Suchergebnisse

By examining the implementation dynamics of EU Readmission Agreements (EURAs), this book addresses the practical reasons why irregular immigrants cannot be expelled. EURAs are one of the vital legal instruments framing EU external migration law with regard to the expulsion of irregular immigrants, yet their implementation has met with various obstacles. Above all, the process of determining an individual's legal identity has proven to be one of the most controversial aspects in the implementation of EURAs. The analysis shows that the process of identifying who is whose national in the context of readmission creates two existential dilemmas: first from the perspective of the sovereignty of third countries of origin and the legal standards laid out in international instruments as regards states' powers in determining nationality, and second regarding the agency of the individual as a holder of fundamental human rights. How do the EURAs deal with or aim at alleviating these identity determination dilemmas? The book provides a comparative analysis of the administrative procedures and rules envisaged by EURAs aimed at proving or presuming the nationality of the persons to be readmitted to their country of origin. It focuses on the ways in which nationality is to be determined or presumed in the scope of the 2010 EURA with Pakistan, and compares it with those foreseen in the EURAs with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cape Verde, Georgia, and Turkey. As such, the book provides a unique and up-to-date study of EURAs and their implementation challenges in the broader context of EU external migration law and policy

This book studies the normative intersection between integration, immigration and nationality in the European Union (EU). It examines the relationship between integration and the legal frameworks of admission, stay and access to nationality by third country nationals at national and European levels. Integration is being subject to multifaceted processes transforming its traditional policy and legal settings, as well as its classical theoretical premises and approaches. The Europeanisation of immigration policy has provoked the emergence of distinctive European approaches on integration. The legal elements of integration are being developed through two parallel settings: the EU Framework on Integration and European immigration law. These venues constitute two of the main pillars upon which the common EU immigration policy is being constructed, and their nexus raises several elements in need of reflection and study.

The end of 2019 coincided with two anniversaries with profound implications for EU Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) cooperation. First, it has been 20 years since the adoption of the Tampere Programme under the Finnish Presidency of the EU (October 1999). Following the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty, the European Council provided for the first time a multi-annual EU policy agenda for the progressive creation of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). Second, it has been 10 years since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty (December 2009), and the EU Charter of Fundamental rights becoming legally binding. In light of this background, this Editorial critically examines some of the latest key developments in the EU AFSJ law and policy.

This Paper examines the 'N.D. and N.T v Spain' judgment by the European Court of Human Rights (EtCHR) of 13 February 2020. The Grand Chamber of the Strasbourg Court concluded that expedited expulsions to Morocco (pushbacks or 'hot returns') by Spanish authorities at the border fences in Melilla did not amount to a violation of the prohibition of collective expulsions under Article 4 Protocol 4 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). Counterintuitively, the Court's ruling is not a carte blanche for states to engage in automatic expulsions or push backs of irregular immigrants and asylum seekers at EU external borders. The Grand Chamber has confirmed that the notion of expulsion for ECHR purposes covers non-admission border management policies, and it applies to every individual irrespective of seeking asylum or not. It has also held that governments must not instrumentally frame certain parts of their territory through law as 'non-territory' to escape from their ECHR obligations in the context of border policies. The Grand Chamber has also demanded that States provide genuine and effective access to legal entry mechanisms for purposes of asylum and employment. The N.D. and N.T v Spain judgement is, however, fraught with legal inconsistencies and factual inaccuracies. It denies justice to voiceless victims of human rights violations. The ruling's inconsistent legal argumentation leaves crucial nuances to avoid arbitrariness and rule of law violations in states' border policies. By focusing on the individuals' own conduct instead of the Spanish authorities' compliance with the ECHR, the judgement displaces the individual from the heart towards the periphery of the ECHR system. It wrongly applies an 'own conduct doctrine' to human rights which are absolute in nature and accept no exception. The judges' arguments are also factually wrong, chiefly in respect of the practical accessibility by the applicants to legal channels for admission to Spain. The Grand Chamber's choice to first assess whether the individual is worthy of human rights contradicts Article 1 ECHR and the Strasbourg Court mandate to impartially and independently supervise States parties' compliance with everyone's human rights within their jurisdiction. The ruling provides an inequivalent level of human rights calling for lower protection standards in contradiction to those required by United Nations human rights bodies. It is also incompatible with the Spanish government's obligations under EU law to comply with human rights in border control and surveillance policies, and the fundamental right to asylum.

Has the Juncker Commission delivered a "new start" for EU Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) policies? This book examines the question in relation to the performance of the European Commission's intra-institutional setting while taking stock of the most relevant legislative developments and acts in the EU Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) from 2014 up to the end of 2018. These developments are critically assessed in view of the rule of law and fundamental rights standards enshrined in the Treaties and the EU's Better Regulation commitments. The book argues that this has been the Commission of crisis and that the 'politics of crisis' have not benefited the Juncker Commission overall. They have allowed for greater intergovernmentalism, rule of law backsliding, informalisation and exceptionalism in EU AFSJ policies. The book puts forward a set of policy priorities for the next Commission term from mid-2019. It recommends unequivocally placing EU founding principles first – rule of law, fundamental rights and democracy – as these reinforce each other and work together in safeguarding the constitutional core of the EU and its member states. They are also key ingredients for ensuring the legitimation and credibility of European integration and maintaining social trust. ; This book falls within the framework of SOURCE Network of Excellence, which is financed by the EU FP7 programme with the aim of creating a robust and sustainable virtual centre of excellence capable of exploring and advancing societal issues in security research and development. ; -- 1. Introduction -- 2. The Commission's new structure: one hat too many? -- 3. Legal and policy developments: promises made, promises kept? 3.1 Schengen and securing external borders 3.1.1 The European Border and Coast Guard 3.1.2 The Schengen Area 3.2 Asylum and refugees 3.2.1 Relocation and hotspots 3.2.2 Reforming the Common European Asylum System 3.2.3 EASO: Towards an EU Asylum Agency 3.3 Legal Immigration 3.4 Irregular entries and third-country cooperation on expulsions 3.4.1 EU-Turkey Statement and the Facility for Refugees 3.4.2 Readmission and root causes 3.4.3 Returns 3.4.4 Migrant smuggling 3.5 Criminal justice and police cooperation 3.5.1 European Public Prosecutor's Office 3.5.2 Europol 3.5.3 E-evidence, data retention and terrorist content online 3.5.4 EU-US Privacy Shield 3.5.5 Interoperability, information systems and eu-LISA 3.6 Rule of law and fundamental rights 3.6.1 Fundamental rights 3.6.2 Rule of law -- 4. Conclusions and priorities 4.1 Priorities 4.1.1 Intra-Institutional 4.1.2 Substantive or Thematic

How much does European citizenship cost in the EU? This was the question that has raised so much controversy over the Maltese citizenship-for-sale programme. The outright selling of Maltese nationality to rich foreigners led to unprecedented responses by the European Parliament and European Commission. This paper examines the affair and its relevance for current and future configurations of citizenship of the EU. It studies the extent to which Member States are still free to lay down the grounds for the acquisition and loss of nationality without any EU supervision and accountability. It is argued that the EU's intervention in the Maltese citizenship-for-sale affair constitutes a legal precedent for assessing the lawfulness of passport-for-sale programmes in other EU Member States. The affair has also revealed the increasing relevance of a set of European and international legal principles limiting Member States' discretion over citizenship matters and providing a supranational constellation of accountability venues scrutinizing the impact of their decisions over citizenship. The Maltese citizenship-for-sale affair has placed at the forefront the EU general principle of sincere cooperation in nationality matters. Member States' actions in the citizenship domain cannot negatively affect in substance the concept and freedoms of European citizenship.

This paper provides a comparative study of integration programmes for immigrants in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France,Germany, Latvia, Poland, Spain and the Netherlands. The main tendencies and common elements are broadly assessed and compared, paying special attention to the target groups and scope of these programmes,and the related enforcement mechanisms and sanctions. In the national arena there appears to be a distinct trend towards a mandatory nature of integration programmes for immigrants. Binding participation in these programmes is now a regular feature of immigration legislation, and a legal precondition for having access to a «secure juridical status». A nexus between immigration and integration is becoming the norm. This link may at times conflict with human rights considerations, and endanger the interculturalism and diversity that are inherent to the nature of the EU ; Este artículo ofrece un estudio comparado sobre las políticas y estrategias relativas a «la integración de inmigrantes» en Alemania, Austria, Bélgica, Dinamarca, España, Francia, Holanda, Letonia y Polonia. Tras exponer brevemente los modelos tradicionales de integración de inmigrantes, se analizan las tendencias generales experimentadas por los programas de integración en estos países, prestando especial atención al contenido y destinatarios de estos programas, y a los mecanismos ejecutorios destinados a garantizar su cumplimiento. Como veremos, se está experimentando una tendencia incipiente hacia un entendimiento y puesta en práctica de «la integración social de inmigrantes» como una condición jurídica obligatoria para que los colectivos cultural y étnicamente diferenciados sean «globalmente incluidos» en la sociedad receptora y en el conjunto de la nación. La participación vinculante en los programas de integración constituye un ingrediente esencial del marco jurídico de inmigración, y un requisito clave para que los inmigrantes puedan tener acceso a un «estatuto jurídico seguro». Existe un «nexo» entre las dimensiones de la inmigración y la integración que puede hacer peligrar el ínterculturalismo y la diversidad que son propias de la naturaleza misma de la UE.

"This edited volume examines the extent to which the various authorities and actors currently performing border management and expulsion-related tasks are subject to accountability mechanisms capable of delivering effective remedies and justice for abuses suffered by migrants and asylum seekers. Member States of the European Union and State Parties to the Council of Europe are under the obligation to establish complaint mechanisms allowing immigrants and/or asylum seekers to seek effective remedies in cases where their rights are violated. This book sheds light on the complaint bodies and procedures existing and available in Austria, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Spain, Poland, and Romania. It assesses their role in overseeing, investigating and redressing cases of human rights violations deriving from violent border and immigration management practices, and expedited expulsion procedures. This book therefore provides an assessment of the practical, legal, and procedural challenges that affect the possibility to lodge complaints and access remedies for human rights violations suffered at the hand of the law enforcement authorities and other security actors operating at land, air, and sea borders, or participating in expulsions procedures - in particular, joint return flights. The volume will be of key interest to students, scholars and practitioners working on human rights, migration and borders, international law, European law and security studies, EU politics and more broadly international relations"--

This collective volume offers a multidisciplinary examination of the critical issues and challenges associated with the EU's initiative to build a Security Union, particularly in relation to common policies adopted at the member state level aimed at countering terrorism and crime. It delves into the EU's efforts to support cross-border investigations, the exchange of information and international cooperation, taking stock of the effects on freedom and privacy. The various authors offer key research findings, which contributed to the European Commission's 2017 Comprehensive Assessment of EU Security Policy. They identify and explore the main constitutional dilemmas facing the Security Union concerning EU standards enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty and the commitments undertaken in the context of the EU Better Regulation agenda. Hence, this examination of EU security policies sheds light on their effectiveness, proportionality, fundamental rights and societal implications