Pyrrhic victory for the Greek government: the CJEU rules on Turkey as a “safe third country”

Professor Steve Peers, Royal Holloway University of London

Photo credit: Mstyslav Chernov, via Wikimedia Commons

Hamster idiom credit: Adam Sharp

(Thanks to Zoe Gardner for discussion of the case; the following analysis is my own)

 

Introduction

Remember the ‘refugee crisis’ of 2015-16? One part of the EU’s response to it was to negotiate a ‘joint statement’ with Turkey (see comments and criticism here, here and here) that, among other things, led to Turkey agreeing to take back asylum-seekers from the Greek islands. Greece facilitated the application of this process by determining that Turkey was a ‘safe third country’ (ie that asylum-seekers could and should have applied there instead, given that this other country is ‘safe’) under EU asylum law, initially for Syrian asylum-seekers in the eastern Greek islands. Faced with a legal challenge to this determination, the Greek Council of State ruled in 2017 that the determination was legal, deciding by a 13-12 vote not to ask the CJEU to interpret the issue of EU law at stake. For its part the EU General Court (upheld on appeal by the CJEU) rejected legal challenges to the joint statement, on the frankly bizarre ground that the European Council had nothing to do with the EU/Turkey joint statement (which referred to EU law issues such as visa waivers).

Subsequently in 2020, Turkey decided to refuse all readmission of asylum-seekers from Greece, stating that (as quoted in note 10 of the Advocate-General’s opinion):

 Responding to repeated requests from the Greek authorities and the European Commission regarding the resumption of return operations, [the Republic of Türkiye] has stated that no return operation would take place unless the alleged pushbacks along the Turkish-Greek border stop and [the Hellenic Republic] revokes its decision to consider [the Republic of Türkiye] a Safe Third Country.

Greece nevertheless decided to list Turkey as a ‘safe third country’ more broadly in 2021, for asylum-seekers from Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh or Somalia; it added Albania and North Macedonia to its ‘safe third country’ list soon afterwards. In light of the EU law rules on ‘safe third country’ (discussed further below), two NGOs (the Greek Council for Refugees and Refugee Support in the Aegean) decided to challenge the Greek government decision to list Turkey, resulting this time in the view of the Council of State in February 2023 (by an 18-4 vote) that the listing of Turkey was invalid, on the grounds that EU law precluded designating a country which refused to readmit asylum-seekers as a ‘safe third country’. (Other EU law arguments against the designation of Turkey were rejected by the national court and not referred to the CJEU: see the analysis by Minos Mouzourakis).  But unlike in 2017, there was great deference to the view of the (much smaller) minority (two judges apiece argued that the issue of readmission was relevant instead when ruling applications inadmissible, or when enforcing that decision). So the national court decided to ask the CJEU questions about the interpretation of EU law on the readmission point before giving its final ruling. The CJEU delivered its judgment last Friday.

This is not only the first time that the CJEU has been asked about an aspect of the EU/Turkey asylum relationship. Remarkably, despite the huge number of asylum seekers that have come to Greece over the last decade and more, this is also the first time that the CJEU has been asked any questions about EU asylum law by any Greek court.

 

EU legal framework

Legislation

The definition of ‘safe third country’ for the EU is currently set out in Article 38 of the EU’s asylum procedures Directive. (This is about the ‘safety’ of non-EU countries, ie it is distinct from the EU Member States regarding each other as ‘safe’ countries, under the Dublin rules) First, Article 38(1) provides that the (optional) ‘safe third country’ concept can ‘only’ be applied if Member States are satisfied that certain ‘principles’ are ensured for asylum-seekers in that country: (a) ‘life and liberty are not threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion’; (b) ‘there is no risk of serious harm as defined in’ the EU qualification Directive; (c) ‘the principle of non-refoulement in accordance with the Geneva [Refugee] Convention is respected’; (d)  ‘prohibition of removal, in violation of the right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as laid down in international law, is respected’; and (e) ‘the possibility exists to request refugee status and, if found to be a refugee, to receive protection in accordance with the Geneva Convention’.

Secondly, Article 38(2) requires Member States to subject the application of the ‘safe third country’ rule to national law rules, including: (a) ‘requiring a connection between the applicant and the third country concerned on the basis of which it would be reasonable for that person to go to that country’; (b) ‘rules on the methodology by which the competent authorities satisfy themselves that the safe third country concept may be applied to a particular country or to a particular applicant. Such methodology shall include case-by-case consideration of the safety of the country for a particular applicant and/or national designation of countries considered to be generally safe’; and (c) ‘rules in accordance with international law, allowing an individual examination of whether the third country concerned is safe for a particular applicant which, as a minimum, shall permit the applicant to challenge the application of the safe third country concept on the grounds that the third country is not safe in his or her particular circumstances’. Also, an asylum-seeker must ‘be allowed to challenge the existence of a connection between him or her and the third country’, as referred to in point (a).

Next, Article 38(3) requires Member States to inform the applicant that the principle is being applied to them, and also to give the asylum-seeker a document informing the supposedly ‘safe’ third country that the merits of their asylum claim have not been examined.

Crucially for this case, Article 38(4) then provides that:

Where the third country does not permit the applicant to enter its territory, Member States shall ensure that access to a procedure is given in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees described in Chapter II. [ie an ‘ordinary’ examination of the merits of an asylum claim]

Finally, Article 38(5) obliges Member States to inform the Commission of their use of the concept.

The practical relevance of applying the ‘safe third country’ notion is (among other things) that it is a ground of (optional) inadmissibility under Article 33 of the Directive. And if the case is inadmissible, the asylum application is not further considered on the merits and has failed in that Member State (subject to an appeal of the inadmissibility decision, or the limited prospect of a ‘repeat application’, discussed further below). The failed asylum-seeker can then deprived of support as an asylum seeker under the reception conditions Directive and detained and removed under the Returns Directive. Of course, the impact of this is in theory ameliorated in ‘safe third country’ cases because the supposedly ‘safe’ country will readmit the person concerned and consider their asylum application properly. In practice, as we have seen, Turkey was explicitly and unambiguously refusing to readmit asylum-seekers from Greece in the context of the ‘safe third country’ concept.

Case law

The CJEU had interpreted the ‘safe third country’ rule in some prior case law, all concerning Hungary. First of all, in Case C‑564/18 (paras 29-51 of the judgment), the CJEU confirmed that the grounds of inadmissibility listed in the Directive were exhaustive (‘only’), and ruled that a national law applying a ‘safe third country’ principle to non-EU States where the asylum-seeker ‘as not exposed to persecution or a risk of serious harm, or in which a sufficient degree of protection is guaranteed’ was not consistent with the requirements of Article 38(1) of the Directive, in particular because it omitted the ‘non-refoulement’ requirement. Moreover, mere transit through the non-EU country was not enough for there to be a ‘connection’ with that country as required by Article 38(2).

Next, the Court reiterated these points in its judgment in Joined Cases C-924/19 and C-925/19 PPU (paras 148-165); but questions about what happens when the non-EU State refuses to readmit the asylum-seekers – the issue since addressed in last week’s judgment – were ruled inadmissible (paras 166-174). However, the Advocate-General’s opinion in that case discusses the issue (paras 107-127), taking the view that the refusal of readmission is only relevant at the point of enforcement of a decision based on the principle.  

Finally, in Commission v Hungary (Case C‑821/19), along with ruling on the criminalisation of assistance to asylum seekers, the Court again reiterated that the Hungarian law breached Article 38(1) and (2) of the Directive. The existence of a (then) pending proposal to amend the Directive on this point (since adopted as part of the 2024 asylum pact – but without some of the changes originally proposed) was irrelevant in determining whether a Member State was in breach of EU law at the time of the alleged breach.

 

Greek practice

As noted above, Greece had listed Turkey as a ‘safe third country’ despite Turkey’s refusal to readmit anyone in that context. While the CJEU judgment says nothing about the practice of the authorities, and the Advocate-General’s opinion says little (paras 65-68 of the opinion), one can find rather more information at the bottom of the ivory tower, in the recent Pro-Asyl report on the ‘safe third country’ principle in Greece, and in the annual AIDA report on Greece (‘safe third country’ section).

The reports state that over 10,000 asylum claims have been found inadmissible on the basis of the Greek listing of Turkey as a ‘safe third country’, although around 12,000 asylum claims have been found admissible (in some cases because the asylum-seekers argued that Turkey had not allowed them to make an asylum claim, or due to past exposure to refoulement, ie return to an unsafe country, or because they lacked a sufficient ‘connection’ with Turkey, on the basis of the national law implementing Article 38(2) of the Directive). Also, the reports are highly critical of the conclusion that Turkey is ‘safe’ – although the recent CJEU judgment does not address this issue, because the national court did not ask the CJEU about it.

Like the Advocate-General’s opinion, the Pro-Asyl study reports that Greek authorities apply the readmission test at the point of enforcement of a ‘safe third country’ decision. When Turkey then refuses readmission, the Greek bodies refuse to withdraw their prior decisions, leaving asylum-seekers to make a ‘repeat application’. But there are delays in registering these applications, and the authorities often reject them because they do not believe that the refusal of readmission is a ‘new element or finding’ (as required for a repeat application to be admissible under the EU Directive). But at least some courts rule against detention in such cases, given that there is no reasonable prospect of return (as required by the Returns Directive).

 

The judgment

The CJEU’s judgment began by answering the first question referred by the national court, rephrasing it as asking ‘in essence, whether’ the ‘safe third country’ rule in the Directive, ‘read in the light of Article 18 of the Charter’ on the right to asylum, ‘must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State classifying a third country as generally safe for certain categories of applicants for international protection where, despite the legal obligation to which it is subject, that third country has generally suspended the admission or readmission of those applicants to its territory and there is no foreseeable prospect of a change in that position’.

First, the Court reiterated its case law that the grounds for inadmissibility of asylum applications in the procedures Directive (including ‘safe third country’ as defined in the Directive) are ‘exhaustive’, ie the Member States cannot add more grounds of their own (such as a divergent national definition of ‘safe third country’). It pointed out that the EU law definition ‘is subject to compliance with the cumulative conditions laid down’ in Article 38 of the Directive, as summarised above. But as the national court had already ruled that Greek law complied with the basic principles in Article 38(1), the CJEU did not examine that point. But it summarised the requirements for national law set out in Article 38(2) and the information obligations in Article 38(3), then recalled the Article 38(4) rule that ‘where the third country concerned does not permit the applicant for international protection to enter its territory, the Member States are to ensure that access to a procedure is given in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees described in Chapter II of that directive’.

In the CJEU’s view, it followed from this first from the wording of the Directive that a Member State can designate a country as ‘generally safe’ by ‘an act of general application’. The references to national law in Article 38(2) referred to such a designation, as did the preamble to the Directive. Also, the Directive did not make the validity of such a general act ‘subject to the condition that it be proved that the applicants for international protection concerned will actually be admitted or readmitted to the territory of that third country’. This was not among the national law rules in Article 38(2); and the wording of Article 38(4) implied that the designation of the third country as ‘safe’ preceded the consideration of the issue of whether that country actually readmitted asylum seekers.

The CJEU also believed that this followed from the context of the Directive, in particular by comparison with the wording of the rules on ‘first country of asylum’ (ie where the asylum seeker already had protection, as distinct from where they could have sought it) on the readmission issue.

Finally, in the CJEU’s view, this interpretation also did not conflict with the objective of the Directive, as set out in the preamble, that in the interests of asylum-seekers in particular, asylum applications ‘should be made as soon as possible, without prejudice to an adequate and complete examination being carried out’. This objective was addressed by Article 38(4), requiring that a Member State ‘ensure’ access to an asylum decision on the merits, in accordance with the usual rules, if the ‘safe third country’ refused readmission. And then a key point:

54      It follows that, where it is established that the third country designated as generally safe by a Member State does not in fact admit or readmit the applicants for international protection concerned, that Member State cannot reject their applications for international protection as inadmissible on the basis of Article 33(2)(c) of Directive 2013/32. Furthermore, that Member State may not unjustifiably postpone the examination of those applications and must, inter alia, ensure that that examination is conducted on an individual basis, in accordance with Article 10(3)(a) of that directive and in compliance with the time limits set out in Article 31 thereof.

This interpretation, in the Court’s view, ‘is likewise not such as to deprive of any practical effect the right of an applicant for international protection, as enshrined in Article 18 of the Charter and given specific expression by that directive, to obtain the status of beneficiary of international protection, provided that the conditions required by EU law are met.

Having ruled, in effect, that the designation of Turkey was valid, the CJEU felt it was unnecessary to answer the second and third questions referred by the national court, on whether the refusal of readmission was a factor to be considered at the admissibility or the enforcement stage. But as we have seen, the Court had already de facto answered the second question: if it is ‘established’ that the ‘safe’ third country ‘does not in fact’ readmit the asylum seekers concerned, a Member State ‘cannot’ find their applications admissible, and must consider those applications on the merits (moreover, without ‘unjustifiable’ postponement, and subject to the deadlines in the Directive). And that renders the third question moot.

 

Comments

Greece can have a dog; but it will be wagged by its Turkish tail. That is the effect of the Court’s judgment: in more technical legal language, Turkey can remain on Greece’s ‘safe third country’ list, but the practical impact of this is zero as long as Turkey refuses to readmit asylum-seekers from Greece, because asylum applications cannot be found inadmissible on this ground. The wheel of designation of Turkey as a ‘safe third country’ keeps spinning, but the hamster of inadmissibility of asylum applications is dead. Let’s unpack this further, examining first the reasoning of the judgment and then its potential consequences.  

Judicial reasoning

The CJEU begins by, with respect, answering a ‘straw man’ question that it had not been asked.  The national court did not ask the CJEU if it was possible to designate ‘safe third countries’ at all; rather it asked if those countries could be designated if they failed to readmit asylum-seekers. The references to common principles on ‘safe third countries’ in the preamble to the Directive do not answer the question as to what those common principles are; a rule that failure to readmit precludes listing a country would be a ‘common principle’ too. However, the Court’s points that Article 38(2) on national law and (especially) Article 38(4) on readmission presume that the country concerned is already on a list are more convincing.

Most importantly, the Court’s finding that applications cannot be inadmissible on ‘safe third country’ grounds where the country concerned refuses to readmit, requiring a Member State to consider the merits of such applications, is particularly convincing.  Given that between Greece and Turkey the readmission will not take place, and in light of the evidence that repeat applications are difficult to make and are often rejected, this is the best way to ensure that the obligations set out in Article 38(4), coupled with the principle of considering applications as soon as possible, are met.

Unlike some judgments, this is not so much a ‘liberal’ or ‘activist’ interpretation of EU asylum law by the CJEU, but rather the overdue termination of conservative activism by the Greek authorities and lower courts. In light of the clear obligation in Article 38(4) to consider the merits of an asylum application if the asylum seeker is not readmitted to a ‘safe third country’, in the context of the absolute refusal of Turkey to readmit, the failure of the authorities to consider the merits of many of those applications, and of the courts to require them to do so, is unjustifiable and frankly shocking.

Consequences in practice

First and foremost, what happens to the 10,000 plus asylum seekers whose applications were already rejected as inadmissible? As noted above, some had previously tried to make repeat applications, but faced the difficulty that they had to invoke ‘new elements or findings’ in order to do so, which was often difficult to do. But their ability to invoke the ‘repeat applications’ clause in the Directive has now, as a consequence purely of the Court of Justice’s recent judgment, undergone a Copernican revolution. This is because the CJEU has previously ruled (see Joined Cases C-924/19 and C-925/19 PPU, paras 175-203, confirmed in Case C-216/22) that its own judgments on EU asylum law are a new element or finding in filing a repeat application, where those judgments are relevant and add significantly to the likelihood of an asylum application being successful. For those asylum-seekers whose application was found inadmissible on ‘safe third country’ grounds despite Turkey’s refusal to readmit them, last week’s judgment is obviously highly relevant; and overturning the finding that their applications were inadmissible equally obviously significantly increases the odds that their application will be successful. (Moreover, the judgment in Joined Cases C-924/19 and C-925/19 PPU is especially relevant by analogy here, since the prior national judgments which conflicted with a later CJEU judgment in that case also concerned an unlawful application of the ‘safe third country’ rules).

Therefore, if the rejected asylum-seekers apply again, the Greek asylum system will now have to decide on the merits of thousands of asylum applications that it wrongly ruled were inadmissible in the first place. A pending CJEU case referred from Ireland may be relevant by analogy in establishing whether Greece has to pay damages too. Finally, if any Afghan women asylum-seekers were among those whose applications were considered inadmissible, they can also rely on another CJEU judgment from the same day (discussed here) as a ‘new element or finding’, supporting the merits and fast-tracking of their gender-based persecution claims.

As for current or future applicants, their applications cannot be rejected as inadmissible on the grounds that Turkey is a 'safe third country' at all. Nor can they be rejected on the grounds that Turkey is a ‘first country of asylum’ for them: without even looking at the substance of that concept, the CJEU judgment explicitly stated that this principle cannot even get off the ground if the country concerned will not readmit the asylum seeker.

What about applicants after the asylum pact takes effect? The Court of Justice judgment from last week only mentions the new asylum procedures Regulation (discussed here) in passing, but as the Advocate-General’s opinion pointed out (in para 64), the interpretation of the Directive ultimately followed by the Court is explicitly set out in the Regulation, now being built into the definition of inadmissibility – also as regards the ‘first country of asylum’ principle (these grounds of inadmissibility can be invoked for either principle ‘unless it is clear that the applicant will not be admitted or readmitted to that country’). (See also recital 53 in the preamble to the Regulation). Whether the planned review of the ‘safe third country’ rules in the Regulation in 2025 affects these issues remains to be seen.

Finally, the Court’s judgment understandably only dealt with situations where the refusal of readmission is certain at the time of considering the possible application of the ‘safe third country’ rule. It did not deal with the scenario where refusal was merely a possibility – as that was hypothetical on the facts. How should such cases be dealt with?

The starting point is that the current Directive (recital 44 in the preamble) implies the possibility of an inadmissibility decision in that scenario: Member States do not have to examine the merits of an application where ‘there are grounds for considering that the applicant will be admitted or readmitted to that [‘safe’ third] country’. The inadmissibility rule in the new Regulation points in the same direction: it can’t be applied if ‘it is clear that’ readmission is not going to happen (see also recital 43 in the preamble to the Regulation). But this implies that the inadmissibility rule can be applied if it is not clear that readmission is ruled out. On the other hand, the recent judgment points to the importance of deciding on applications as soon as possible, without unjustifiable postponements, while ensuring the application of the Charter right to asylum. How best to reconcile the possibility of the adoption of inadmissibility decisions with the need to take decisions speedily and afford an effective prospect of having an asylum application decided on the merits, if there is uncertainty about whether readmission will actually take place?

The 2024 procedures Regulation already expressly provides (in recital 53 in the preamble) that access to the Member State’s asylum system must be offered again if readmission does not take place:

…if the applicant is eventually not admitted or readmitted to the third country after the application has been rejected as inadmissible, the applicant should again have access to the procedure for international protection in accordance with this Regulation

How should that principle apply in concrete terms? The best approach is to infer an obligation upon the Member State to act with due diligence to attempt to secure the readmission, starting as soon as it takes the inadmissibility decision (after any appeals, or the prospect of appeals, against that decision are spent). From that point, the Member State should have a reasonable time frame to request readmission from the non-EU country concerned. By analogy with the procedures Regulation time limit for deciding on inadmissibility, two months should be sufficient. If the non-EU country refuses readmission, or does not reply within the time limit set out in the readmission arrangements in force, or accepts readmission in principle but does not carry it out in practice within the relevant time limit, then the Member State’s obligation to consider the application on the merits where readmission does not take place must be triggered. Procedurally either the inadmissibility decision must be considered as withdrawn from that point (it makes sense to consider it as only provisional until readmission is actually carried out), or a repeat application must be considered – the requirement of new developments being satisfied by the inability, subsequent to the inadmissibility decision, to ensure readmission in practice within a reasonable time frame. The inadmissibility decision was based on the presumption that readmission would be secured within a reasonable period; that presumption has since been rebutted.

The final word on the impact of last week’s judgment should go to the asylum NGOs who brought the case:

…the CJEU’s judgment is of major importance because it overturns an arbitrary and abusive practice of the Greek authorities which has been in force for many years, of wholesale rejecting asylum applications as inadmissible under the safe third country principle, and puts an end to the denial of the rights of thousands of applicants, by prohibiting their rejection when there is no possibility of their readmission to Türkiye and dictating their individual examination in accordance with the Directive.

‘Can a man serve two masters’? The Court of Justice decides whether monks can be banned from being lawyers

Rebecca Zahn, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Strathclyde

Lawyers occupy a unique position in the European Union. Within their Member States, they play a vital role in providing access to and administering justice, and upholding the rule of law. As with other professionals such as doctors or architects, access to the profession is tightly regulated by national bodies. Yet unlike other professionals, lawyers are inherently immobile. The knowledge required to be a lawyer is closely linked to the jurisdiction within which an individual trains and qualifies. An understanding of the national language as well as of a particular legal system’s customs and practices is vital for the exercise of the profession. This makes the facilitation of free movement of lawyers difficult. Lawyers can make use of the general system of Directive 2005/36/EC, which leads to full integration in the profession of the receiving Member State following the successful completion of an aptitude test. The European Commission’s Regulated Professions Database suggests that 7,506 lawyers have availed themselves of this route to gain admission to the profession in a host State.

Yet in recognition of their special status, lawyers are the only professionals who benefit from an additional regime designed to facilitate temporary and permanent free movement.  Directive 77/249/EEC permits lawyers registered in one Member State to provide temporary cross-border services in another Member State without any prior notification. There are no statistics available on the use of this right but a 2012 study for the European Commission evaluating the Legal Framework for the Free Movement of Lawyers suggested that there was a large market for the temporary cross-border provision of services albeit with limited physical movement; often such services are provided at a distance, for example by e-mail or telephone.

Finally, Directive 98/5/EC allows lawyers to register to practice law on a permanent basis in a host Member State. Article 3 of that Directive mandates that lawyers wishing to practice in a host Member State register with the competent authority by presenting their registration certificate. The competent authority shall register the lawyer initially under their home-country professional title which allows the lawyer to give advice on his home law, EU law, international law or the law of the host Member State (Article 5(1)). Under Article 6, the host Member State’s professional rules of conduct will apply to the lawyer’s exercise of activity in that State. Following three years of practice in the law of the host Member State, the lawyer can apply to be admitted to the profession of lawyer in the host Member State (Article 10).

The Directive thus harmonises access to the profession under Article 3 while granting Member States discretion when it comes to integrating individuals through its own rules of professional conduct. However, this hybrid nature of the Directive can lead to difficulties as was made clear in a judgment handed down by the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union on 7 May 2019 in Case C-431/17 Monachos Eirinaios v Dikigorikos Syllogos Athinon.

The case concerned a Greek monk, Monachos Eirinaios, who lives in a monastery in Greece. He is also a qualified lawyer and a member of the Cyprus Bar Association. In June 2015, he relied on Article 3 of Directive 98/5 to register with the Athens Bar Association as a lawyer who has acquired his professional title in another Member State. The application was refused on the basis of the national rules on incompatibilities contained in Article 8(1) of the Presidential Decree 152/2000 and Article 6 of the Lawyers’ Code which prohibit a clergyman or monk from being a lawyer in Greece. The Athens Bar Association argued that monks were barred from becoming lawyers due to the absence of guarantees regarding their independence, doubts as to their ability to occupy themselves fully with their functions and whether they can handle contentious cases, the requirement for actual establishment in the geographical area of practice and the obligation not to provide services without remuneration. Monachos Eirinaios appealed the decision and the Council of State referred a question to the Court of Justice asking whether Article 3 of Directive 98/5 required the Athens Bar Association to register Monachos Eirinaios even though he would not be allowed to practice once registered.

In a short judgment, the Court reiterated that Article 3 of Directive 98/5 harmonises the rules under which a lawyer can establish himself in a host Member State. Provided that the lawyer is fully qualified and has the requisite certificate from the home Member State, the host Member State authorities must register him regardless of whether he is subsequently able to practice. National authorities are not permitted to impose additional conditions for registration other than those contained in article 3. This follows from the decision in Case C-58/13 Torresi (discussed here) where the Court established the mutual recognition of the professional titles of lawyers. The Court recognised the absurdity of the situation in Monachos Eirinaios where it was requiring the competent authorities to issue a registration certificate with the knowledge that the individual would not be able to practice.

However, the Court drew a clear distinction between access to the profession on the one hand and its practice on the other hand. The Court accepted that in relation to the latter national authorities may wish to impose certain requirements in order to maintain professional standards. The Court did not comment on the nature of the complete ban on monks becoming lawyers (saying only that it could not be a prerequisite for registration) but instead required the national court to determine whether the ban complied with the principle of proportionality (without giving specific guidance on the criteria to be applied).

The decision in Monachos Eirinaios follows on from the Court’s previous jurisprudence on Directive 98/5 which has focussed on facilitating the free movement of lawyers. In doing so, it is to be welcomed. Given the sensitive nature of the topic both in terms of access to a highly regulated profession and, in the specific Greek context, of the evolving relationship between church and state, the decision also strikes a subtle balance between facilitating access while maintaining Member State discretion. It is therefore perhaps not surprising that the case was heard by the Grand Chamber. However, by circumventing any discussion of the complete ban on monks and clergymen becoming lawyers, the Court has indeed created an absurd situation; namely, that the Athens Bar Association is required to register Monachos Eirinaios and can then immediately strike him off. More detailed guidance on the proportionality test to be applied in these circumstances could have been beneficial especially as the Advocate General engaged in a more nuanced discussion of the topic.

The Advocate General suggested that the rule bans all individuals with particular characteristics from practicing law and thus should not fall under professional conduct. This is a well-spotted flaw in the rules. The Advocate General suggests instead that the Bar Association should be required to see how a lawyer conducts himself in practice before removing registration (following the reasoning in Case C-225/09 Jakubowska where it was recognised that failure to comply with host State rules may lead to a foreign lawyer being removed from the register).

In this, she is correct. In effect, the Bar Association is making an assumption that monks are incapable of fulfilling the rules of professional conduct required of lawyers because they are monks. There is no need for any assessment as to whether the monk (or clergyman) is practicing his religion. Indeed, there is also no clear definition of the scope of the definition of monk or clergyman for the purposes of the Directive (what if, for example, someone is a lay preacher in another Member State – does this classify as a clergyman in this instance?). If Directive 98/5 is to facilitate free movement of lawyers then there must be a minimum harmonisation of what we understand ‘rules of professional conduct’ to be under Article 6. Blanket bans which relate to characteristics (and do not allow conduct to occur) do not facilitate free movement and render the right to registration in effect nugatory.

Moreover, the procedural guarantees in the case of disciplinary procedures in Article 7 or the right of recourse to a court in Article 9 of the Directive only apply once an individual has practiced as a lawyer which is rendered impossible in this case. If we abstract this case from its specific facts then accepting such a blanket ban in relation to a characteristic is a potentially problematic assumption which could undermine the rule of law. What if a Member State introduces rules which require political party affiliation in order to practice as a lawyer under the guise of professional rules of conduct? In a different factual context, the lack of minimum harmonisation of what we understand rules of conduct to encompass could undermine lawyers’ ability to provide access to and administer justice. In skirting around this topic, the Court of Justice has missed an opportunity to further clarify the scope of Directive 98/5/EC.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 14

Photo credit: InHouse Legal

The Case of the Administrative Arrangement on Asylum-Seekers between Greece and Germany: A tale of “paraDublin activity”?

Stathis Poularakis, Legal advisor - Advocacy Officer Médecins du Monde – Greece*

* Reblogged from the EDAL blog. An earlier version of this article was published in Greek on immigration.gr blog. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Médecins du Monde – Greece. Special thanks go to Evangelia Tzironi, PhD Candidate at the Law School of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens for proofreading the article.

In mid-August 2018, Germany, Greece and Spain agreed on the sketchy details of the initial migration compromise deal that was reached on the sidelines of the EU Summit in Brussels in late June 2018. In this context, the Ministers on Migration of Germany and Greece reaffirmed their commitment by exchange of letters, to work towards common European solutions and to avoid any unilateral measure with respect to migration and asylum.  

In particular, both countries underlined their support for concluding the revision of the Common European Asylum System by end of 2018 “with the aim of achieving the goal of fair sharing of responsibility and solidarity”. In the event of a crisis – defined as a situation where asylum applications have surpassed a certain percentage e.g. 140% of a State’s fair share of asylum applications based on objective criteria (total population and GDP) – Germany committed to support Greece in the Council (of the European Union), especially on the adoption of additional support measures at European Union level. Germany agrees also that further supportive and development measures need to be adopted on the five Greek islands of Eastern Aegean, where the hotspot approach is implemented, in order to assist local communities. Finally, Germany affirms its commitment to increase the human resource capacity in Greece, through the EU Asylum Support Office (EASO), with the aim to strengthen the asylum system.

The final operational details of the aforementioned political agreement were annexed to the letters, under the Title “Administrative Arrangement”. This blog post aims to outline the key points of this “Arrangement”, to examine its legal nature arguing that argue that this document is a bilateral treaty whose scope extends beyond the Dublin Regulation, and to critically assess its impact on the EU asylum policy.

The content of the Administrative Arrangement

The Administrative Agreement is comprised of 15 articles and divided into three sections. The first part includes arrangements for the readmission to Greece of persons identified in the context of temporary checks at the German-Austrian border, having previously applied for asylum in Greece. The second part includes provisions for concluding pending Dublin cases of family reunification from Greece to Germany, and finally, the third section includes provisions on the review of the implementation of the "agreement", the mutual dispute settlement and beginning and ending of the aforementioned cooperation between the two countries.

In particular, under the "Administrative Arrangement", the following are agreed:

Germany will return to Greece, any adult third-country national who has been identified during a check at the German-Austrian border and wishes to apply for international protection if he/she has already applied for asylum in Greece i.e. when an entry in Eurodac (the EU system of exchanging fingerprints of asylum-seekers) indicates that the person has already requested protection in Greece, and such entry is dated from July 1st, 2017 onwards. Unaccompanied children (under the age of 18) at the time of the identification are excluded from readmission to Greece.

The German Authorities will provide notification of the refusal of entry to the Greek responsible authority using the form annexed to the Agreement via fax or email. The return should be initiated no more than 48 hours after the person has been apprehended, unless the Greek side objects to the return within six hours from the automatic confirmation of the receipt of the notification of the refusal of entry, demonstrating why the conditions of the administrative agreement have not been met. Within 7 days of the readmission, if the Greek authorities demonstrate that the above conditions had not been met (refusal of entry in error), Germany will readmit the person concerned without delay.

Germany commits to swiftly concluding family reunifications from Greece in the framework of the Dublin III Regulation by the end of 2018, with respect to “take charge” requests already accepted by the German Dublin Unit before 1 August 2018. It should be noted that due to the high number of Dublin transfers from Greece to Germany over the last year, asylum seekers entitled to be transferred to Germany under the relevant provisions of the Dublin III Regulation, were “blocked” in Greece for periods exceeding the six-month deadline provided by art. 29 of the Regulation. Germany also undertakes to examine all pending “take charge” requests that have been submitted before 1 August 2018 that have not been examined yet within two months of the beginning of the cooperation between the two parties based on this Administrative Agreement. The number of people to be transferred from Greece to Germany is capped at 600 people per month and family reunifications should be completed by December 2018.

At the same time, the German authorities will examine and reply "without undue delay" to all requests for re-examination submitted before 1 August 2018. To this end, the Greek authorities will provide a relevant sortable list with case numbers and submission dates. Passports and ID cards, marriage and birth certificates, family booklets, as well as the transcript of the interview with the person concerned, will be considered as evidence, when submitted in relation to a currently pending request for re-examination. These documents will be submitted in their original language. A translation in English will be also submitted, if available. It is explicitly envisaged that the submission of documentation in its original language (without translation) may not be used as a justification for rejecting the request for re-examination.

The cooperation between the two countries based on the Administrative Arrangement starts from the day of its acceptance by the Greek Minister on Migration Policy (dated 18.8.2018). The two parties will review the implementation of the agreement on a three-month basis. Each Party may withdraw from the Agreement by notifying the other Party in writing at least three weeks in advance. Lastly, it is explicitly envisaged that the agreement will discontinue upon entry into force of the revised Common European Asylum System.

"Administrative Arrangement" or international treaty?

The first issue raised by this so-called "Administrative Arrangement" concerns its actual legal nature.

Based on the public statements made so far and the title given to the document, it could be argued that the latter could be understood to be an informal non-treaty instrument - an arrangement on operational issues and actions in line with EU law. According to this argument this text seems to be in conformity with Article 36 of the Dublin III Regulation, which stipulates that Member States may, on a bilateral basis, establish administrative arrangements between themselves concerning the practical details of the implementation of this Regulation, in order to facilitate its application and increase its effectiveness. Such arrangements may relate to exchanges of liaison officers and the simplification of the procedures and shortening of the time limits relating to transmission and the examination of requests to take charge or take back applicants.

However, taking as a point of departure that negotiating States have the autonomy to choose between complex or simplified forms of express consent to be bound by a treaty (in the present case by exchange of instruments under Article 13 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), and given its content, it could also be argued that the “Agreement” could be perceived as an international treaty concluded in simplified form. This agreement in fact sets forth the “technical” modalities of the earlier political agreement between Chancellor Merkel and Prime Minister Tsipras in Brussels last June, in the sidelines of the EU Summit. International treaties in simplified form are concluded without the need for ratification by the State, nor the consent of the parliament. They are usually signed by Ministers or any other body authorized under national law and are related to technical or administrative issues of cooperation, military pacts concluded on a battlefield or arrangements for the application of a binding (“typical”) international treaty.

 

In order to draw a safe conclusion on the nature of the “administrative arrangement”, all the circumstances around the exchange of letters should be meticulously examined. “Treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation (Article 2(1)(a) of the VCLT). Whatever its designation (convention, accord, protocol, exchange of letters, agreed memorandum, memorandum of understanding), the intention of negotiating parties to create binding legal obligations marks the difference between treaties and informal instruments. To wit, even an exchange of letters could be considered as an international treaty.

A closer look on the actual content of the "Arrangement" suggests that this is not just an informal international non-binding agreement or arrangement on technical details of cooperation between the two Parties for the implementation of the Dublin Regulation, but rather a legal instrument setting forth “new” binding rules whose scope moves beyond the obligations established under the Dublin III Regulation.

In fact, the first part of the “Arrangement” contains clauses that are usually included in readmission agreements. No such an agreement has been ever signed between Germany and Greece. In particular, the clauses of the Arrangement lay down, among others, the specific conditions for readmission, the competent authorities of each State, the procedure to be followed, the responsible State in terms of costs etc. A standard template form is also included so as to facilitate the return. In reality, the “Arrangement” does not establish simplified and streamlined procedure for “Dublin transfers” (the wording “transfer” in not used in the text) but rather a fast-track readmission procedure for persons refused entry at the German-Austrian borders, likewise in any other case of an irregular migrant refused an entry in Germany. 

Another crucial element regarding the legal nature of this “Arrangement” lies with the specific clauses on family reunification that undoubtedly enumerate commitments to which the Parties have consented and their intention to create legal rights and obligations that go beyond those already provided for in the "Dublin III” Regulation. Namely, assuming the obligation to accept a transfer of an asylum seeker from Greece to Germany upon expiry of the 6 months’ time-limit under Article 29 of the Regulation – where the respondent MS is relieved of its obligations to take charge or to take back the person concerned – is a “new” obligation for Germany enshrined in the "Administrative Arrangement".

The same also applies for the obligation to re-examine all rejected requests for “take charge”. To avoid any confusion, one should make a clear distinction between the potential responsibility of Germany for the infringement of the time-limits and conditions laid down in the Dublin III Regulation, e.g. for breaching EU law, and the legal obligation of Germany to actually accept transfers for which its responsibility has already ceased under “Dublin”. These obligations are now explicitly assumed by the aforementioned "Administrative Arrangement".

It is worth mentioning that last year the competent Ministers of Greece and Germany had reached to a similar informal arrangement by which Dublin transfers to Germany were capped at 70 persons per month for a certain period of time. This informal agreement, however, was rather a "gentleman's agreement" between the two states without creating clear binding obligations for both parties. In any case, the conformity of this agreement to the Dublin Regulation is open to discussion, since the Dublin Regulation does not foresee such caps on relevant transfers for administrative convenience reasons.

Finally, one could hardly argue that during Merkel and Tsipras΄ meeting in Brussels, where a common political agreement was reached on migration, the two leaders concluded a formal treaty under international law with the subsequent "administrative arrangement” serving as a treaty in a simplified form, laying down modalities for the application of the treaty concluded by the two heads of state.

For all these reasons, the "administrative arrangement" should not be considered as a "gentlemen's agreement", nor as an administrative arrangement under Article 36 Dublin III Regulation but rather as a binding bilateral treaty whose provisions establish obligations that go beyond the scope of obligations established under the Dublin III Regulation. The agreement thus is governed by international law; an international treaty between Greece and Germany. This contravenes EU law which does not allow legislation at national level or bi/multilateral inter-se agreements in policy areas of shared competence, to the extent that the EU has exercised its competence, as it did through the adoption of the Dublin III Regulation (see TFEU Art 2(2); TEU Art. 4(3), third indent, and Protocol 25 to the TFEU). 

Dublin revisited or further violation of EU law?  A glimpse into the future of EU asylum policy

Another key point of concern is the impact of this bilateral agreement on EU’s asylum policy.

Could this “Administrative Arrangement” be seen as a new, enhanced and adapted to current developments, version of the Dublin rules, that is to say a bilateral agreement between two Member States that aims at strengthening the Dublin rules and principles or just another agreement beyond the scope of Dublin Regulation governed by international law?

One could argue that such bilateral agreements are rather symbolic in nature. They indicate that compromises at European Union level are feasible. As talks on the revision of the Dublin III Regulation stall, the establishment of interim measures among those Member States willing to move ahead collectively at European Union level (“enhanced cooperation”) seems indeed to be the only possible way to actually make progress in this area. However, that enhanced cooperation should to be done under the framework of EU law, i.e. following the procedures of EU law and not bilaterally as an inter-se agreement.

But is this "administrative arrangement" actually such a measure of European Union cooperation? Although the responsible Ministers expressly commit to continue working towards common European Union solutions and avoiding unilateral measures in relation to asylum and migration, this agreement is in fact just another – deeper – derogation from/violation of the European Union acquis. In fact, through such agreements, Germany cooperates with Member States serving as a key point of entry in EU by creating a “Quasi-Dublin” system / a Dublin-like system creating obligations that go beyond the scope of the Dublin III Regulation (i.e. extension beyond the 12 month period for the responsibility for irregular entry) and limitations that are not foreseen in the Regulation (such as caps on the numbers of transfers under the family reunion clauses). A system which, on the one hand, follows the general philosophy of the Dublin Regulation (application of the first country of entry criterion), but, on the other hand, is "free" from all “obstacles” that could jeopardize swift returns – namely clauses and safeguards provided for asylum seekers by the Dublin Regulation, such as family unity criteria, right to appeal against the application of Dublin criteria and deadline to appeal against the transfer decision etc.

Undoubtedly, Southern Member States serving as the main gateways to Europe for third country nationals are in absolute need of European Union solutions on the basis of solidarity and fair responsibility sharing. In this context, the revision of the Dublin III Regulation and the introduction of a permanent allocation mechanism among European Union states is a key issue for Greece. One can hardly wonder why Germany would then be interested in reforming the Dublin Regulation if a more flexible "Quasi-Dublin" system- tailored to its needs- has already being established. Bilateral agreements, such as this, with one of the most prestigious EU countries, could draw away any possibility of a positive revision of the Dublin Regulation for Southern Member States in the near future.

In any case, this "administrative arrangement" marks an alarming development in the context of Greece’s migration policy. To date, Greece has signed and ratified a number of agreements on the readmission of persons irregularly entering or staying in its territory. For all these agreements, the usual process of concluding international treaties was followed: Signing of an agreement, protocol, or treaty and its ratification by the Parliament, according to Article 36 of the Greek Constitution. On the contrary, in the present case, it is the first time that a readmission agreement is concluded by Greece through an exchange of letters between Ministers. Though such an agreement is totally valid and binding under international law, the fact that it not only deals with international relations and migration policy but ultimately with human rights, is concluded away from parliamentary scrutiny and procedures – without even being published in the Government Gazette – raises important concerns on transparency and the rule of law.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

JHA4: chapter I:5

Photo credit: Fortune

The European Citizens’ Initiative & Greek debt: An unlikely combination

Anastasia Karatzia, Lecturer in Law, University of Essex

Introduction

It is not every day that we see CJEU judgments on the European and Monetary Union (EMU). A simple search on Curia with the words ‘Economic and Monetary Policy’ results in relatively few cases including a couple of seminal judgments published in the past five years, such as Pringle and Gauweiler (discussed here), which relate to measures taken for the management of the Eurozone crisis. One of the results of this search is the case of Anagnostakis v Commission, which challenges the refusal of the Commission to register Mr. Anagnostakis’ proposed European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) ‘One million signatures for solidarity’.

Mr. Anagnostakis submitted his proposed Initiative to the Commission in July 2012. According to the text of the proposal, the objective of the Initiative was the establishment, in EU law, of a principle of ‘the state of necessity, in accordance with which, when the financial and political existence of a Member State is threatened by the servicing of abhorrent debt, the refusal to repay that debt is necessary and justifiable.’ The proposed ECI mentioned Articles 119 - 144 TFEU (the Treaty provisions on EMU) as the legal basis for its adoption. In September 2012, the Commission refused to register Mr. Anagnostakis’ proposal on the ground that the proposal did not fulfil the conditions of Article 4(2)(b) of the ECI Regulation, as it ‘fell manifestly outside the scope of the Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for the adoption of a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaty’.

The letter of refusal sent to the organiser stated that the Commission had examined the Treaty provisions referred to in the proposed ECI, in particular Article 136(1) TFEU ‘and all other possible legal bases’, before concluding that the proposed Initiative should be refused registration. On 11 October 2012, Mr. Anagnostakis challenged the refusal of his Initiative, claiming that the Commission could have registered the ECI on the basis of Article 122(1), Article 122(2), Article 136(1)(b) TFEU, and rules of international law. The General Court found that the Commission had not committed an error in law by refusing to register the proposal and thus dismissed the case. It also ruled that the Commission had complied with its obligation to state reasons, after examining this procedural ground on its own motion.

The applicant appealed the judgment of the General Court, and the European Court of Justice (ECJ) delivered its judgment on 12 September 2017. This commentary, which is the third in a line of posts in ‘EU Law Analysis’ on ECI-cases (see earlier comments on the TTIP/CETA and Minority Safepack cases), will focus on the ECJ’s judgment, which is the first and currently the only ECJ judgment relating to an ECI. Interestingly, the judgment was delivered by the Grand Chamber, possibly because of the novel nature of the subject matter, or (/and) because of the politically sensitive nature of the Initiative.

In addition to this first ECI judgment, the Commission’s Proposal for a new ECI Regulation, was recently published and was presented earlier this week (28 November) by the First Vice President Timmermans to the European Parliament. The commentary will conclude by briefly looking at a specific aspect of the Commission’s Proposal, namely the suggested formalisation of the partial registration of an ECI.

The judgment of the European Court of Justice in Anagnostakis

The appeal consisted of four grounds which were classified into two groups (as suggested by the Advocate-General’s opinion). The first group of arguments concerned the procedure in which the Commission made its Decision. The appellant challenged the finding of the General Court that the contested decision satisfied the Commission’s requirement to give reasons under Article 296 TFEU. The second group concerned the substance of the Decision: the appellant complained that the General Court misinterpreted Article 122 TFEU, Article 136(1) TFEU, and rules of international law in finding that the Commission’s assessment of Article 4(2)(b) of the ECI Regulation was correct.

The Commission’s obligation to give reasons

According to the appellant, the General Court’s assessment of the Commission’s duty to state reasons was faulty. The General Court wrongly held that the Commission’s mere reference to Article 4(2)(b) of the ECI Regulation in its Communication was a sufficient reason for the refusal of the proposed ECI. Simply stating that an ECI proposal was refused on the basis of Article 4(2)(b) of the ECI Regulation did not actually explain why the Commission manifestly lacked the competence to register the proposal.

The ECJ’s assessment of this ground of review is clear and consistent with the case law on Article 296 TFEU, specifically expressed in the context of the ECI in Article 4(3) of the ECI Regulation. The Court started by referring to Article 11(4) TEU (i.e. the legal basis of the ECI together with Article 24 TFEU), characterising the ECI as one of the instruments related to ‘the right of citizens to participate in the democratic life of the Union,’ (para 24) stipulated in Article 10(3) TFEU. The Court referred to well-established case law on Article 296 TFEU, according to which an EU institution’s statement of reasons must be assessed by reference to the circumstances of the specific case, taking into consideration the wording of the statement as well as the context and all the legal rules governing the matter in question (para 29). It stressed that the purpose of the duty to give reasons is to enable the person concerned to understand why the decision was taken, and to enable the competent Court to exercise its powers of review.

The Court then went on to consider the General Court’s finding that the Commission had complied with its obligation to state reasons (paras 31-43).The main message of the Court here was that a more detailed statement of reasons by the Commission would only be required if the ECI proposal itself was more detailed. The brevity of the proposed ECI, as well as the general reference made to Articles 119-144 TFEU and the lack of an explanation of the link between those Articles and the content of the proposal, justified the brevity of the contested Decision.

In light of the format of the proposed Initiative, the Commission was entitled to assess the proposal predominantly on the basis of Article 136(1) TFEU (a general power to adopt legislation relating to EMU), which was the least irrelevant Article on which the proposed ECI could have relied. Moreover, there is no obligation on the Commission to justify its assessment of all 26 proposed legal bases or to explain why any other provision of the TFEU was irrelevant. In its assessment, the Court took into account the fact that the General Court was eventually able to review the substance of the Commission’s decision, which, as mentioned above, is one of the underlying objectives of imposing on the EU Institutions a duty to give reasons in the first place (para 40).

In line with the General Court ruling in Minority Safepack, the ECJ in Anagnostakis supported the view that that the Commission would have to publish a more detailed statement of reasons only if the organisers had given more detailed information on the connection between the recommended legal bases and the content of the proposed ECI (para 37). Future ECI organisers should therefore be mindful of the fact that the format of a proposed ECI itself – including the details in the text of the proposal and the Annexes attached to it – is a determining factor of the extent of the Commission’s obligation to give reasons for rejecting a proposed Initiative. This approach might refuel concerns regarding the ability of grassroots organisers to put together detailed explanations of the suitable legal bases for their proposals, not least when these proposals have to do with matters that are as complicated as the EMU.

On the substance of the case

With regard to the substance of the case, the appellant argued that the Commission should have registered the proposed Initiative on the basis of Articles 122, 136(1) TFEU, and rules of international law. The latter argument, which was examined last, was the one most swiftly rejected by the Court: a principle of international law cannot be a legal basis for an initiative by the Commission. According to Article 5(1) and 5(2) TEU, the Commission can only act within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Treaties, and the existence of a principle of international law ‘would not suffice as a basis for a legislative initiative’ (see paras 95-103).

Interestingly, before delving into the substance of the matter, the Court considered the scope of judicial review that it could carry out in the case at hand. It clarified that a review of the merits of the General Court’s decision can only be made on the basis of the information provided at the time of the request for the Initiative’s registration. As such, the Court would not take into account any clarifications made by the appellant in the appeal at hand. After this preliminary observation, the ECJ examined the appellant’s arguments concerning Articles 122 and 136(1) TFEU.

The Court first examined whether Article 122 TFEU could have been an appropriate legal basis for the proposed ECI. It reiterated that Article 122(1) TFEU allows the Council to decide, ‘in a spirit of solidarity between Member States’, upon measures appropriate to the economic situation, especially if the Member State is facing severe difficulties in the supply of certain products in the area of energy. It confirmed the finding of the General Court in first instance, which had cited Pringle, that Article 122(1) TFEU ‘does not constitute an appropriate legal basis for possible financial assistance from the Union to Member States who are experiencing, or are threatened by severe financing issues’ (para 69). According to the Court, it did not matter that Pringle concerned the European Stability Mechanism, which was not the focus of the proposed ECI; the point remained that Article 122(1) TFEU does not apply to measures aiming to ease a Member State of its financial difficulties (para 70).

Subsequently, the ECJ also dismissed the appellant’s argument that, contrary to the General Court’s decision, Article 122(2) TFEU could be an appropriate legal basis for the ECI. The provision allows the Council to authorise financial assistance from the EU to a Member State which is experiencing severe difficulties or a serious threat of severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional circumstances beyond its control. Once again, the ECJ referred to the case of Pringle where it had ruled that Article 122(2) TFEU cannot be used as the basis for the establishment of a general and permanent mechanism of non-repayment of debt (para 75). Since the ECI proposal suggested the deletion of debts owed by the Member States to both the EU and to public and private, natural or legal persons, it could not fall within the meaning of Article 122(2) TFEU, which concerns only financial assistance provided by the EU and not by the other involved persons (paras 76 and 77).

Finally, the ECJ confirmed the finding of the General Court that Article 136(1) TFEU cannot be used as a legal basis for the establishment of the principle of the state of necessity in EU law. According to the Court, the adoption of a measure such as the one suggested by the proposed Initiative cannot be seen as ‘economic policy guidance’ as envisaged by Article 136(1)(b) TFEU. To the contrary, the mechanism proposed by the ECI would replace the free will of contracting parties by allowing for the unilateral writing-off of sovereign debt (paras 90-91).

Overall, it is notable that the ECJ dismissed a number of the applicant’s arguments under each ground of appeal because of the limited scope of review in the context of the case at hand. On appeal, the ECJ can only review the findings of law on the case put forward by the parties in the case before the General Court. As such, a number of the arguments put forward by the appellant were not assessed on their merits, leaving a number of questions unanswered by the Court in this occasion. The first question is whether a Member State facing severe financing difficulties can invoke the so-called ‘state of necessity’ to receive debt relief not unilaterally, but subject to conditionality laid down by the Commission (paras 71-73). The second question is whether the Initiative could be adopted on the basis of Article 136(3) TFEU in conjunction with Article 352 TFEU (the ‘residual powers’ clause). Besides the procedural point concerning the inability of the ECJ to rule on the above two questions on appeal, one might also wonder whether the ECI-case of Anagnostakis would have been an appropriate occasion for the ECJ to make any bold declarations on the issue of a Member State’s debt relief.

The third question left open was whether the Commission should have partially registered the proposed Initiative only to the extent that the proposal suggested the relief of the debt owed by a Member State to the Union. The ECJ did not examine whether the Commission should have registered this interpretation of the proposal. As a more general observation, we should note that the procedural question of whether partial registration by the Commission is possible has now become redundant. Earlier this year, the Commission partially registered the Minority SafePack ECI while, as we will see below, the Commission’s Proposal for a New ECI Regulation specifically refers to the possibility for the Commission to allow partial registration of a proposed Initiative.

Partial Registration of an ECI under the Commission’s Proposal for a New ECI Regulation

Five days after the ECJ’s decision in Anagnostakis, the Commission published its ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Citizens’ Initiative’, which suggests the adoption of a New ECI Regulation to replace Regulation 211/2011. In the proposed ‘New ECI Regulation’, the legal admissibility test has been moved from Article 4 to Article 6. The newly suggested provision retains the essence of the current procedure: organisers may only start collecting signatures supporting their ECI after they have submitted their request through the register (Article 6(2)), and the Commission has checked that the proposal satisfies certain legal and procedural criteria (Article 6(3) and (4)) and has registered the proposal (Article 6(1)).

Under the New ECI Regulation, Articles 6(3)(d) and (e) maintain the two legal criteria of the current ECI Regulation: a proposed Initiative will not be registered if it is manifestly abusive, frivolous or vexatious, or if it is manifestly contrary to the values of the EU (see Article 4(2)(c) and (d) of the current ECI Regulation). Perhaps the most notable changes are included in Articles 6(3)(c) and Article 6(4) of the New ECI Regulation compared with the current Article 4(2)(b) of the ECI Regulation. Article 6(3)(c) states that the Commission shall register a proposed initiative if ‘none of the parts of the initiative manifestly falls outside the framework of the Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties’. This Article should be read in conjunction with Article 6(4), which allows for the partial registration of an ECI by the Commission.

To put it simply (or, at least, as simply as possible), if the Commission considers that only parts of a proposal fall within its competence to propose a legal act, it has to send the proposal back to the organisers within one month, together with the reasons behind its assessment. The organisers then have the possibility – and the responsibility – to change and resubmit, to maintain, or to withdraw their initial proposal. It is not very clear why organisers might want to maintain a rejected proposal, which in all likelihood will simply be rejected again by the Commission. In case the organisers decide to change their proposal, however, they would have the responsibility of submitting the necessary amendments to the Commission. After receiving the amendments, the Commission would have one month to assess the new information and to either register, partially register, or reject the ECI (Article 6(4)).

Partial registration of an ECI would thus be formalised in the sense that the Commission would have to check if ‘a substantial part of the initiative including its main objectives’ does not manifestly fall outside the framework of the Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act. The proposed Regulation does not define what is to be considered ‘a substantial part’ of a proposed Initiative. Not only that, but the proposal shifts the burden on the organisers to re-consider their initiative and re-submit to the Commission, instead of obliging the Commission to specify which parts of the initial ECI proposal it can maintain for the purposes of registration. It will be interesting to see how the European Parliament will react to this, and the rest of the changes to the ECI legal framework proposed by the Commission in the New ECI Regulation, especially since MEPs have been advocating for a more user-friendly ECI in their contributions to the review of the current ECI Regulation.   

Photo credit: CNBC