Refugee emergency: temporary EU relocation

Yesterday, the interior ministers of the EU member states reached a decision on one important solidarity measure in the face of the refugee emergency: temporary relocation to alleviate the burden of Greece and Italy.

International protection – temporary measures

On 17 September 2015 the European Parliament had adopted its favourable opinion (text here P8_TA-PROV(2015)0324) on the emergency proposal for temporary relocation, and yesterday (22 September) theJustice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council adopted this important proposal from the refugee and migration agenda of the European Commission.

With regard to solidarity it is worth noticing that Ireland has expressed its intention to participate, while Denmark and the United Kingdom remain bystanders.

We note that Hungary was intended to be a beneficiary in the Commission proposal for a Council decision establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy, Greece and Hungary, COM(2015) 451 final (plus annexes).

At the time of writing the adopted decision – renamed and adapted after Hungary declined help - had not been published in the OfficialJournal of the European Union (OJEU), but available through a link on the web page of the JHA Council meeting:

COUNCIL DECISION establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece (document 12098/15)

In a nutshell

The web page of the JHA Council meeting explains the decision in a nutshell:

This decision establishes a temporary and exceptional relocation mechanism over two years from the frontline member states Italy and Greece to other member states. It will apply to 120 000 persons in clear need of international protection who have arrived or are arriving on the territory of those member states as from six months before the entry into force until two years after the entry into force.

According to the decision, 66 000 persons will be relocated from Italy and Greece (15 600 from Italy and 50 400 from Greece) . The remaining 54 000 persons will be relocated from Italy and Greece in the same proportion after one year of the entry into force of the decision.

During the press conference (video) Jean Asselborn, Luxembourg's minister for immigration and asylum, admitted that the Council did not achieve consensus, but the qualified majority went well beyond the requirements of the treaties.

As for other legal acts, all member states are expected to implement the decision. However, the decision can be adapted for a member state facing an emergency situation.

European Council

Today, 23 September 2015, the members of the European Council meet informally to discuss an overall approach to the refugee crisis and the necessity to establish a credible European migration policy.

In his invitation letter, EUCO president Donald Tusk is also appealing to EU leaders to urgently provide financial donations to the World Food Programme for food support to the 11 million people in Syria and in the region.

Ralf Grahn

More backing for Junckers' State of the European Union #SOTEU

After response and feedback to Commission president Junckers' State of the European Union (SOTEU) 2015 address, we turn to an assessment from civil society, another from research and education, as well as the political will of the European Parliament.

Go to the European Commission's SOTEU page for the full version in English or French, or material available in other languages. Check Twitter #SOTEU for old and possible new sources of interest.

Apiceuropa

Finally the Europe of good will we have been waiting for a while, Franco Chittolina concluded in a comment on Apiceuropa: Juncker e l'Europa della buona volontà. The Commission president spoke frankly, repeatedly declaring: ”There is not enough Europe in this Union. And there is not enough Union in this Union.”

The clear and courageous message from the political Commission was directed particularly at the scattered member states with little sense of union and few references to the European founding values and to its tradition of solidarity and reception.

Just a few days after Junckers' speech in Strasbourg, the meeting of the EU home affairs ministers 14 September revealed the deep split among the member states, but also with regard to the Commission and the European Parliament.

Faced with such incompetence from the states, Adriana Longoni fixed her hope on growing numbers of welcoming citizens: La grande faglia dell'Europa.

Maastricht blog

This year's State of the Union was entitled: Time for Honesty, Unity and Solidarity. And the key concepts were: more Europe in the Union, and more Union in Europe.

Aalt Willem Heringa, in the Maastricht blog article The First State of the Union of Juncker, found it appealing that Juncker discussed the major issues, what the EU must stand for and must try to achieve, and not the nitty gritty details, but the broader perspectives.

More problematic is how to get 28 member states to work in the common interest, as well as how to involve EU citizens and national parliaments.

European Parliament

The interior ministers appeared pretty empty-handed and behind the curve, when they emerged from their meeting 14 September 2015. Consequently a new Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council has been called for 22 September to deal with a more equitable settlement of 120,000 refugees. And in anticipation of JHA failure, the members of the European Council (EUCO) have been convened to an informal meeting the next day.

Admittedly, it is easier to opine than to decide, but one week from Junckers' State of the Union address the European Parliament urged the Commission to show strong leadership (press release 16 September 2015).

The encouraging resolution – adopted by 408 votes to 182, with 23 abstentions – is the contribution of the European Parliament to the Commission's Work Programme (CWP) for 2016, to be adopted on the 27 October and to be presented and discussed in the Parliament on 29 October 2015.

The European Parliament resolution of 16 September 2015 on the Commission Work Programme 2016 (provisional version P8_TA-PROV(2015)0323) started by urging the European Commission to use its right of initiative to its full extent in order to give the Union clear leadership, and in particular to deliver the completion of the single market together with the strategic roadmap for economic union, political union and external action.

Next, the Parliament welcomed the focus of the Commission on its ten priorities and emphasised the need to promote the Community interest and keeping the EU united and cohesive.

Besides as an endorsement for the Commission, including its proposals regarding refugees and migration, the resolution can be read as a detailed compilation of almost all the noble (and often contradictory) aspirations at the European level.

Ralf Grahn 

From Libya to Brazil, interior goes international (EU Justice and Home Affairs Council)

Only the first day conclusions were posted on the Consilium front page, but the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council was a two day meeting. For those who may have missed the conclusions by the justice ministers and ministers of the interior of the EU member states reflecting both days of the meeting, here they are:

3071st Council meeting Justice and Home Affairs; Brussels, 24 and 25 February 2011 (Council document 7012/11; 20 pages)

In the shadow of events in Northern Africa, especially the barbaric repression in Libya, and pressures from asylum seekers and unauthorised migrants in the Southern member states of the European Union, including a future readmission agreement with Turkey, some important, but less mediatic issues were on the agenda.

These other matters included the Internal Security Strategy (ISS) of the EU, attacks against information systems, jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I), the right to information in criminal proceedings, the migration of the EJN-network to the European e-Justice portal, remembering the crimes committed by totalitarian regimes in Europe, collective redress and the enforcement of court decisions in third countries concerning custody.

In the margins of the Council meeting, the Mixed Committee with Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland discussed a number of issues related to the Schengen borders: the Schengen Information System II (SIS II), the Visa Information System (VIS), the 2011 work programme of the European border agency Frontex, the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen area, the Visa liberalisation process for the Western Balkans, visa waiver reciprocity and Canada's unilateral visa requirements for Czech nationals, and Liechtenstein's Schengen accession procedure.

Further, the Council concluded two visa liberalisation agreements with Brazil, adopted conclusions regarding the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, adopted conclusions about personal data protection in the EU, took note of a report about combating drug traficking from West Africa, adopted a decision to create a Subcommittee on Political Dialogue, Security and Human Rights with Algeria, decided to renegotiate a monetary agreement with Monaco, and decided to sign a fisheries agreement with São Tomé and Príncipe.


Interior goes international

A hefty agenda; just naming the issues, I almost ran out of breath.

It was also a wide-ranging agenda. As we saw, the issues ranged from Libya to Brazil, passing through Algeria, Canada, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, São Tomé, Switzerland, Turkey and the Western Balkans on the way, but they end up as justice and home affairs (in French: Justice et affaires intérieures, JAI) for the European Union and its member states.

Traditionally, justice and home affairs (freedom, security and justice, FSJ) were the essence of domestic politics and policies, but nowadays it is increasingly impossible to escape the need for rules and practices to deal with cross-border and international issues and aspects.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Charlemagne's notebook is one of the ”must read” blogs on European affairs, partly because its roots in the British soil.


P.S. 2: As an overview for those interested, here are the latest entries on my Euroblogs, three unilingual and one trilingual.

Grahnblawg (in Swedish): EU-rådet för allmänna frågor 21 februari 2011: Bedrövlig förhandsinformation

Grahnlaw Suomi Finland (in Swedish): EU-rådet för allmänna frågor: Vad gör Norden?

Grahnlaw: EU General Affairs Council (GAC) communication: Wrong, stupid and a missed opportunity

Grahnlaw Suomi Finland: EU cohesion policy conclusions reveal lack of transparency

Eurooppaoikeus (in Finnish): Mitä EU:n alue- ja rakennepolitiikasta puuttuu Suomessa?

Grahnlaw Suomi Finland (in Finnish): Yhteisvastuu Euroopan unionissa: Kysyntää riittää


If you share my interest in the European economy, EU business, politics or law, we could get acquainted through Twitter @RalfGrahn or Facebook.

Viviane Reding and EU Justice

Justice and Home Affairs affect citizens and businesses more directly than most EU policies, and there is a whole lot going on.

The Lisbon Treaty entered into force a year ago, and the area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ) now resembles 'normal' policies and internal actions of the European Union more than before.

The previous blog post looked briefly at Cecilia Malmström and EU Home Affairs, so now we take a peek at Viviane Reding and EU Justice.


EU Justice

Viviane Reding is vice-president of the European Commission and responsible for justice, fundamental rights and citizenship. Her Commission website is actively updated.

It took about six months, but then the Commission got separate Directorates-General for Home Affairs and Justice, both from 1 July 2010. However, they still seem to share the same culture. When I checked the Documentation centre and the Newsroom of DG Justice, they looked as lethargic as the corresponding web pages of their erstwhile fellow workers.

I wonder why.


JHA Council

Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) share the same Council configuration. The conclusions from the last meeting of this Council configuration during the Belgian presidency run to 37 pages, which gives us an indication of highly active policy areas:

Press release: 3051st Council meeting (Justice and Home Affairs), 2-3 December 2010 (provisional version; document 16918/10)

As with home affairs, there is a need for critical but constructive reporting and discussion about EU justice, fundamental rights and citizenship issues.


Citizenship report

I have been following EU citizenship issues on my blogs, so we might as well quote the Council conclusions with regard to the report from the Commission COM(2010) 603:

2010 EU citizenship report

The Council took note of the Commission's 2010 EU citizenship report: Dismantling the obstacles to EU citizens' rights (15936/10). The report analysis the areas where citizens are facing obstacles in the exercise of their rights and proposes 25 initiatives for tackling these obstacles.

You can find the initiatives in the blog post 'EU citizenship: 25 proposals' as well.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. 'The Blog with the European perspective' is how the team blog Kosmopolito describes itself; now closely following Wikileaks / Cablegate.

Cecilia Malmström and EU Home Affairs

The Lisbon Treaty entered into force a year ago, and the area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ) now resembles 'normal' policies and internal actions of the European Union more than before. Justice and Home Affairs affect citizens and businesses more directly than most EU policies, and there is a whole lot going on.


Home Affairs

Home Affairs commissioner Cecilia Malmström runs a fairly active blog in Swedish, Mitt Europa (My Europe), which adds a human touch to security and migration issues.

If you want information in English, you can turn to Malmström's home page at the European Commission, as well as the web pages of the new Directorate-General for Home Affairs (in action since 1 July 2010).

The commissioner keeps updating her web pages, but the Documentation centre and Newsroom of DG Home Affairs still seem lethargic.

Even the tip of the JHA iceberg is big, as you can see if you turn to the 37 pages of conclusions from the last meeting of this Council configuration during the Belgian presidency:

Press release: 3051st Council meeting (Justice and Home Affairs), 2-3 December 2010 (provisional version; document 16918/10)

One year since the Lisbon Treaty entered into force and half a year from the establishment of the DG Home Affairs, we can ask: How long will it take before media, politicians, officials, researchers, businesses and citizens outside specialist circles take notice?



Ralf Grahn



P.S. One of the best legal Euroblogs available is Kartellblog.de, where the attorney Johannes Zöttl writes in German about antitrust and merger control, but also about social media in a professional setting. Highly recommended.

Inquisition v. Giordano Bruno in EU area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ)?

My latest post about the conflict between the Council (member states) and the Commission regarding the EU's Stockholm Programme left me wondering if we should go back in order to move forward.


Lisbon Treaty at a tender age

For some background on EU justice and home affairs (JHA), you could read the following blog posts concerned with the Treaty reform stages which led to the Treaty of Lisbon: EU TFEU: Area of freedom, security and justice I (21 April 2008), EU TFEU: Area of freedom, security and justice II (22 April 2008) and EU TFEU: Strategic guidelines for freedom, security and justice (22 April 2008).


Solemn promises to EU citizens

The signing heads of state or government and the ratifying parliaments made the citizens of the EU a few solemn promises. They could not have placed the founding values, emphasising civil rights and freedoms, much higher than they are, in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (OJEU 30.3.2010 C 83):

Article 2 TEU

The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.

Already in Article 3(2) TEU they make a firm commitment, ”shall offer”:

Article 3(2) TEU

2. The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime.

If you are interested in textual hierarchy, you may notice that this text precedes the establishment of an internal market, mentioned in paragraph 3.


AFSJ

The concrete provisions on the area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ) are found in Title V of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), more precisely the Articles from 67 to 89.

While Article 67 TFEU lays down the general aims, Article 68 underlines the role of the European Council in setting the strategic guidelines for the AFSJ:

Article 68 TFEU

The European Council shall define the strategic guidelines for legislative and operational planning within the area of freedom, security and justice.

Back in April 2008 I wrote that the European Council was the most important institution of the European Union.The power to define the guidelines was hardly going to diminish this position, even if the official reason for the provision was (only) to codify existing practice, as when the Tampere Programme and the Hague Programme were adopted.


Criteria?

However, it would seem that the guidelines have to fulfil the criteria of the founding values and the area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured. These have been promised to the EU citizens. They are among the expectations of citizens in an objective sense, and EU action would have to be effective enough to attain the goals.

On the other hand, how binding are ”strategic guidelines” for legislative and operational planning?

Is the JHA Council the only authority of importance, when it wants to instate the strategic guidelines as the only guiding frame of reference for the political and operational agenda of the European Union in the Area of Justice, Security and Freedom [sic!]?

Who was right, the Inquisition or Giordano Bruno?

Update: Sorry, I missed providing a link to the Wikipedia article on the fascinating life of Giordano Bruno. For those who read Italian there is a brief biography by Anna Foa: Giordano Bruno (il Mulino).

Perhaps we have cause to look for a second opinion on what the Stockholm Programme should achieve.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. If you have to keep up with what the tribalists are doing, England Expects is one of the nicer ways to go about it. Written by the UKIP press officer Gawain Towler the blog is frequently updated, it is not devoid of humour and sometimes the EU institutions would be well advised to take its criticism to heart.

EU JHA: Stockholm Programme officially published

Justice and home affairs (JHA) was an area where the Lisbon Treaty brought about significant changes, introducing the ordinary legislative procedure into judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation. (See December 2009 summary by the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union.)

In addition, the European Union’s emerging area of freedom, security and justice (FSJ) has a direct bearing on EU citizens.

During 2010─2014 we are going to see a lot of legislative activity, outlined in the Stockholm Programme.

We now have a new and final reference to the Stockholm Programme, published in the Official Journal of the European Union in the official languages:




The Stockholm Programme — An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens; OJEU 4.5.2010 C 115/1.


The official publication of a final and agreed text should free us from one minor annoyance, when recently the European Commission referred to the Swedish Council presidency pages or to document 17024/09, whereas the JHA Council used a new reference, document 5731/10, without explanation.



Next step


The JHA Council plans to adopt the proposed Stockholm Programme Action plan in June 2010, before the end of the Spanish presidency of the Council of the European Union.

The Communication (proposal) by the European Commission under discussion:



Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe's citizens
Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme; Brussels, 20.4.2010; COM(2010) 171 final



If you have information about publications assessing the EU’s justice and home affairs (JHA) from a pan-European or national perspective, especially the Stockholm Programme or the proposal for the implementing Action Plan, please feel free to share them with the readers of Grahnlaw, by posting a comment or by sending me an e-mail.




Ralf Grahn

EU criminal justice: European evidence warrant and beyond

One of the main aims of the European Union is to offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice (FSJ) without internal frontiers.


With the Lisbon Treaty in force since 1 December 2009, the provisions on judicial cooperation in criminal matters are found in Part Three, Title V, Chapter 4 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Articles 82 to 86 TFEU; OJEU 30.3.2010 C 83 for the latest consolidated version of the EU Treaties).


Judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the European Union is based on the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions. The ordinary legislative procedure is now used to lay down rules and procedures for ensuring recognition throughout the EU of all forms of judgments and judicial decisions (Article 82 TFEU; OJEU 30.3.2010 C 83/79).


Before the entry into force of the amending Lisbon Treaty, the Council Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA was adopted, although the EU member states have until 19 January 2011 to take the necessary measures to comply with the provisions:



COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 2008/978/JHA of 18 December 2008 on the European evidence warrant for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters; published OJEU 30.12.2008 L 350/72


EEW introductory presentations



For an overview, see European evidence warrant (EEW) among the summaries of EU legislation on the Europa webpages (last update 11 May 2009).



A more detailed and academic presentation is by Mihaela Laura Pamfil: Judicial Cooperation Based On a European Evidence Warrant (15 May 2009; 5 pages; downloadable at SSRN).



Stockholm Programme



In the 2010─2014 Stockholm Programme - An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens (new version in Council document 5731/10, dated 3 March 2010), the European Council stated that in the face of cross-border crime, more efforts should be made to make judicial cooperation more efficient (page 38).

The European Council made the following observations (page 39):

The European Council considers that the setting up of a comprehensive system for obtaining evidence in cases with a cross-border dimension, based on the principle of mutual recognition, should be further pursued. The existing instruments in this area constitute a fragmentary regime. A new approach is needed, based on the principle of mutual recognition but also taking into account the flexibility of the traditional system of mutual legal assistance. This new model could have a broader scope and should cover as many types of evidence as possible, taking account of the measures concerned.

The European Council then invited the Commission to (page 39):

• propose a comprehensive system, after an impact assessment, to replace all the existing instruments in this area, including Council Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA of 18 December 2008 on the European Evidence Warrant for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters, covering as far as possible all types of evidence and containing deadlines for enforcement and limiting as far as possible the grounds for refusal;

• explore whether there are other means to facilitate admissibility of evidence in this area;

Stockholm Programme Action Plan

The European Commission has published its Communication (proposal) for the implementation of the Stockholm Programme:



Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe's citizens
Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme; Brussels, 20.4.2010; COM(2010) 171 final


The following paragraph presents the general aims of the Commission in the area of criminal matters (page 5):

Criminal law is a relatively novel area of EU action for which the Treaty of Lisbon sets a clear legal framework. A criminal justice strategy, fully respecting subsidiarity and coherence, should guide the EU's policy for the approximation of substantive and procedural criminal law. It should be pursued in close cooperation with European Parliament, national parliaments and the Council and acknowledge that focus will remain primarily on mutual recognition and the harmonisation of offences and sanctions will be pursued for selected cases.

Promoting mutual recognition in the field of criminal law, the Commission foresees two proposals in 2011 (page 18):

• Legislative proposal on a comprehensive regime on obtaining evidence in criminal matters based on the principle of mutual recognition and covering all types of evidence


• Legislative proposal to introduce common standards for gathering evidence in criminal matters in order to ensure its admissibility

UK House of Commons


The UK House of Commons Justice Committee has published an assessment of developments in the European Union:



UK House of Commons Justice Committee: Justice issues in Europe (HC 162-I; published 6 April 2010; 60 pages)



On pages 26 and 27 the Committee discusses the European evidence warrant and related questions:

59. Nevertheless, there are currently two parallel initiatives which may provide the basis for a new measure. The first, a green paper on the gathering and admission of evidence, was issued by the European Commission in 2009 to enable consultation and detailed investigation before new legislation is proposed. In addition, it is anticipated that a member state initiative, led by Belgium, will propose the introduction of a “European investigation order”.

Criticism against the disproportionate use of EU instruments has been heard, because the Justice Committee concludes:

60. While the Government may wish the EU to adopt a “look before you legislate” approach, the ability of member states to present their own initiatives may pre-empt more considered approaches by the European Commission. We agree with the Government that, if the European evidence warrant is revised or replaced, lessons should be learned from the operation of the European arrest warrant by incorporating safeguards into the legislation to minimise the potential for disproportionate use.

Ralf Grahn



P.S.1: If you have information about general or national publications assessing the EU’s justice and home affairs (JHA), the Stockholm Programme or the proposal for the implementing Action Plan, please feel free to share it with the readers of Grahnlaw, by posting a comment or by sending me an e-mail.



PS 2: Still growing, the posts of 570 Euroblogs are now conveniently aggregated by Bloggingportal.eu. Gain insight by following and visibility by joining the ranks.

Journalists, media and bloggers covering European affairs are encouraged to spread the word about My Europe Week, the blog dedicated to posts with personal visions on Europe’s future.

From tomorrow, 3 April, to Europe Day 9 April 2010, you can write a blog post on My Europe Week or link a story on your own blog, in the language of your choice. These can include Europe Day events in the member states.

You can join the conversation on Twitter under the hashtags #MyEurope and #EuropeDay.

European arrest warrant: EU & UK

In the report Justice issues in Europe, the UK House of Commons Justice Committee discusses matters relevant to the development of the European Union’s area of freedom, security and justice (FSJ).

This timely report is interesting both generally and from a British point of view.

In this blog post we look at the European arrest warrant.





Stockholm Programme


In the European Union’s 2010─2014 Stockholm Programme – An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens, the European Council invited the European Commission to (document 5731/10; page 40):

… explore the results of the evaluation of the European Arrest Warrant, and, where appropriate, make proposals to increase efficiency and legal protection for individuals in the process of surrender, by adopting a step-by-step approach to other instruments on mutual recognition; ...

Stockholm Programme Action Plan


Since then, the proposed Action Plan for the implementation of the Stockholm Programme has been published in 21 official EU languages:




Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe's citizens - Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme; Brussels, 20.4.2010; COM(2010) 171 final


(The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council has issued its first conclusions on the Action Programme (document 8920/10).)


In the Action Plan, under the headline Furthering the implementation of mutual recognition (in the area of criminal law), the Commission has promised to report on the implementation of the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European Arrest Warrant in 2010 and to contribute with “appropriate follow-up” in 2014.



European arrest warrant



For an overview of the European Arrest Warrant, you can consult the relevant summary of EU legislation on Europa (latest update 8 January 2010).




You can also read the Wikipedia encyclopedia entry European Arrest Warrant, including critical viewpoints (last update 29 April 2010).



Here is the consolidated version (28 March 2009) of:



COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States

The provisions defining the European arrest warrant and setting out its scope:

CHAPTER 1
GENERAL PRINCIPLES



Article 1
Definition of the European arrest warrant and obligation to execute it


1. The European arrest warrant is a judicial decision issued by a Member State with a view to the arrest and surrender by another Member State of a requested person, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order.

2. Member States shall execute any European arrest warrant on the basis of the principle of mutual recognition and in accordance with the provisions of this Framework Decision.

3. This Framework Decision shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union.



Article 2
Scope of the European arrest warrant


1. A European arrest warrant may be issued for acts punishable by the law of the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least 12 months or, where a sentence has been passed or a detention order has been made, for sentences of at least four months.

2. The following offences, if they are punishable in the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least three years and as they are defined by the law of the issuing Member State, shall, under the terms of this Framework Decision and without verification of the double criminality of the act, give rise to surrender pursuant to a European arrest warrant:

— participation in a criminal organisation,
— terrorism,
— trafficking in human beings,
— sexual exploitation of children and child pornography,
— illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances,
— illicit trafficking in weapons, munitions and explosives,
— corruption,
— fraud, including that affecting the financial interests of the European Communities within the meaning of the Convention of 26 July 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests,
— laundering of the proceeds of crime,
— counterfeiting currency, including of the euro,
— computer-related crime,
— environmental crime, including illicit trafficking in endangered animal species and in endangered plant species and varieties,
— facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence,
— murder, grievous bodily injury,
— illicit trade in human organs and tissue,
— kidnapping, illegal restraint and hostage-taking,
— racism and xenophobia,
— organised or armed robbery,
— illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including antiques and works of art,
— swindling,
— racketeering and extortion,
— counterfeiting and piracy of products,
— forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein,
— forgery of means of payment,
— illicit trafficking in hormonal substances and other growth promoters,
— illicit trafficking in nuclear or radioactive materials,
— trafficking in stolen vehicles,
— rape,
— arson,
— crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court,
— unlawful seizure of aircraft/ships,
— sabotage.

3. The Council may decide at any time, acting unanimously after consultation of the European Parliament under the conditions laid down in Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), to add other categories of offence to the list contained in paragraph 2. The Council shall examine, in the light of the report submitted by the Commission pursuant to Article 34(3), whether the list should be extended or amended.

4. For offences other than those covered by paragraph 2, surrender may be subject to the condition that the acts for which the European arrest warrant has been issued constitute an offence under the law of the executing Member State, whatever the constituent elements or however it is described.

House of Commons Justice Committee


One of the relatively rare assessments of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) in the European Union published after the Stockholm Programme and before the adoption of the implementing Action Plan is:




UK House of Commons Justice Committee: Justice issues in Europe (HC 162-I; published 6 April 2010; 60 pages)



On page 19 the Committee noted that according to the Ministry of Justice, the European arrest warrant had:

• transformed extradition arrangements between EU member states
• played an important role in the UK’s fight against international and trans-national criminality
• prevented countries from refusing to surrender fugitives
• reduced the time taken to surrender fugitives from an average of 18 months under previous extradition arrangements to around 50 days, and
• enabled the UK to extradite over 1000 fugitives to other EU member states (since introduction) and, in 2008, nearly 100 wanted persons were surrendered back to the UK to face criminal proceedings.

Some problematic questions have surfaced as shown by the cases mentioned in Box 2 (pages 21 and 22).


After a discussion of difficulties with regard to individuals’ rights, the possible need for a proportionality test and potential means to remedy application problems, the Justice Committee concluded (on pages 24 to 25; point 50):

50. It is unfortunate that the successful use of the European arrest warrant, and the reduced time taken to process intra-EU extraditions, has been overshadowed by perceived injustices in individual cases. We welcome the conclusions of the evaluation of the warrant, adopted by the Council in June 2009, and the subsequent progress that has been made. However, we believe that the time it takes to review and reform such instruments undermines the mutual trust approach. Legislation should be used only as a last resort to resolving the issues over proportionality and we hope that the current approach bears fruit before the predicted growth in demand for European arrest warrants takes place.

The Committee then went on to discuss the threshold of inoperability regarding amending or accompanying EU measures, when the United Kingdom does not opt in. Regarding future developments under the Lisbon Treaty, matters were left suspended in thinnish air (page 26; point 54):

54. We are encouraged that neither the Minister, nor any of our witnesses, were able to provide a convincing example of a situation in which an existing measure would be rendered inoperable as a result of the UK’s decision not to participate. Nevertheless, we are concerned that the term “inoperable” is not defined in the protocol and that guidance is not available on its interpretation.

Ralf Grahn



P.S. If you have information about general or national publications assessing the EU’s justice and home affairs (JHA), the Stockholm Programme or the proposal for the implementing Action Plan, please feel free to share it with the readers of Grahnlaw, by posting a comment or by sending me an e-mail.

Stockholm Programme Action Plan now in 21 EU languages

Earlier we have noted the publication in three languages ─ English, French and German ─ of the proposed Action Plan implementing the European Union’s Stockholm Programme in justice and home affairs (JHA):



EN - English



Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe's citizens - Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme; Brussels, 20.4.2010; COM(2010) 171 final



FR - French



Mettre en place un espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice au service des citoyens européens - Plan d'action mettant en oeuvre le programme de Stockholm ; Bruxelles, le 20.4.2010 ; COM(2010) 171 final



DE - German



Ein Raum der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts für die Bürger Europas - Aktionsplan zur Umsetzung des Stockholmer Programms; Brüssel, den 20.4.2010; KOM(2010) 171 endgültig




18 new language versions



Now 18 more language versions of the important Communication COM(2010) 171 have been added, bringing the total number to 21. Among the 23 official EU languages, only Estonian (ET – eesti keel) and Irish (GA – Gaeilge) re not represented.


In order to illustrate the linguistic diversity of the European Union and to recapitulate the language symbols, we present the published language versions separately. At the same time, this experiment shows us if the language versions with diacritic marks or based on non-latin alphabets appear correctly in this blog post on Blogger:




BG – Bulgarian



Брюксел, 20.4.2010
COM(2010) 171 окончателен
СЪОБЩЕНИЕ НА КОМИСИЯТА ДО ЕВРОПЕЙСКИЯ ПАРЛАМЕНТ, СЪВЕТА, ЕВРОПЕЙСКИЯ ИКОНОМИЧЕСКИ И СОЦИАЛЕН КОМИТЕТ И КОМИТЕТА НА РЕГИОНИТЕ
Установяване на пространство на свобода, сигурност и правосъдие за гражданите на Европа
План за действие за изпълнение на Програмата от Стокхолм



ES – Spanish



Bruselas, 20.4.2010
COM(2010) 171 final
COMUNICACIÓN DE LA COMISIÓN AL PARLAMENTO EUROPEO, AL CONSEJO, AL COMITÉ ECONÓMICO Y SOCIAL EUROPEO Y AL COMITÉ DE LAS REGIONES
Garantizar el espacio de libertad, seguridad y justicia para los ciudadanos europeos
Plan de acción por el que se aplica el programa de Estocolmo



CS – Czech



V Bruselu dne 20.4.2010
KOM(2010) 171 v konečném znění
SDĚLENÍ KOMISE EVROPSKÉMU PARLAMENTU, RADĚ, EVROPSKÉMU HOSPODÁŘSKÉMU A SOCIÁLNÍMU VÝBORU A VÝBORU REGIONŮ
Poskytování prostoru svobody, bezpečnosti a práva evropským občanům
Akční plán provádění Stockholmského programu



DA – Danish



Bruxelles, den 20.4.2010
KOM(2010) 171 endelig
MEDDELELSE FRA KOMMISSIONEN TIL EUROPA-PARLAMENTET, RÅDET, DET ØKONOMISKE OG SOCIALE UDVALG OG REGIONSUDVALGET
Et område med frihed, sikkerhed og retfærdighed for EU’s borgere
Handlingsplan om gennemførelse af Stockholmprogrammet



EL – Greek



Βρυξέλλες, 20.4.2010
COM(2010) 171 τελικό
ΑΝΑΚΟΙΝΩΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΗΣ ΣΤΟ ΕΥΡΩΠΑΪΚΟ ΚΟΙΝΟΒΟΥΛΙΟ, ΤΟ ΣΥΜΒΟΥΛΙΟ, ΤΗΝ ΕΥΡΩΠΑΪΚΗ ΟΙΚΟΝΟΜΙΚΗ ΚΑΙ ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΚΗ ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΗ ΚΑΙ ΤΗΝ ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΗ ΤΩΝ ΠΕΡΙΦΕΡΕΙΩΝ
Για ένα χώρο ελευθερίας, ασφάλειας και δικαιοσύνης στην υπηρεσία των πολιτών της Ευρώπης
Σχέδιο δράσης για την εφαρμογή του προγράμματος της Στοκχόλμης



IT – Italian



Bruxelles, 20.4.2010
COM(2010) 171 definitivo
COMUNICAZIONE DELLA COMMISSIONE AL PARLAMENTO EUROPEO, AL CONSIGLIO, AL COMITATO ECONOMICO E SOCIALE EUROPEO E AL COMITATO DELLE REGIONI
Creare uno spazio di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia per i cittadini europei
Piano d'azione per l'attuazione del programma di Stoccolma



LV – Latvian



Briselē, 20.4.2010
COM(2010) 171 galīgā redakcija
KOMISIJAS PAZIŅOJUMS EIROPAS PARLAMENTAM, PADOMEI, EIROPAS EKONOMIKAS UN SOCIĀLO LIETU KOMITEJAI UN REĢIONU KOMITEJAI
Brīvības, drošības un tiesiskuma telpas nodrošināšana Eiropas pilsoņiem
Stokholmas programmas īstenošanas rīcības plāns



LT – Lithuanian



Briuselis, 2010.4.20
KOM(2010) 171 galutinis
KOMISIJOS KOMUNIKATAS EUROPOS PARLAMENTUI, TARYBAI, EUROPOS EKONOMIKOS IR SOCIALINIŲ REIKALŲ KOMITETUI IR REGIONŲ KOMITETUI
Sukurti laisvės, saugumo ir teisingumo erdvę Europos piliečiams
Stokholmo programos įgyvendinimo veiksmų planas



HU – Hungarian



Brüsszel, 2010.4.20.
COM(2010) 171 végleges
A BIZOTTSÁG KÖZLEMÉNYE AZ EURÓPAI PARLAMENTNEK, A TANÁCSNAK, AZ EURÓPAI GAZDASÁGI ÉS SZOCIÁLIS BIZOTTSÁGNAK ÉS A RÉGIÓK BIZOTTSÁGÁNAK
A szabadság, a biztonság és a jog érvényesülésén alapuló térség megvalósítása a polgárok szolgálatában
A stockholmi program végrehajtásáról szóló cselekvési terv



MT – Maltese



Brussel 20.4.2010
KUMM(2010) 171 finali
KOMUNIKAZZJONI MILL-KUMMISSJONI LILL-PARLAMENT EWROPEW, ILKUNSILL, IL-KUMITAT EKONOMIKU U SOĊJALI EWROPEW U L-KUMITAT TAR-REĠJUNI
Il-kisba ta' żona ta' libertà, sigurtà u ġustizzja għaċ-ċittadini tal-Ewropa
Pjan ta' Azzjoni li Jimplimenta l-Programm ta' Stokkolma



NL – Dutch



Brussel, 20.4.2010
COM(2010) 171 definitief
MEDEDELING VAN DE COMMISSIE AAN HET EUROPEES PARLEMENT, DE RAAD, HET EUROPEES ECONOMISCH EN SOCIAAL COMITÉ EN HET COMITÉ VAN DE REGIO'S
Een ruimte van vrijheid, veiligheid en recht voor de burgers van Europa
Actieplan ter uitvoering van het programma van Stockholm



PL – Polish



Bruksela, dnia 20.4.2010
KOM(2010) 171 wersja ostateczna
KOMUNIKAT KOMISJI DO PARLAMENTU EUROPEJSKIEGO, RADY, EUROPEJSKIEGO KOMITETU EKONOMICZNO-SPOŁECZNEGO I KOMITETU REGIONÓW
Przestrzeń wolności, bezpieczeństwa i sprawiedliwości dla europejskich obywateli
Plan działań służący realizacji programu sztokholmskiego



PT – Portuguese



Bruxelas, 20.4.2010
COM(2010) 171 final
COMUNICAÇÃO DA COMISSÃO AO PARLAMENTO EUROPEU, AO CONSELHO, AO COMITÉ ECONÓMICO E SOCIAL EUROPEU E AO COMITÉ DAS REGIÕES
Realização de um espaço de liberdade, de segurança e de justiça para os cidadãos europeus
Plano de Acção de aplicação do Programa de Estocolmo



RO – Romanian



Bruxelles, 20.4.2010
COM(2010) 171 final
COMUNICARE A COMISIEI CĂTRE PARLAMENTUL EUROPEAN, CONSILIU, COMITETUL ECONOMIC ȘI SOCIAL EUROPEAN ȘI COMITETUL REGIUNILOR
Crearea unui spațiu de libertate, securitate și justiție pentru cetățenii Europei
Plan de acțiune pentru punerea în aplicare a Programului de la Stockholm



SK – Slovak



Brusel, 20.4.2010
KOM(2010) 171 v konečnom znení
OZNÁMENIE KOMISIE EURÓPSKEMU PARLAMENTU, RADE, EURÓPSKEMU HOSPODÁRSKEMU A SOCIÁLNEMU VÝBORU A VÝBORU REGIÓNOV
Vytvorenie priestoru slobody, bezpečnosti a spravodlivosti pre európskych občanov
Akčný plán na implementáciu Štokholmského programu



SL – Slovenian



Bruselj, 20.4.2010
COM(2010) 171 konč.
SPOROČILO KOMISIJE EVROPSKEMU PARLAMENTU, SVETU, EVROPSKEMU EKONOMSKO-SOCIALNEMU ODBORU IN ODBORU REGIJ
Zagotavljanje območja svobode, varnosti in pravice za državljane Evrope
Akcijski načrt izvajanja stockholmskega programa



FI – Finnish



Bryssel 20.4.2010
KOM(2010) 171 lopullinen
KOMISSION TIEDONANTO EUROOPAN PARLAMENTILLE, NEUVOSTOLLE, EUROOPAN TALOUS- JA SOSIAALIKOMITEALLE JA ALUEIDEN KOMITEALLE
Vapauden, turvallisuuden ja oikeuden alueen toteuttaminen EU:n kansalaisten hyväksi
Toimintasuunnitelma Tukholman ohjelman toteuttamiseksi



SV – Swedish



Bryssel den 20.4.2010
KOM(2010) 171 slutlig
MEDDELANDE FRÅN KOMMISSIONEN TILL EUROPAPARLAMENTET, RÅDET, EUROPEISKA EKONOMISKA OCH SOCIALA KOMMITTÉN OCH REGIONKOMMITTÉN
Att förverkliga ett område med frihet, säkerhet och rättvisa för EU-medborgarna
Handlingsplan för att genomföra Stockholmsprogrammet




If you have information about general or national publications assessing the EU’s Stockholm Programme and the proposal for the implementing Action Plan, please feel free to share it with the readers of Grahnlaw, by posting a comment or by sending me an e-mail.




Ralf Grahn

UK & EU: Justice issues in Europe (Introduction)

One of the relatively rare assessments of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) in the European Union published after the Stockholm Programme and before the adoption of the implementing Action Plan is:




UK House of Commons Justice Committee: Justice issues in Europe (HC 162-I; published 6 April 2010; 60 pages)


In this blog post we summarise the Introduction.



Introduction


The Committee Report is the result of a fairly detailed (page 5):

…inquiry into justice issues in Europe with a particular focus on developments and the implications for the 2.2 million British citizens living in other member states and 2.12 million people living in the UK who were born in another member state.

The Report briefly recapitulates the history of the EU’s area of freedom, security and justice (FSJ): the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Tampere Programme and the Hague Programme (page 5).


The Report describes the area of freedom, security and justice as still very much a “work in progress”, before embarking on an outline on the future work to be done under the Stockholm Programme (page 6).


The Committee notes that mutual trust is fairly easy to grasp, but hard to achieve in the field of legislation and policy on justice (page 6).


Box 1 on pages 8 and 9 contains a convenient overview of justice priorities in the Stockholm Programme, under the following headlines:

• Promoting citizenship and fundamental rights
• A Europe of law and justice
• A Europe that protects
• Improving the quality of legislation and its implementation

With the establishment of mutual trust as a cornerstone of judicial cooperation and the fundamental rights of EU (and UK) citizens as starting points, the Committee chose the following key themes for its inquiry (page 9):

• The need to strike balances between proportionality, the rights of suspects and the accused in criminal proceedings, and the enforcement of security at EU and national level through mutual co-operation.
• The balance between basic principles of justice and fairness for victims and the rights of suspects and defendants rights and levels of awareness of those rights
• The cost-benefits of activity to create an area of freedom, security and justice
• The extent of monitoring and evaluation and the relative lack of enforcement.

The emphasis is on criminal justice issues (page 9).



The Committee starts its treatment of the Lisbon Treaty with a short historic overview from the Treaty of Amsterdam, before a summary of the changes brought about by the Treaty of Lisbon and the UK opt-in protocol, as well as a description of the emergency brake (pages 10 to 12).


The extended jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is explained on page 12. It remains unclear if Britain will opt in to the jurisdiction of the CJEU within the five year timeframe (page 17).


The Committee describes the legal entry into force of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and mentions that the European Union aims to accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (page 12 to 13).


Will the Lisbon Treaty facilitate legislation and policy-making in the field of justice? The initial response of the Committee is cautious (page 13 to 14).


Naturally, the extraordinary position of the United Kingdom has to be discussed. The Committee argues that the position of UK participation has become more flexible, but clarifications are needed with respect to amendments Britain opposes, although it has consented to the original provisions. The Committee depicts the UK’s role in EU justice and home affairs as a key one (page 14 to 16).


The Committee welcomed the Government’s pragmatic attitude (evidence-based practical measures; “look before you legislate”) and it was encouraged by seeing this perspective reflected in the Stockholm Programme (page 16).


The Committee notes that mutual recognition is at the heart of what the EU is trying to achieve in the area of freedom, security and justice under the Stockholm programme and the Lisbon Treaty. The Government of Britain is extremely cautious about approximation (harmonisation) of criminal law, but the Committee remarks that the proposals in the Stockholm Programme and the Lisbon Treaty together give rise to the potential for a significant body of new law (pages 17 and 18).




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Information about materials from different member states and in various EU languages on the Stockholm Programme and the proposed Action Plan for implementation is most welcome. Write a comment or send me an e-mail about unofficial and official publications

UK & EU: Stockholm Programme home affairs

In an earlier Grahnlaw blog post House of Lords on EU Stockholm Programme (10 November 2009), ahead of the adoption of the Stockholm Programme, we highlighted the publication of:




UK House of Lords European Union Committee: The Stockholm Programme: home affairs (HL Paper 175; published 9 November 2009; 32 pages).


Since then, the Stockholm Programme has been adopted (document 17024/09 or 5731/10) and the proposed Action Programme COM(2010) 171 final for implementation has been published in three official EU languages. The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council has issued its first conclusions on the Action Programme (8920/10).



Background note


Despite the peculiar status of the United Kingdom and these later developments, the report by the European Union Committee is worth reading as a guide to and background note on the home affairs issues within the EU’s emerging area of freedom, security and justice (FSJ).


The Introduction (page 5 to 6) offers a brief outline of the area of freedom, security and justice: the Treaty of Amsterdam (since 1999), the Tampere Programme (2000─2004), the Hague Programme (2005─2009) and the process leading towards the Stockholm Programme (2010─2014), as well as the effects of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, which opens up new possibilities.


The European Union Committee rightly criticised the lack of public consultation, involvement and publicity of the Interior Future Group, which laid the foundations for the Stockholm Programme (page 6).


The House of Lords Committee noted the heavy weight of immigration and asylum matters ─ more than half of the initiatives ─ in its outline of priority issues in the Commission’s Communication (page 7).


The Commission wanted to see progress regarding other home affairs matters: data protection; the fight against organised crime, including improvement of methods for seizing the proceeds of crime; strengthening civil protection and critical infrastructure protection; the fight against terrorism, including a strategy for dealing with CBRN attacks (chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear) (page 8).


Like the UK Government, the HL European Union Committee was supportive of a five year programme, and it wanted to see early action on the proposals from the Commission (page 8).



Comment: Heavy on security, light on rights


Both the Stockholm Programme ─ An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens (document 5731/10) ─ and the proposed plan for implementation ─ Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe's citizens - Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme; Brussels, 20.4.2010, COM(2010) 171 final ─ heavily stress citizens at headline level.


However, the HL Committee report indicates a heavy legacy of more effective repressive policy measures in the making, directed at illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers, as well as (outside) plotters of terrorist acts.


Ever more draconian security measures tend to spill over unto EU citizens and legal migrants, and comparatively little seems to have emanated from fresh thoughts about the direct involvement and the extension of the legal ─ not to say political ─ rights of EU citizens.


Given the roots, is this the JHA agenda we need for the next five years?




Ralf Grahn

EU: Freedoms and justice or security? Call for materials

Few EU policy areas have as direct a bearing on citizens in the European Union (and outsiders) as justice and home affairs (JHA).

Time is running short for an informed public debate about major policy choices.


Do the next five years offer us EU citizens more freedoms and justice or ever increasing controls (security)? The implementation blueprint for the first five years under the Lisbon Treaty in the European Union’s area of freedom, security and justice (FSJ) is heading for final adoption in June 2010.

In a direct sense, the Action Plan, Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe's citizens ─Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme, is going to be the roadmap for future action by the European Union. Indirectly, potentially converging views at EU level may affect the thrust of justice and home affairs legislation and policies at national level.



Recap



The European Commission refers to document 17024/09 as the Stockholm Programme, whereas the Council seems to have replaced it by a new document 5731/10, without indicating the substitution or the reasons.



The Justice and Home Affairs Council has issued preliminary conclusions (8920/10) on the Commission Communication COM(2010) 171 final, the proposed Stockholm Progamme Action Plan. (See Grahnlaw: EU JHA Council Conclusions on Stockholm Programme Action Plan, 24 April 2010, as well as earlier blog posts on the Stockholm Programme.)



A week from adoption by the Commission, the Stockholm Programme Action Plan has now been posted visibly on Eur-Lex, under the latest COM documents made available. A few moments ago there were still only the three language versions we have mentioned and linked to earlier: English, French and German (with 20 official languages still missing less than two months ahead of final adoption).



Call for materials




In earlier blog posts, in addition to the basic documents, we have referred to contributions by Toby Archer (FIIA), Hugo Brady (CER), Tony Bunyan and Steve Peers (Statewatch), the House of Lords (European Union Committee) and others.

Now that the Lisbon Treaty has entered into force and the Stockholm Programme has been adopted, more is needed in order to achieve a borderless area of policy debate before the quinquennial landmarks are set in detail.

Dear Readers, please let us know about other relevant and timely materials.




Ralf Grahn

EU JHA Council Conclusions on Stockholm Programme Action Plan

This blog post is about the EU JHA Council Conclusions on Stockholm Programme Action Plan, a crucial building block in the area of freedom, security and justice (FSJ).




The provisional Conclusions of the EU JHA Council meeting were published in English Friday evening:



3008th Council meeting Justice and Home Affairs, Brussels, 23 April 2010 (document 8920/10)



Stockholm Programme



The Commission JHA web pages refer to document 17024/09 of 2 December 2009 as the Stockholm Programme, here as a link through the website of the Swedish Council presidency and here as an earlier direct link to the document:

The Stockholm Programme – An open and secure Europe serving and protecting the citizens; Brussels, 2 December 2009; document 17024/09



However, in the 23 April 2010 Conclusions, the Justice and Home Affairs Council refers to document 5371/10 as the Stockholm Programme, without indicating the document(s) it replaces, if any:



The Stockholm Programme - An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens; Brussels, 3 March 2010; Council document 5731/10


With some attention to detail, the Council and the Commission could make life easier for readers.



Conclusions: Stockholm Programme Action Plan



In the Grahnlaw blog post EU JHA: Stockholm Programme Action Plan in English, French and German (24 April 2010) we linked to the three existing language versions of the Commission Communication COM(2010) 171 final.

(The Council has registered it as document 8895/10; 22 April 2010. The Communication has not yet been registered on the Legislative Observatory of the European Parliament, Oeil.)

By the way, the Commission Communication refers to the Stockholm Programme as: Council document 17024/09, adopted by the European Council on 10/11 December 2009 (page 2, footnote 1).

The Justice and the Home Affairs Ministers, or their substitutes during this meeting with reduced attendance, were given a presentation of the Commission’s proposal, which is meant to guide implementation of the Stockholm Programme.



The JHA Council conclusions (8920/10) indicate that the Council wants to influence the final version, and that final adoption is scheduled for June 2010 (page 8). Here is the text, including the typos:

ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTING THE STOCKHOLM PROGRAMME

Justice and home affairs ministers heard presentations by the Commission on its recommendations for an action plan implementing the Stockholm Programme (5731/10). Ministers welcomed the Commission paper, stressed, however, that the action plan should more closely mirror the objectives set out in the Stockholm Programme itself. The Council asked its preparatory bodies to swiftly start consultations on the action plan with a view to adopt the it in June 2010.

The Stockholm Programme is the multi-annual strategic work programme in the area of freedom, security and justice. It was adopted by the Council on 30 November 2009 and endorsed by the European Council on 10-11 December 2009. It sets out the priorities for EU action in the area for the next five years (2010-14). It puts the citizen at the heart of EU action and deals, among other things, with questions of citizenship, justice and security as well as asylum, migration and the external dimension of justice and home affairs.

It is ten years since the EU set itself the target of creating an area of freedom, justice and security. The Stockholm Programme will built on the progress made during the implementation of the Tampere Programme (2000-2004) and the Hague Programme (2005-2010).

But we are hardly much wiser as to the coming consultations.




Ralf Grahn

EU JHA: Stockholm Programme Action Plan in English, French and German

Earlier we linked to the English version of the Communication, which had been published. We have now been able to locate French and German language versions of the European Union’s Stockholm Programme Action Plan for justice and home affairs (JHA) 2010-2014. Thus, the three working languages of the European Commission are covered, but we still miss the text of COM(2010) 171 final in 20 official EU languages.



English



Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe's citizens - Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme; Brussels, 20.4.2010; COM(2010) 171 final



French



Mettre en place un espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice au service des citoyens européens - Plan d'action mettant en oeuvre le programme de Stockholm ; Bruxelles, le 20.4.2010 ; COM(2010) 171 final



German


Ein Raum der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts für die Bürger Europas - Aktionsplan zur Umsetzung des Stockholmer Programms; Brüssel, den 20.4.2010; KOM(2010) 171 endgültig




Ralf Grahn

EU JHA Council: Stockholm Programme Action Plan

Ahead of the EU’s Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council today, 23 April 2010, in Brussels, the European Commission has issued a brief outline of the matters to be discussed:


Justice and Home Affairs Council: 23 April 2010 in Brussels (22 April 2010; MEMO/10/148)

The Stockholm Programme Action Plan, to be presented by the Commission, is still available only in English:



Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe's citizens Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme (Brussels, 20.4.2010; COM(2010) 171 final; 69 pages).



Since there has been practically no opportunity for experts or the public to digest the proposed actions, we point out a few contributions of a more general nature, which we have not mentioned before.



Toby Archer


The Stockholm Programme had hardly been anointed by the European Council, when Toby Archer of the Finnish Institute of International Affairs published a briefing paper:



The Stockholm Programme: Europe’s next step to be an “area of freedom, security and justice” (Briefing paper 49; 15 December 2009; 7 pages)

Archer’s briefing paper is a good introduction to the development of the EU’s area of freedom, security and justice (FSJ), and to some of the sensitive issues affecting future work.



Hugo Brady

Hugo Brady, of the UK based think tank the Centre for European Reform (CER), gave a critical assessment of EU justice and home affairs, as well as the Stockholm Programme:



The seven sins of Stockholm (on CER website; published in E!Sharp magazineMarch/April 2010)



Tony Bunyan

In Tony Bunyan’s view the the values the Commission professes and the actions it proposes are at odds in the Action Plan:



Statewatch Analysis: Commission: Action Plan on the Stockholm Programme: A bit more freedom and justice and a lot more security (no date; 12 pages)




Ralf Grahn

EU JHA: Stockholm Programme Action Plan published in English

Yesterday we noted on Grahnblawg (in Swedish) the materials we were able to locate with regard to the Action Plan for the Stockholm Programme, the EU’s Justice and Home Affairs Programme for 2010-2014.

At the time, we did not find the Action Plan itself. We were perplexed by the Commission referring to the Swedish presidency web pages instead of the final version of the Stockholm Programme. Council document 5371/10 was headlined as the Stockholm Programme, but its meaning was left unclear.

Since then, we can take note of at least one improvement.

The European Commission has now published the final version of its communication COM(2010) 171 in English, in the newsroom of the Commission’s Area of freedom, security and justice (Justice and Home Affairs):



Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe's citizens Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme (Brussels, 20.4.2010; COM(2010) 171 final; 69 pages).


There are no indications yet about other language versions of this important document.



The Commission is going to present the proposed Action Plan to the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council meeting tomorrow, 23 April 2010, exceptionally meeting in Brussels in April (instead of Luxembourg).




Ralf Grahn

Killed in inaction: The EU’s third pillar (Justice and Home Affairs)

Typical exaggerated headline writing, speaking about “inaction”, but the Lisbon Treaty truly did away with the so called third pillar of the European Union, Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) and some of its laborious decision-making procedures. Although again, some peculiarities remain, in typical EU fashion.



In addition to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Council has adopted, for the years 2010-2014, the Stockholm Programme (Conclusions of the European Council 10 to 11 December 2009; document EUCO 6/09; point 25; page 9):



The Stockholm Programme – An open and secure Europe serving and protecting the citizens (document 17024/09; version 2 December 2009).



State of the JHA union



Professor Steve Peers has published an updated version of the Statewatch Analysis: The ‘Third pillar acquis’ after the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force – Second version: 1 December 2009.

This means that Peers’ analysis includes the latest decisions taken by the JHA Council on 30 November 2009, the last day before the Lisbon Treaty entered into force.

The introduction describes the demise of the third pillar and presents the main features of JHA law, or the area of freedom, security and justice (FSJ)(pages 1 and 2).


The Annex lists the different categories and individual legal acts in force (page 3 to 12), with useful notes.


We have to be grateful to Professor Peers and to Statewatch for yet another timely clarification of “the law of the land”, but I wonder why the EU institutions have not taken up the challenge of publishing in “real time”.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. The specialised European Union Law and its sister blog in Bulgarian, by Vihar Georgiev, offer readers quick updates on important documents pertaining to EU law, highlighting noteworthy developments for lawyers, businesses and citizens. These frequently updated blogs are listed among the nearly 500 great euroblogs on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, our common “village well” for fact, opinion and gossip on European affairs.



Why not pop over to read Grahnlaw’s sister blogs, Grahnblawg in Swedish and Eurooppaoikeus in Finnish?

British and Irish opt-outs from EU JHA law

Nowhere is the semi-detached nature of the house of the European Union more clearly to be seen than in the field of opt-outs, leaving some member states outside important policy areas. Few of these arrangements are more tangled than in the area of freedom, security and justice (FSJ).

We have also heard the leader of the UK Conservative party David Cameron put criminal justice on his list of policies to (re-)domesticate, even if few know either the current state of affairs or what exactly the proposed change would entail, when the Tory leader said:

The third area where we will negotiate for a return of powers is criminal justice.

We must be sure that the measures included in the Lisbon Treaty will not bring creeping control over our criminal justice system by EU judges.

We will want to prevent EU judges gaining steadily greater control over our criminal justice system by negotiating an arrangement which would protect it.

That will mean limiting the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over criminal law to its pre-Lisbon level, and ensuring that only British authorities can initiate criminal investigations in Britain.

Lisbon Treaty and Stockholm Programme


The Lisbon Treaty has entered into force, which has led to considerable change from 1 December 2009, with regard to criminal justice and police cooperation. It has also given cause to intense activity with regard to policy shaping.



After the Tampere and Hague programmes, it is the EU’s third new multi-annual FSJ programme, but it has been marked by the novel Lisbon Treaty. The European Council adopted, for the years 2010-2014, the Stockholm Programme (Conclusions of the European Council 10 to 11 December 2009; document EUCO 6/09; point 25; page 9):



The Stockholm Programme – An open and secure Europe serving and protecting the citizens (document 17024/09; version 2 December 2009).


Further, the European Council invited the Commission to present an Action Plan for implementing the Stockholm Programme, to be adopted at the latest in June 2010, and to submit a midterm review before June 2012.

In other words, the Action plan will be elaborated and adopted during the Spanish presidency of the Council of the European Union.

Naturally, we can expect legislative proposals to follow during the Belgian and Hungarian presidencies.


Opposite directions


Given the intense activity at EU level, heading towards deeper integration, and the existing British opt-outs and the promised reinforcement of the dividing wall, i.e. heading in the opposite direction, it would not be a bad idea to know what the situation is with regard to the United Kingdom and Ireland (and Denmark).



Statewatch analysis



Professor Steve Peers has produced an updated version of the Statewatch Analysis: EU Lisbon Treaty Analysis no. 4: British and Irish opt-outs from EU Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) law – Version 4: 3 November 2009 (25 pages including the annexes).

Peers recalls that the Lisbon Treaty changes to EU Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) law are more far-reaching than in any other areas of EU law.

Despite the clear writing, already the key points (a-h) presented on pages 1 and 2 prepare the reader for a complicated situation.

Anyway, the paper is a useful recapitulation of the development of EU JHA law for anyone interested, as well as dealing with specific British and Irish issues, which elevate an already complex area of EU law to the level of “rocket science”.

But it would be hard to find a more succinct interpreter than Peers of the quagmire the UK and Ireland have established for themselves and the unity of EU law in the JHA area.

Incidentally, I asked myself: Is there a saying “Reject the cake and eat it too”?




Ralf Grahn



P.S.EU Law Blog is a fine example of specialised blogs, which together cover almost all aspects of European (Union) affairs. It is listed among the nearly 500 great euroblogs on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, our common “village well” for fact, opinion and gossip on European affairs.



While you’re at it, why not pop over to read Grahnlaw’s sister blogs, Grahnblawg in Swedish and Eurooppaoikeus in Finnish?