion of the financial services industry which was traditionally located in the City of London would have to move to one or more Eurozone financial markets instead.

First of all, the judgment examined the admissibility of the action. The General Court rejected the ECB’s argument that its Policy Framework was not a reviewable act, ruling that despite its apparent soft law form it would perceived as a de facto binding policy and would be applied by Eurozone regulatory authorities in practice. Also, the Court ruled that the UK had standing to bring a legal action against acts of the ECB, despite its opt-out from the single currency.

Secondly, the Court ruled on the substance of the case. It was only necessary to rule on one of the UK’s five arguments against the validity of the Policy Framework: that the ECB lacked competence to adopt a measure on the location of CCPs. (The other arguments concerned Treaty free movement rules, competition law, non-discrimination on grounds of nationality and proportionality).

The ECB had claimed a power to regulate on the basis of Article 22 of its Statute, which takes the form of a Protocol attached to the Treaties, and states that the Bank ‘may make regulations, to ensure efficient and sound clearing and payment systems within the Union and with other countries’. Also, the Bank referred to Article 127(2) TFEU, which gave it the task ‘to promote the smooth operation of payment systems’, and the ECB’s general objective of maintaining price stability and supporting general economic policies, as set out in Article 127(1) TFEU.    

In the Court’s view, however, these powers only extended to the ability to regulate ‘payments’ in the narrow sense, ie the ‘cash leg’ of clearing operations, not the ‘securities leg’, since securities do not in themselves constitute payments. Article 22 of the ECB Statute could only apply to payment systems with a clearing stage, rather than all clearing systems, in the absence of any explicit reference to the clearing of securities. The Court also rejected the ECB’s argument that it had an implied power to regulate such issues, since such implied powers only existed ‘exceptionally’.

Finally, the Court concluded by sketching out (in effect) a ‘roadmap’ to change the current situation. Acknowledging that there are ‘very close links’ between payment systems and securities clearance systems, and that disturbances affecting securities clearance can affect payment systems, it stated that Article 129 TFEU could be used to amend the relevant provisions of the ECB Statute to extend the Bank’s powers in this field. So it suggested that the ECB could trigger that amendment process by requesting the EU legislature to amend the Statute.

Comments

The essential elements of the Court’s judgment (which could still be appealed to the Court of Justice) are convincing. From the perspective of accountability, the ECB should not be able to adopt ‘policy frameworks’ with quasi-mandatory language that will likely be applied in practice, as a means of evading the judicial review that would certainly apply if it adopted those rules (as its Statute specifies) in the form of regulations. Nor is it acceptable that the ECB could adopt measures with an impact on non-eurozone Member States and deny those countries standing to sue it, especially when the Treaties (as the Court pointed out) contain no limits on such standing.

As for the substance of the case, the Court is surely right, in the interests of accountability, to say that EU institutions’ implied powers have to be interpreted narrowly. There have been five major Treaty amendments in thirty years, and so there have been plenty of opportunities for Member States to decide what powers ought to be conferred upon EU institutions, and what powers should not. In the absence of an express conferral of power, the cases where the institutions have implied powers should be very exceptional indeed.

However, the Court takes an unusually narrow approach to the interpretation of an express power, namely the possibility for the ECB to regulate ‘clearing and payment systems’ as set out in its Statute. It is not self-evident that this provision can only apply to the ‘cash leg’ of clearing systems, especially in light of the links between payment and securities systems, and the impact of disturbances affecting securities clearance, which the Court expressly acknowledges.

This key aspect of the ruling can only be understood in light of the broader political context of this case. If the ECB had won, that result would have been widely regarded in the UK as a carte blanche for the ECB to split up the single market in financial services, as part of a broader ‘ganging up’ of Eurozone Member States against non-Eurozone Member States, in particular the UK. This would have been a rather hyperbolic reaction, since an ECB victory would not necessarily have had an impact beyond the specific issue of securities clearance, and the Eurozone Member States do not gang up as easily as is sometimes imagined: witness the current relationship between Greece and Germany, for starters. Nevertheless, it’s no wonder that the judges believed it would be wiser to hand this hot potato back to the politicians.

It’s striking, though, that the judges’ roadmap to give the ECB more powers is particularly easy to follow. The use of Article 129 TFEU to amend the ECB Statute only requires a proposal from the Commission or a recommendation of the ECB, followed by the ordinary legislative procedure, entailing joint power for the European Parliament and a qualified majority vote in Council. Although all Member States would have a vote, Eurozone States (if they do gang up together on this point) can now outvote non-Eurozone States.  The UK would have to seek alliances, rather than threaten vetoes, to block such a move. The referendum requirement in the UK’s European Union Act 2011 wouldn’t apply (see s. 10(1)(b) of the Act; the requirement for parliamentary approval there is meaningless, since the UK could be outvoted). Indeed, the UK would need the backing of some Eurozone States, as well as all non-Eurozone States, to block such a Treaty amendment. This would entail, for instance, securing the support of countries like Poland, at the same time as the UK (whichever of the two largest parties forms the biggest part of government after the next election) seeks to cut back the rights of Polish workers.

Failing that, the UK could bring a legal challenge to the Treaty amendment, or the ECB measure implementing it, invoking again its arguments concerning the internal market, competition law, discrimination and proportionality, which were not addressed in the General Court’s judgment. There’s a strong case to be made that the valid objective of regulating securities clearance effectively could be ensured by collaboration between the ECB and the Bank of England, rather than forcing some part of the financial services industry to move from the UK to the Eurozone, but the UK could not count on the EU courts accepting it.  

What are the broader implications of this judgment for the UK’s role in the EU? First of all, it weakens the pro-Brexit argument that ‘we should leave the EU because the Eurozone Member States are ganging up on us’. For now, the UK has won this battle, and it’s only a hypothetical possibility that it will lose the war later on. Secondly, it weakens the argument that ‘the City of London would be perfectly fine after Brexit’. If that were true, then why were Eurosceptics poised to make an unholy fuss if the UK had lost this case? Indeed, if the UK were not in the EU, it would not have had the privileged standing to sue the ECB, and the government (or British securities firms) would have had to go through national courts in the Eurozone to challenge this policy instead. Moreover, it might be harder to invoke the other arguments which the UK made in this case (and would have to make in future), depending on what legal arrangements governed the EU/UK relationship after Brexit.

 

Barnard & Peers: chapter 19

Read More

The UK opts back in to the European Arrest Warrant - and other EU criminal law

 

Steve Peers

After much controversy, the UK today completed the process of opting out of EU criminal law measures adopted before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, and opting back in to some of them. This blog post looks as the legal framework for this process and the consequences of opting back in. It’s an updated version of a previous Statewatch analysis written this summer.

The Legal Framework

 

Before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the UK was a full participant in almost all EU policing and criminal law measures. The exception was a small part of those measures ‘building on the Schengen acquis’, ie measures set out in, or amending, implementing or closely related to the Schengen Convention on the abolition of border controls. Most of those Schengen-related criminal law and policing measures applied to the UK from the start of 2005, except for the rules on cross-border hot pursuit by police officers (which the UK did not opt into) and the rules on the Schengen Information System (SIS) database (because the UK wanted to wait until a second-generation SIS was operational first, and this didn’t happen until 2013).

The Treaty of Lisbon changed the legal framework for the adoption of EU policing and criminal law, applying to this field the normal jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and, for the most part, the ordinary legislative procedure of the EU, which entails joint powers for the European Parliament and no vetoes for Member States in the Council.

The UK would only agree to these major changes in return for two forms of opt-out. The first opt-out relates to policing and criminal law measures adopted after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. This opt-out allows the UK to decide on a case-by-case basis, after each proposal is made, whether it seeks to opt in or out. If the UK initially decides to opt-out, it can always seek to opt in again (needing the Commission’s approval) at any time after the measure is adopted.

 

The second form of opt-out takes the form of a ‘block’ opt-out for those measures adopted before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. This was intrinsically linked to a five-year transition period concerning those measures, which is applicable to all Member States. That transitional period finally expired today.

 

This second opt-out is set out in Article 10 of Protocol 36 to the Treaties, which is set out in full in the Annex. The Article states first of all that the normal powers of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the Commission did not apply for five years after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, to pre-Lisbon third pillar measures. This meant that the Commission did not have power to bring infringement procedures against Member States to the CJEU regarding these laws until today.

Nor did the CJEU have jurisdiction over questions from national courts concerning EU law in this area, except where Member States had chosen to opt in to this jurisdiction (18 Member States opted in, and the Court delivered a number of judgments in this field). Also, the transitional rules cease to apply to an act which is amended after the Treaty of Lisbon comes into force, and a number of such acts were indeed amended.

Secondly, Article 10 of Protocol 36 set out a potential opt-out for the UK (but not for any other Member States) at the end of this five-year period. If the UK notified the Council by 1 June 2014, all the pre-Lisbon third pillar acts ceased to apply to it as of 1 December 2014, unless those acts have been amended and the UK has opted in to those amended measures. In this event, the Council could decide the ‘necessary consequential and transitional arrangements’, and could also decide that the UK has to ‘bear the direct financial consequences, if any, necessarily and unavoidably incurred’ as a result. In both cases, the Council acts by a qualified majority vote on a proposal from the Commission. The UK does not participate in the first of these measures (consequential arrangements), but would participate in the second (financial consequences).

Thirdly, the UK can seek to opt back into to some of the measures it has opted out of ‘at any time afterwards’. If it does so, then the rules for opting into Justice and Home Affairs measures in either the Protocol on the Schengen acquis or the Protocol on Title V (JHA measures) apply. In practice, that means that the Council, acting unanimously, decides on re-admission of the UK to measures building on the Schengen acquis (ie measures set out in, or amending, implementing or closely related to the Schengen Convention on the abolition of border controls), while the Commission (with no role for the Council, unless the Commission refuses the UK’s request) decides on readmission of the UK to pre-Lisbon third pillar measures which do not build on the Schengen acquis. The Protocol concludes by stating that in such a case, the EU institutions and the UK ‘shall seek to re-establish the widest possible measure of participating of the [UK] in the acquis of the Union in the area of freedom, security and justice, without seriously affecting the practical operability of the various parts thereof, while respecting their coherence’.

 

The block opt-out in practice

 

The UK government indicated in 2012 that it was inclined to invoke the block opt-out, and then seek to opt in to a number of measures. In 2013, it officially invokedthe block opt-out (well before the deadline of 1 June 2014), and indicated the 35 measures which it wished to opt back into. Informal negotiations then took place between the UK, the Council and the Commission, in particular during the Greek Council Presidency in the first half of 2014. The discussions were complicated somewhat by the UK’s request to begin participation in the second-generation SIS (known as SIS II) shortly before 1 December 2014, along with its request to amend the rules relating to SIS II alerts on the European Arrest Warrants in accordance with new EU legislation. Ultimately, the UK’s attempts to start applying the SIS this autumn were rejected, and it remains to be seen when it will begin to apply the system.

These negotiations were ultimately successful, and the Council Decision and Commission decision on the UK’s opt back in were adopted and published today.  The Council Decision amends the original Council Decision admitting the UK to participate in parts of the Schengen acquis, as well as the later Council Decision putting part of the Schengen acquis into force in the UK. The Council has published a codified textof the amended Decisions.

The crucial substantive point here is that the UK will continue to be committed to participating in the Schengen Information System, which provides for exchange of information on European Arrest Warrants, wanted persons and missing objects. It will also continue to be bound by the main criminal law and police cooperation provisions of the Schengen acquis.

As for the other measures, the Commission Decision approves the UK’s opt back in to almost all of the EU measures on mutual recognition in criminal matters (most notably the European Arrest Warrant), the creation of EU agencies (Europol, Eurojust) and exchange of information or databases, with a few exceptions: the Framework Decisions on mutual recognition of probation and parole decisions and the so-called ‘Prum’ Decisions on cross-border exchange of information on DNA, licence plate information and fingerprints.

On the latter issues, the transitional Decision(adopted last week) requires the UK to consider opting back in to the Prum Decisions by the end of 2015. If it does not do so, the financial consequences Decision(also adopted last week) requires the UK to pay back the money it received from the EU budget to prepare for putting the Prum rules into force. The UK agreed informally to consider opt back in to the Framework Decision on mutual recognition of probation and parole measures later. It will fall to the next UK government to decide on these issues (the next general election will be in May 2015), and it will always be open to the UK government to opt back in to more measures if it wishes.

There was some negotiation on the lists of measures which the UK sought to opt out of. As regards the Council Decision, one measure on the operational functioning of the SIS was added to the list. The Commission’s Decision included a decision to opt in to three measures implementing the Europol Decision, as well as the Decision establishing the European Judicial Network. These additional measures which the UK agreed to opt in to are essentially technical, except for the European Judicial Network, which the UK government believes is essentially a useless talking shop.

Also, it should be noted that some pre-Lisbon measures were amended while discussions were going on, in particular the EU’s Convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters and its amending Protocol. The UK did not want to opt back in to these measures, but this objection is now moot, since the UK participates in the EU Directive on the European Investigation Order (discussed here), which has replaced some of the corresponding provisions of those measures. So this means that it continues to participate in the Convention and Protocol, without having to opt back in.

However, the UK government withdrew its request to participate in two measures (a Decision on a hate-crime network, and a Decision on special police intervention units) during the discussions. This decision may well have been taken so that the government can still claim that it is only opting back in to a total of 35 measures.

It should also be noted that the UK’s opt back in to some of the pre-Lisbon measures concerned could be very short-lived, since there are proposals to replace these measures which the UK has opted out of, but which have not yet been agreed. This is the case particularly with Europol and Eurojust. Negotiations are further advanced on the Europol proposal (see discussion here), where it looks as if the UK’s concerns may have been addressed, with the consequence that the UK would opt in to the future Europol Regulation after its adoption. However, it is too early to say if the UK might eventually opt in to the future Eurojust Regulation.

Other transitional issues

Finally, the EU institutions have tried to clarify the new legal position which applies from today. They have published in the EU Official Journal a list of ‘Lisbonised’ measures, ie pre-Lisbon third pillar acts which have been amended since the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force. There is also a list of acts which have just ceased to apply to the UK.

Following an analysis of which pre-Lisbon measures could now be considered obsolete, and which therefore could be repealed. just last week the Commission made three proposals to repeal 24 pre-Lisbon acts. I’ll come back to these proposals in the near future – but suffice it to say that they don’t go nearly far enough to simplify the very complex legal framework that applies in this area.

Further on the issue of transparency, it would be useful to have a list of post-Lisbon measures which apply to the UK. It would not unduly task the Council and/or Commission to make the effort to publish online a constantly updated list of the measures which do or not apply to the UK (as well as Ireland and Denmark, which also have opt-outs), so that the public and practitioners in the UK and elsewhere can easily discover which EU laws in this field apply to the UK, and which do not.

 
 Annex

Protocol 36, Article 10

1. As a transitional measure, and with respect to acts of the Union in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters which have been adopted before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the powers of the institutions shall be the following at the date of entry into force of that Treaty: the powers of the Commission under Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union shall not be applicable and the powers of the Court of Justice of the European Union under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union, in the version in force before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, shall remain the same, including where they have been accepted under Article 35(2) of the said Treaty on European Union.

 

2. The amendment of an act referred to in paragraph 1 shall entail the applicability of the powers of the institutions referred to in that paragraph as set out in the Treaties with respect to the amended act for those Member States to which that amended act shall apply.

3. In any case, the transitional measure mentioned in paragraph 1 shall cease to have effect five years after the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.

4. At the latest six months before the expiry of the transitional period referred to in paragraph 3, the United Kingdom may notify to the Council that it does not accept, with respect to the acts referred to in paragraph 1, the powers of the institutions referred to in paragraph 1 as set out in the Treaties. In case the United Kingdom has made that notification, all acts referred to in paragraph 1 shall cease to apply to it as from the date of expiry of the transitional period referred to in paragraph 3. This subparagraph shall not apply with respect to the amended acts which are applicable to the United Kingdom as referred to in paragraph 2.

5. The Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, shall determine the necessary consequential and transitional arrangements. The United Kingdom shall not participate in the adoption of this decision. A qualified majority of the Council shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

The Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, may also adopt a decision determining that the United Kingdom shall bear the direct financial consequences, if any, necessarily and unavoidably incurred as a result of the cessation of its participation in those acts.

6. The United Kingdom may, at any time afterwards, notify the Council of its wish to participate in acts which have ceased to apply to it pursuant to paragraph 4, first subparagraph. In that case, the relevant provisions of the Protocol on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union or of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, as the case may be, shall apply. The powers of the institutions with regard to those acts shall be those set out in the Treaties. When acting under the relevant Protocols, the Union institutions and the United Kingdom shall seek to re­establish the widest possible measure of participation of the United Kingdom in the acquis of the Union in the area of freedom, security and justice without seriously affecting the practical operability of the various parts thereof, while respecting their coherence.

 

 

Barnard & Peers: chapter 25

Read More