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

Data protection rights and administrative proceedings

Steve Peers

What rights do asylum-seekers have as regards data protection law? This issue was clarified in today’s CJEU judgment in YS and M and S, which could also have broader relevance for any case which involves access to documents in the context of administrative procedures.

Both cases involved asylum-seekers in the Netherlands, who sought access to file notes concerning their case. However, they did not rely on the EU’s asylum procedures Directive, which states that asylum-seekers must be given the reasons for negative decisions and are entitled to access reports about the interviews held with them, but does not make mention of access to any other document. The second-phase procedures Directive, applicable to applications made after 20 July 2015, adds a right of access to country-of-origin information and expert advice which was used in making a decision on the asylum-seeker’s case, but still does not extend to a right to the entire file.

So they invoked the data protection Directive instead. The first question in this respect was whether the legal analysis in the file concerning their case was ‘personal data’ within the meaning of the Directive. According to the CJEU, it was not, for although that analysis ‘may contain personal data, it does not in itself constitute such data within the meaning of’ that Directive. That analysis ‘is not information relating to the applicant for a residence permit, but’ rather ‘information about the assessment and application by the competent authority of that law to the applicant’s situation’, based on the personal data available to the authorities.

The Court further opined that this was consistent with the purpose of the Directive, which was to ensure the right to privacy, including the check on the accuracy of the data and the correction of inaccurate data. A different approach would amount to ‘the right of access to administrative documents’, which was not the point of the Directive. It justified its analysis by analogy with the Bavarian Lager judgment, in which it had ruled that the Directive did not have the purpose of opening up the transparency of EU decision-making.

The second point was the extent of access to the personal data (as defined by the Court) which was being processed. On this point, the CJEU rejected the argument that the entire file document had to be made available, and instead stated that it was sufficient to give data subjects an intelligible summary of the personal data being processed.

Finally, the national court had asked about the possible application of Article 41 of the Charter, which sets out the right to good administration. The CJEU distinguished its prior case law, and asserted that this Charter right applied only to EU bodies, not to national administrations. But the right to good administration could still be invoked against national authorities as a general principle, as distinct from a Charter right.

Comments

The Court’s analysis of the main data protection issues here is not very convincing. There is nothing in the text of either the data protection Directive or the asylum procedures Directive that would suggest a distinction between administrative documents which contain personal data, and other types of collection of personal data. Quite clearly asylum-seekers do have an interest in knowing how their personal data is being processed in respect of an analysis of their application, and of correcting that personal data if it is correct.

To argue that the data protection Directive does not give access to administrative documents is a straw man argument. The question is not whether it aims to give access to all administrative documents, but only whether it gives access to those which contain personal data. The comparison with the Court’s Bavarian Lager judgment makes no sense either, for in that case data protection formed an express exception to the EU legislation on access to documents, and the two rights were in conflict.

The Court’s judgment on the second point is more convincing, in light of the wording of the data protection Directive, which only requires an intelligible summary of the personal data being processed to be made available.

Finally, the Court’s analysis of Article 41 of the Charter is a brave attempt to clear up the prior inconsistencies and confusion on this point, for instance in its recent judgment on procedural rights as regards subsidiary protection applications. Undeniably the Charter provision does only apply to EU bodies, not to Member States, but the Court nevertheless guarantees that the right to good administration can be claimed against the latter by clarifying that the right to good administration is nonetheless a general principle of EU law.

This is, apparently, the first time that the Court has confirmed that some rights are not in the Charter, but are protected as general principles of EU law. This raises important questions as to which other rights might be protected in that way, what the difference between the parallel rights to good administration might be, and whether the general principles have a different legal effect than Charter rights. But in the specific context of asylum proceedings, and more generally in many other areas of EU law, it is useful that the Court confirmed that applicants can still enforce (by a different means) the right to good administration against national authorities.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 8, chapter 9, chapter 26

Read More

Unaccompanied minor asylum-seekers: a step in the right direction?

Steve Peers

The EU’s Dublin system on the allocation of responsibility for asylum-seekers, which sets out rules determining which single Member State has responsibility for considering an asylum-seeker’s application, has long been decried as unworkable and an infringement of human rights. These broader arguments will be addressed in a future post on this blog, but for the moment it’s a good time to have a look at yesterday’s proposal from the Commission to ameliorate the Dublin system’s effects a little.

The proposal only covers applications by unaccompanied minors, who make up a small proportion of the total number of asylum-seekers. Nevertheless, they constitute a particularly vulnerable group. Currently, the Dublin III Regulation states that the Member State responsible for an unaccompanied minor asylum-seeker is the Member State where a family member or sibling of the minor is legally present, if that is in the best interests of the child. A ‘family member’ is defined as a spouse, parent or guardian (if the minor is unmarried), or child of the asylum-seeker, if the family already existed in the country of origin. If the minor is married but his or her spouse is not in the EU, then the Member State where his or parents are legally present is responsible.

If there are no such persons on the territory of a Member State, then the Member State where a ‘relative’ of the unaccompanied minor is legally present is responsible, if that relative can take care of him or her.  A ‘relative’ is defined as an aunt, uncle or grandparent.

If there are family members, siblings or relatives in multiple Member States, then the responsible Member State is decided on the basis of the best interests of the child.

Finally, if no such persons can be found, the ‘default’ rule is that the Member State responsible is the State where the unaccompanied minor has applied for asylum, if that is in his or her best interests. But the legislation does not expressly address how this rule applies if the minor applies for asylum in more than one Member State.

When the Dublin III Regulation was negotiated in 2012, these provisions were hotly disputed between the European Parliament and the Council. The two institutions finally agreed to leave the default rule untouched, since there was a pending case on the interpretation of that rule before the CJEU. However, they adopted a joint declaration calling on the Commission to consider making a proposal to amend the legislation as regards that issue once the Court had delivered its ruling.

The Court gave its ruling in that case (MA) in June 2013, and the Commission has now presented its proposal. According to the Court, where an unaccompanied minor has already made an application for asylum in one Member State, and then proceeds to make an application in another one, the default rule should be interpreted to mean that the Member State where the most recent application was made is responsible for the application.

In the Court’s view, this interpretation was necessary first of all for literal reasons, as the legislation does not refer to the first Member State where the application was made. Secondly, unaccompanied minors were vulnerable persons, so the procedure to apply the Dublin rules should be as short as possible. Finally, this interpretation was most consistent with the ‘best interest of the child’, as required by Article 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Yesterday’s proposal would first of all entrench the Court’s interpretation as an express rule in the Dublin Regulation, covering all cases where the asylum-seeker had applied in multiple Member States. This is the interpretation that the EP favoured, and had tried to fight for as an express rule back in 2012.

It would also set out a new rule which would apply when the unaccompanied minor has made an asylum application in one Member State, and is present in a second Member State, but has notmade an application in the second Member State.  In that case, the second Member State should ‘inform’ the child of the possibility of applying for asylum there, and give him or her an ‘effective opportunity’ to apply.

If the minor takes up the opportunity to apply for asylum in the second Member State, that Member State becomes responsible for the application. If he or she does not apply, then the Member State where he or she has most recently applied is responsible.

The new proposal also specifies that the Member States concerned shall cooperate to establish what the best interests of the child are. Finally, it sets out an express rule on Member States informing each other of their decisions; the CJEU had already established such an obligation in the MA judgment.

Comments

In principle this proposal is very welcome, given that it exempts unaccompanied minors from the full rigour of the Dublin rules. While this might reduce the pressure to reform those rules, there is little prospect of a fundamental change in those rules (at least at the EU legislature's behest; the courts may be a different matter). So at least one category of vulnerable persons can escape from them. 

More particularly, the proposal both confirms the ‘applicant’s choice’ rule for unaccompanied minors without family members first established by last year’s judgment, and also extends that rule to more situations. However, there are certain limits on the proposal, and flaws which could be improved.

First of all, it should be noted that the proposal does not cover the position of those whose application for asylum has already been rejected in another Member State. But the Court of Justice referred to that issue in its MA judgment, noting that in such cases the second Member State has the option to treat the application as inadmissible in accordance with the EU’s asylum procedures rules. Presumably that rule would continue to apply here.

On this point, however, in principle there should not be many fast-track refusals of applications by unaccompanied minors, given the convoluted exceptions from some of the fast-track rules set out in the second-phase Directive on asylum procedures.

Secondly, the new amendment would not clarify what is meant by the obligation to ‘inform’ the child about applying for asylum and give him or her an ‘effective opportunity’ to apply for asylum. Although there is a rule in the Regulation already spelling out an obligation to inform asylum-seekers about Dublin rules, it only applies once the person concerned has applied for asylum. So it doesn’t cover the position of those who haven’t applied yet. There should be express rules on this issue, in order to ensure that the child is made fully aware of the choice of making a fresh application.

As for the effective opportunity to apply for asylum, there is a (rather vague) rule on this issue in the second-phase Directive on asylum procedures. But it isn’t clear if the proposed new rules in the Dublin Regulation would confer less, more or the same degree of protection than the rules in the Directive.

Thirdly, the prospect of Member States deciding between themselves on what is in the best interests of the child is problematic. Surely, in accordance with the EU Charter, the child has a right to express a view on this issue, especially since EU asylum law guarantees him or her the right to a representative for this very purpose? So the legislation should guarantee that any decision which Member States take which is purportedly in the best interests of the child should be open to challenge, following a prior right to a hearing and the disclosure of relevant information on this subject.

Next, the proposal may mean that more Member States in practice embark on the controversial practice of trying to determine the age of teenagers who claim to be 'minors' (the EU legislation defines this as being under 18). The asylum procedures Directive has rules on this issue, but there are no rules on what happens if the person turns 18 during the procedure.  

Finally, it must be noted that the rules will only be relevant for those minors who have the effective possibility of moving between Member States. They will need some knowledge of which Member States they might wish to apply to, and how to get there, as well as the money to arrange for their travel. Furthermore, they will obviously not be able to move to another Member State in order to apply there if they are in detention. On this point, it should be noted that the revised reception conditions Directive provides that unaccompanied minors can only be detained in ‘exceptional circumstances’.

Given the freedom of unaccompanied minors to make applications in another Member State, it cannot be argued that this possibility justifies their detention. In fact, the grounds for detention in the reception conditions Directive do not provide for such a case. Similarly, while the Dublin rules do allow detention if there is a ‘significant risk of absconding’, it is difficult to see how that ground for detention can apply to unaccompanied minors in light of these rules.  

Barnard & Peers: chapter 9, chapter 26 

Read More

Procedural rights and subsidiary protection

By Steve Peers

The first phase legislation of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) set out a definition of ‘subsidiary protection’ (protection for those individuals who did not qualify for refugee status, but who still should not be sent back to their country of origin) in the Qualification Directive. However, other first phase CEAS legislation, most notably the asylum procedures Directive, did not apply to those applying for subsidiary protection. Nor did that legislation expressly regulate the relationship between refugee and subsidiary protection status.

This rather peculiar gap has been filled in several ways. First of all, as for the future, the second-phase CEAS legislation applies fully to applicants for subsidiary protection, and also regulates the relationship between refugee and subsidiary protection status. However, some of that legislation will not apply until July 2015; most notably, the Directive on international protection procedures (which replaces the asylum procedures Directive) will only apply to applications made after that point.

Secondly, a large majority of Member States already have a ‘one-stop shop’ procedure, in which applications for subsidiary protection are considered along with applications for refugee protection. In that case, the rules in the asylum procedures Directive apply to the whole procedure.

Thirdly, where Member States do not have such a procedure, the CJEU ruled in the M judgment that the general principle of EU law, set out in Article 41 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, on the ‘right to good administration’, applied to the national process of considering subsidiary protection claims, even though the wording of the Charter restricted that right to EU bodies (as distinct from national administrations).

Today’s judgment in HN raises further questions about the nature of the procedure for deciding on subsidiary protection claims in Member States which do not have a ‘one-stop shop’. Furthermore, it has broader relevance beyond such situations. Like the M case, the HN case concerns a subsidiary protection application made in Ireland. Irish law not only requires two separate procedures for examining refugee and subsidiary protection status, but also requires the first issue to be resolved before the second one is. Mr. HN, who considered that he had no chance of success as regards refugee status but a good argument for subsidiary protection status, argued that these rules breached EU law.

 According to the CJEU, they did not. First of all, in light of the pre-eminence of Geneva Convention refugee status in the Treaties and secondary EU law, subsidiary protection is ‘intended for third country nationals who do not qualify for refugee status’. It followed that ‘an application for subsidiary protection should not, in principle, be considered before’ an authority concludes that an application for refugee status is unfounded. So the national law could not be criticised on that ground.

The CJEU also considered two other aspects of EU law: the principle of effectiveness and the right to good administration. As regards effectiveness, while Member States have some discretion to regulate the subsidiary protection process unless they have a ‘one-stop shop’ in place, such discretion is not unlimited. Since a two-step process delays the application process, it must be possible to make an application for both types of status at the same time, and to consider the subsidiary protection claim ‘within a reasonable period of time’, taking account also of the time taken to decide on the refugee claim first.

As for the right to good administration, the CJEU confirmed that Article 41 of the Charter was applicable to national proceedings linked to EU law. In this case, the relevant provisions were the right to an impartial decision, and the right to a decision within a reasonable time. The ‘reasonable time’ rule applied in the same way as the principle of effectiveness. Furthermore, the principle of impartiality was not violated simply because the applicant had been told, due to the failure of his refugee claim, that he might be deported, even before the subsidiary protection application was decided.

Comments

There are a number of broader implications of the Court’s ruling. First of all, its confirmation that Article 41 of the Charter applies to all national proceedings within the scope of EU law is relevant well outside the scope of asylum law, and is therefore important given the large role that national administrations have in implementing EU law. For instance, the finding could be relevant as regards immigration, free movement or tax decisions (along with many others).

Secondly, while the Court’s judgment refers specifically to the right to an impartial decision, and to a decision within a reasonable time, there are several other aspects of Article 41 which must be equally applicable to national administrative decisions linked to EU law. In the M judgment, the CJEU already referred to the right to be heard. Article 41 also refers to fair administration, access to the file, the obligation to give reasons for decisions, a right to damages and linguistic communication rights.

As for the issues specific to asylum law, the Court’s judgment must logically mean that Article 47 of the Charter (the right to a court and an effective remedy) is also applicable to subsidiary protection claims by analogy, even in Member States without a one-stop shop. Arguably the EU Charter’s rights to dignity and social protection are also applicable to applicants for subsidiary protection in such Member States.

The Court’s approach in the M and HN cases is also relevant by analogy to cases where people apply for refugee or subsidiary protection in Member States from outside EU territory, after interception on the high seas for instance. While the asylum procedures Directive does not apply outside EU territory, there is no such geographic limit on the scope of the qualification Directive. So logically, the latter Directive applies to claims made outside of EU territory to Member States, and the Charter applies as regards procedural rights in such cases.

The Court’s approach to the relationship between refugee applications and subsidiary protection applications will make it more difficult for applicants to avoid the imposition of the EU’s ‘Dublin’ rules on allocation of asylum cases simply by means of withdrawing a refugee application, but simultaneously making or maintaining a subsidiary protection application. But this point is only relevant to applications made before the start of 2014 anyway, since as from that date the Dublin III Regulation applies, and that Regulation has extended the ‘Dublin’ rules to cover subsidiary protection applications.

What about the relationship between refugee status and purely national forms of protection outside the scope of the qualification Directive? There is nothing in the Court’s ruling today that addresses the relationship between such national forms of protection, which have not been harmonised by EU law at all, and the qualification Directive (or other EU asylum law, such as the Dublin rules). So it is still open to argue, for instance, that the Dublin rules cannot apply if a person is expressly applying only for a national form of protection. Conversely, it might be desirable to argue that the HN judgment applies by analogy if a Member State awards an applicant for refugee and/or subsidiary protection a purely national form of status, which gives that person fewer rights, without considering the former claims on the merits.

It is clear from this judgment that a claim for refugee status must always be refused before the possibility of subsidiary protection can be examined. This rule applies even before the second-phase procedures Directive sets it out expressly in EU law, and so applies to applications made before July 2015, including pending applications. Arguably, a Member State which has already awarded a person subsidiary protection without considering the merits of a refugee application can be called upon to reopen that process. However, it might be necessary for further case law to clarify the position where a person wishes to appeal the decision to refuse refugee status while the consideration of the subsidiary protection claim is ongoing.

Finally, it should be noted that even though the UK and Ireland have opted only into the first-phase qualification and procedures Directives, some key rules in the second phase legislation nevertheless apply to them, as a result of the CJEU’s interpretation of the first phase rules in its case law. In particular, they are bound by some basic procedural rules as regards subsidiary protection applications; they must consider a refugee claim before a subsidiary protection claim; and they must decide those claims within a reasonable time (although that rule is less precise than the precise time limits in the second-phase procedures Directive). So just because a rule appears expressly in the second-phase asylum law, but not in the first-phase asylum law, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the UK and Ireland are not bound by it; it is still possible that the first-phase legislation contains that rule implicitly. Of course, this is only one of the many legal complications arising from the complex system of opt-outs from EU law.


Barnard & Peers: chapter 8, chapter 26

Read More

External processing of applications for international protection in the EU

Steve Peers

Last autumn's huge loss of lives near Lampedusa, when hundreds of migrants drowned in the Mediterranean, was one of the latest and most dramatic death tolls in the recent history of irregular crossing of that sea. It ought to have led to a complete rethink of EU policy toward border controls and visas, but did not - doubtless because of the belief that far-right parties would capitalise on the increased public concern about migration that would result.

Of course, irregular migration flows are 'mixed': they consist of some people with a legitimate need for international protection, as well as some people who don't have such a need. The former group has a right to enter and stay on Member States' territory, while the latter group in principle does not - although this obviously doesn't mean that such migrants should be left to drown.

While no potential solution to this dilemma is simple, or would solve all the related problems, a move towards greater external processing of asylum seekers would clearly be a step in the right direction. It would mean that at least some of those migrants with a legitimate need for international protection would be able to obtain safe passage to EU Member States' territory without having to risk crossing the Mediterranean in unsafe vessels, having had to pay unscrupulous smugglers a fortune to arrange their journey.

For the last decade, the idea of external processing of asylum applications was tarnished by its association with suggestions made by Tony Blair for a new approach to asylum seekers coming to Europe.  His ideas, which seemed to have been worked out on the back of an envelope, and were clearly inspired by Australia's 'Pacific solution' to refugees, envisaged external processing as the exclusive route for asylum seekers to obtain refuge in the EU.

They were incompatible with human rights obligations, and entailed a degree of cooperation from third countries which either would not have been offered, or should not have been accepted if it was. This approach might have entailed agreements with Khadafy's Libya, or Putin's Russia, to host refugees and asylum seekers. If Putin were currently in a position to release many thousands of refugees who wished to make their way to the EU, the Union's reaction to his annexation of Crimea and sabre - rattling in eastern Ukraine would be even milder than it is already - if that's possible.

A new approach

Blair's ideas have been kicked into the long grass several times by the EU. But certainly the idea of joint external processing in principle has merit, if it has completely different premises from his suggestions. In particular, such processing should in no way prejudice applications made at the border or on the territory of Member States, and must entail the entry and stay of persons with international protection needs either on the territory of Member States, or on the territory of third countries which offer an equivalent level of protection. Nor should joint processing prejudice the resettlement of those groups of persons (such as Syrian refugees) whose need for international protection is obvious.

However, the EU will need time to work out the details of joint processing, for instance how to allocate the beneficiaries of international protection between Member States. In the meantime, there is now a perfect opportunity to adopt rules on purely national external processing of asylum applications, in the form of the proposed amendments to the Schengen visa code.

This is the second of four posts on this blog dealing with these proposed amendments. The first post dealt with the impact of the proposals on EU citizens’ third-country national family members, and the remaining posts will deal with the substance of the proposals as regards short-term Schengen visas and the newly proposed ‘touring visa’.

The proposed amendments to the visa code retain the existing possibility for Member States to issue a short-term visa with ‘limited territorial validity’ (LTV), ie the visa is not valid in all Schengen states, but rather valid usually in only the single Schengen State which issues it. But admission to only one Member State is clearly better than facing a risk of harm outside the EU. Once the visa expires, the person concerned can be given a longer-term residence document; in fact, the EU’s qualification Directive requires that a recognised refugee or beneficiary of subsidiary protection must receive a residence permit, and the EU Directive on asylum procedures specifies that in principle asylum-seekers cannot be removed from a Member State’s territory before a decision is made on their application.

The new proposal would make no substantive changes to the current rules in the visa code on LTV visas (see Article 22 of the proposal, as compared to Article 25 of the current code). However, it would be open to the European Parliament and the Council to insist that changes ought to be made.

According to the current visa code, and the proposed amendments, an LTV visa ‘shall be issued…when the Member State concerned considers it necessary on humanitarian grounds, for reasons of national interest or because of international obligations’. The important point is that an LTV visa can be issued where the usual conditions for issuing a visa are not met, for instance where there is insufficient evidence of an intention to return to the country of origin. Obviously, where a person has a genuine protection need, a reluctance to return to her country of origin is perfectly understandable; indeed, it is built into the very definition of refugee or subsidiary protection status (ie a well-founded fear of suffering persecution or serious harm in that country).

It should be noted that the CJEU has recently ruled in the Koushkaki judgment that in principle an ordinary Schengen visa must be issued when the applicant satisfies the criteria to obtain one, subject to a wide degree of discretion for Member States’ authorities to assess whether those criteria are satisfied. Does the same rule apply to LTV visas? At first sight, it does, due to the word ‘shall’, although that is qualified by the words ‘considers it necessary’.

Arguably, at least in cases involving a potential international protection need, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights requires that where a person applies for a visa from a (Schengen) Member State, the existence of such a need must be considered if it is alleged, and an LTV visa must be issued if such a protection need exists. The Member State’s Charter obligations would also be satisfied if it issues an LTV visa to the person concerned when the application for international protection is made, and considers the merits of the application while that person is on its territory. It can hardly be denied that EU law (and therefore the Charter) applies whenever a third-country national applies for a visa from a Schengen Member State.

The substantive law applicable to the consideration of the application would be the EU’s Qualification Directive, since that Directive does not limit its geographical application. However, the EU’s legislation on asylum procedures and reception conditions only applies to applications made at the border or on the territory of Member States. But since the EU Charter applies to applications for visas made on the territories of third States, it must follow that some basic standards compliant with the Charter would apply to the procedures and reception conditions would still be applicable. There would be no need to decide which Member State is responsible for considering the application, since the EU’s Dublin rules are subject to the same geographic limitations.

If this interpretation is correct, the current and proposed visa codes already include implicit rules covering those applying for international protection. However, it would be preferable to include express rules to this effect. There would be no need for elaborate provisions on this issue, since the details of such purely national forms of external processing of asylum applications do not need to be harmonised in great detail. It would be sufficient to provide that an LTV visa ‘shall be issued…when it is necessary in order to ensure the international protection of the person concerned in accordance with Directive 2011/95 [the Qualification Directive], or when the Member State concerned considers it necessary…’.

This would be a modest but important step towards reducing the appalling death toll of those migrants who cross the Mediterranean in search of a new life in the European Union.


Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

Read More