By Paula García Andrade, Universidad Pontificia Comillas ICAI-ICADE (Madrid)

The decision in cases T-192/16, T-193/16 and T-257/16, NF, NG and NM v European Council) where the General Court considered that it is not competent to rule about the action for annulment brought by several asylum seekers against the EU-Turkey Statement of 18 March 2016 is well known. People often get shocked by the Court’s decision considering that it did not dare ruling on this burning issue when it affirmed that the European Council did not adopt the statement with Turkey. But there is much more than the question of the authorship behind that case raising the overall issue of the distribution of competences between the EU and its Member States (1) with the risk for the CJEU to contradict one of its fundamental decisions about the external powers of the EU in the ERTA case. This issue is also linked to the external representation of the EU, whose implications can also be examined in the current negotiations of the Global compacts on migration and on refugees under the auspices of the United Nations (2). Continue reading »

Par Francesco Maiani, Centre de droit comparé, européen et international (CDCEI), Université de Lausanne et Constantin Hruschka, Institut Max Planck de droit et de politiques sociales, Munich

Traduit de l’anglais par Mélanie Chevalley, Centre de droit comparé, européen et international (CDCEI), Université de Lausanne

  

Introduction

Un nouveau chapitre est en train de s’écrire dans l’histoire mouvementée du partage des responsabilités en matière d’asile entre les Etats membres. Le système Dublin, déclaré mort (précipitamment) au sommet de la crise de 2015, a été (tardivement) jugé inadéquat par une large palette d’acteurs, y compris par la Commission et le Parlement. Une réforme fondamentale a par conséquent été mise à l’agenda en urgence.

Continue reading »

By Jean-Yves Carlier, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCL) and Université de Liège; Luc Leboeuf, Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology and University of Antwerp

Various international human rights instruments prohibit the collective expulsions of aliens, including art. 4 of Protocol n° 4 to the ECHR. The text of this provision is, however, quite vague. It merely states that ‘Collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited’. The ECtHR has consistently ruled in several cases like Conka that the prohibition of collective expulsions is infringed by ‘any measure compelling aliens, as a group, to leave a country, except where such a measure is taken on the basis of a reasonable and objective examination of the particular case of each individual alien of the group’. Collective expulsions take place when two constitutive elements are cumulatively met: the aliens are (1) expelled together with other aliens in a similar situation, (2) without due examination of their own individual situations.

Continue reading »

By Elspeth Guild, Queen Mary University of London 

The right to leave any country including one’s own recognized under international and European human rights law is increasingly challenged by pullback practices as part of the fight against irregular migration and the externalisation of the EU migration policy. While the compatibility of such measures with the right to leave will be assessed during one workshop organised in the framework of the 2018 Odysseus Annual Conference, this background paper aims to give an overview of the main applicable international norms (1) and their interpretation by the UN Human Rights Committee (2) as well as the European Court of Human Rights (3).

Continue reading »

By Francesco Maiani, Centre for Comparative, European and International Law (CDCEI), University of Lausanne & Constantin Hruschka, Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy, Munich

Introduction

A new chapter is being written in the troubled history of responsibility-allocation in asylum matters among the Member States. The Dublin system, (hastily) declared dead at the height of the crisis’ of 2015, has been (belatedly) judged unfit for purpose by a whole range of actors including the Commission and Parliament. A fundamental reform has therefore been placed on the agenda as matter of urgency.

Continue reading »

Par Henri Labayle, CDRE 

3. Un financement sans chiffrage ? La question du règlement financier

Les données financières relatives au départ du Royaume Uni ont focalisé initialement l’attention de tous. Si le principe de la contribution britannique n’était pas vraiment discuté sérieusement, en revanche, l’inconnue de son calcul précis avait nourri nombre de déclarations à l’emporte-pièce de certains Brexiters. Durant la campagne référendaire, ils avaient ainsi imprudemment avancé que le gain financier découlant du départ permettrait d’abonder le service de santé britannique à hauteur de 350 millions de livres hebdomadaires (!!!) tandis qu’au mois de juillet encore, Boris Johnson indiquait que l’Union pouvait « toujours courir » pour voir la facture être réglée.

Continue reading »