According to the final draft agenda for the Strasbourg session 22 to 25 November 2010, Monday 22 November the European Parliament plenary is going to discuss the Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme and on Tuesday 23 November the EP is going to vote (pages 3 and 9).
In the background we have the five year strategic guidelines adopted by the European Council in December 2009, with the definitive version published in the Official Journal of the European Union in May (OJEU 4.5.2010 C 115/1):
The Stockholm Programme — An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens
Based on the guidelines, we have the action plan to implement the strategic guidelines, proposed by the European Commission in April:
Communication from the Commission: 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
We also know that the Commission's monitoring system PreLex loses the traces of the action plan after the sour conclusions by the JHA Council 3 June 2010.
Before the Stockholm Programme was adopted, the European Parliament tried to make its voice heard a year ago, when it voted a resolution:
European Parliament resolution of 25 November 2009 on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council – An area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen – Stockholm programme; P7_TA(2009)0090 (procedure 2009/2534(RSP) )
(Yesterday I presented a few extracts of the 25 November 2009 EP resolution relevant to citizens and enterprises, in Finnish on my trilingual blog Grahnlaw Suomi Finland.)
Citizens and businesses
This time around the European Parliament decided to take a closer look at legal issues relevant to EU citizens and businesses active across borders, in an own-initiative report:
Report on civil law, commercial law, family law and private international law aspects of the Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme; A7-0252/2010, 24.9.2010 Committee on Legal Affairs, Rapporteur: Luigi Berlinguer (procedure 2010/2080(INI) ) (20 pages)
European judicial culture
Even if the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) congratulates the Commission on its ambitious proposed action plan, the report calls for reflection on the future of the area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ).
Interestingly, the JURI committee takes a very long term view. The beginning of the report is heavily laden with suggestions for discussions and exchanges with judges and practitioners, representatives of legal education and training etc. in order to nurture a European judicial culture.
Later the report discusses proposed actions with more immediate impact on mobile citizens, cross-border consumers and companies active in the internal market, but it may be more opportune to treat these initiatives in the context of the latest policy statements and proposals from the Commission, first collectively and later individually.
Ralf Grahn
J.K. After a long silence the EU Law Blog has returned to the European legal blogging scene. The blog declares: This is a web log about European Union law for students, academics, practitioners and anyone else who may be interested in it. - I hope you are interested and that the EU Law Blog keeps up the good work.
Showing posts with label Stockholm Programme. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stockholm Programme. Show all posts
Sunday, 21 November 2010
Thursday, 18 November 2010
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):
Already in Article 3(2) TEU they make a firm commitment, ”shall offer”:
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:
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.
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.
Saturday, 13 November 2010
Freedom of movement and of residence in EU Charter & sundry notes
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union does not bring the citizens of the EU new rights, but it is a handy compilation of freedoms and rights from a number of sources. More specifically the rights based on EU citizenship are summarised in Title V Citizens’ rights, from Article 39 to Article 46.
The freedom of movement and of residence is found in Article 45 (OJEU 30.3.2010 C 83/400):
Pilgrim’s Progress
Since the theme of free movement of persons (workers) and EU citizenship is played on four blogs and in three languages, here is a record of the latest stages.
EU citizenship: Slow and uneven progress on free movement (10 November 2010) looked at the report from the Commission COM(2008) 840 on the application of Directive 2004/38/EC.
European Parliament supports EU expats (10 November2010) presented two EP resolutions concerning EU citizenship.
The two latest blog posts may pose more of a challenge for international readers. However, machine translation (Google Translate) may be helpful enough. A little assistance to decipher the sources, as well.
Unionsmedborgarskapet: EU-kommissionen aktiverade sig synligt (11 November 2010; in Swedish) looked at the well documented guidance on transposition and application of Directive 2004/38/EC given by the European Commission in COM(2009) 313.
EU-kansalaisten liikkumis- ja oleskeluvapaus Tukholman ohjelmassa (12 November 2010; in Finnish) went on to look at the Stockholm Programme – An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens, especially Section 2.2. Full exercise of the right of free movement. (The “canonised” version of the Stockholm Programme in all EU languages was finally published OJEU 4.5.2010 C 115/1.)
The heads of state or government (European Council) seemed to be as keen to crack down on abuse and fraud as they were to guarantee the right of free movement by removing obstacles (pages 8-9).
Stockholm Programme Action Plan
After these sundry notes, the next logical steps for this pilgrim would seem to go towards the Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme – a stage perhaps less straightforward than one would expect.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Linking England and the Continent like the Channel Tunnel, with the publishing prestige of The Economist and with the advantage of being written in English, Charlemagne’s notebook is one of the “must read” Euroblogs (among the 697 already aggregated by Bloggingportal.eu). Naturally Charlemagne’s notebook is found among Fleishman-Hillard’s selection of Euroblogs.
The freedom of movement and of residence is found in Article 45 (OJEU 30.3.2010 C 83/400):
Article 45
Freedom of movement and of residence
1. Every citizen of the Union has the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.
2. Freedom of movement and residence may be granted, in accordance with the Treaties, to nationals of third countries legally resident in the territory of a Member State.
Pilgrim’s Progress
Since the theme of free movement of persons (workers) and EU citizenship is played on four blogs and in three languages, here is a record of the latest stages.
EU citizenship: Slow and uneven progress on free movement (10 November 2010) looked at the report from the Commission COM(2008) 840 on the application of Directive 2004/38/EC.
European Parliament supports EU expats (10 November2010) presented two EP resolutions concerning EU citizenship.
The two latest blog posts may pose more of a challenge for international readers. However, machine translation (Google Translate) may be helpful enough. A little assistance to decipher the sources, as well.
Unionsmedborgarskapet: EU-kommissionen aktiverade sig synligt (11 November 2010; in Swedish) looked at the well documented guidance on transposition and application of Directive 2004/38/EC given by the European Commission in COM(2009) 313.
EU-kansalaisten liikkumis- ja oleskeluvapaus Tukholman ohjelmassa (12 November 2010; in Finnish) went on to look at the Stockholm Programme – An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens, especially Section 2.2. Full exercise of the right of free movement. (The “canonised” version of the Stockholm Programme in all EU languages was finally published OJEU 4.5.2010 C 115/1.)
The heads of state or government (European Council) seemed to be as keen to crack down on abuse and fraud as they were to guarantee the right of free movement by removing obstacles (pages 8-9).
Stockholm Programme Action Plan
After these sundry notes, the next logical steps for this pilgrim would seem to go towards the Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme – a stage perhaps less straightforward than one would expect.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Linking England and the Continent like the Channel Tunnel, with the publishing prestige of The Economist and with the advantage of being written in English, Charlemagne’s notebook is one of the “must read” Euroblogs (among the 697 already aggregated by Bloggingportal.eu). Naturally Charlemagne’s notebook is found among Fleishman-Hillard’s selection of Euroblogs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
