Does the Stockholm Programme matter? The struggles over ownership of AFSJ multiannual programming. CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security No. 51/December 2012

Does the 2009 Stockholm Programme matter? This paper addresses the controversies experienced at EU institutional levels as to ‘who’ should have ownership of the contours of the EU’s policy and legislative multiannual programming in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) in a post-Lisbon Treaty landscape. It examines the struggles around the third multiannual programme on the AFSJ, i.e. the Stockholm Programme, and the dilemmas affecting its implementation. The latest affair to emerge relates to the lack of fulfilment by the European Commission of the commitment to provide a mid-term evaluation of the Stockholm Programme’s implementation by mid-2012, as requested by both the Council and the European Parliament. This paper shifts the focus to a broader perspective and raises the following questions: Is the Stockholm Programme actually relevant? What do the discussions behind its implementation tell us about the new institutional dynamics affecting European integration on the AFSJ? Does the EU actually need a new (post- Stockholm) multiannual programme for the period 2015–20? And last, what role should the EP play in legislative and policy programming in order to further strengthen the democratic accountability and legitimacy of the EU’s AFSJ?

Casual but Smart: The Court’s new clothes in the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (AFSJ) after the Lisbon Treaty. Research Papers in Law, 2/2008

Introduction. Unintended as it was, the European Court of Justice (ECJ, the Court, the Court of the EU) has played an extremely important role in the construction of the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (AFSJ). The AFSJ was set up by the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 and only entered into force in May 1999. The fact that this is a new field of EU competence, poses afresh all the fundamental questions – both political and legal – triggered by European integration, namely in terms of: a) distribution of powers between the Union and its Member States, b) attribution of competences between the various EU Institutions, c) direct effect and supremacy of EU rules, d) scope of competence of the ECJ, and e) extent of the protection given to fundamental rights. The above questions have prompted judicial solutions which take into account both the extremely sensible fields of law upon which the AFSJ is anchored, and the EU’s highly inconvenient three-pillar institutional framework.1 The ECJ is the body whose institutional role is to benefit most from this upcoming ‘depilarisation’, possibly more than that of the European Parliament. This structure is on the verge of being abandoned, provided the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force.2 However spectacular this formal boost of the Court’s competence, the changes in real terms are not going to be that dramatic. This apparent contradiction is explained, to a large extent, by the fact that the Court has in many ways ‘provoked’, or even ‘anticipated’, the depilarisation of its own jurisdictional role, already under the existing three-pillar structure. Simply put, under the new – post Treaty of Lisbon – regime, the Court will have full jurisdiction over all AFSJ matters, as those are going to be fully integrated in what is now the first pillar. Some limitations will continue to apply, however, while a special AFSJ procedure will be institutionalised. Indeed, if we look into the new Treaty we may identify general modifications to the Court’s structure and jurisdiction affecting the AFSJ (section 2), modifications in the field of the AFSJ stemming from the abolition of the pillar structure (section 3) and, finally, some rules specifically applicable to the AFSJ (section 4).

O Ne bis in idem no Espaço de Liberdade, Segurança e Justiça e no Direito Europeu da Concorrência

Ne bis in idem, understood as a procedural guarantee in the EU assumes different features in the AFSJ and in european competition law. Despite having a common origin (being, in both sectors the result of the case law of the same jurisdictional organ) its components are quite distintic in each area of the integration. In the AFSJ, the content of bis and idem are broader and addressed at a larger protection of individuals. Its axiological ground is based on the freedom of movements and human dignity, whereas in european competition law its closely linked to defence rights of legal persons and the concept of criminal punishment of anticompetitive sanctions as interpreted by the ECHR´s jurisprudence. In european competition law, ne bis in idem is limited by the systemic framework of competition law and the need to ensure parallel application of both european and national laws. Nonetheless, the absence of a compulsory mechanism to allocate jurisdiction in the EU (both in the AFSJ and in the field of anti-trust law) demands a common axiological framework. In this context, ne bis in idem must be understood as a defence right based on equity and proportionality. As far as its international dimension is concerned, ne bis in idem also lacks an erga omnes effect and it is not considered to be a rule of ius cogens. Consequently, the model which the ECJ has built regarding the application of the ne bis in idem in transnational and supranational contexts should be replicated by other courts through cross fertilization, in order to internationalize that procedural guarantee and broaden its scope of application.

The Court of Justice of the European Union as a fundamental rights tribunal: challenges for the effective delivery of fundamental rights in the area of freedom, security and justice. CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe No. 49, 29 August 2012

This paper reflects on the challenges facing the effective implementation of the new EU fundamental rights architecture that emerged from the Lisbon Treaty. Particular attention is paid to the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and its ability to function as a ‘fundamental rights tribunal’. The paper first analyses the praxis of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and its long-standing experience in overseeing the practical implementation of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Against this analysis, it then examines the readiness of the CJEU to live up to its consolidated and strengthened mandate on fundamental rights as one of the prime guarantors of the effective implementation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. We specifically review the role of ‘third-party interventions’ by non-governmental organisations, international and regional human rights actors as well as ‘interim relief measures’ when ensuring effective judicial protection of vulnerable individuals in cases of alleged violations of fundamental human rights. To flesh out our arguments, we rely on examples within the scope of the relatively new and complex domain of EU legislation, the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ), and its immigration, external border and asylum policies. In view of the fundamental rights-sensitive nature of these domains, which often encounter shifts of accountability and responsibility in their practical application, and the Lisbon Treaty’s expansion of the jurisdiction of the CJEU to interpret and review EU AFSJ legislation, this area can be seen as an excellent test case for the analyses at hand. The final section puts forth a set of policy suggestions that can assist the CJEU in the process of adjusting itself to the new fundamental rights context in a post-Lisbon Treaty setting.

La cooperazione giudiziaria in rete nello spazio di liberta', sicurezza e giustizia

L’oggetto del lavoro si concentra sull’analisi in chiave giuridica del modello di cooperazione in rete tra le autorità nazionali degli Stati membri nel quadro dello Spazio LSG, allo scopo di valutarne il contributo, le prospettive e il potenziale. La trattazione si suddivide in due parti, precedute da una breve premessa teorica incentrata sull’analisi della nozione di rete e la sua valenza giuridica. La prima parte ricostruisce il percorso di maturazione della cooperazione in rete, dando risalto tanto ai fattori di ordine congiunturale quanto ai fattori giuridici e d’ordine strutturale che sono alla base del processo di retificazione dei settori giustizia e sicurezza. In particolare, vengono elaborati taluni rilievi critici, concernenti l’operatività degli strumenti giuridici che attuano il principio di mutuo riconoscimento e di quelli che danno applicazione al principio di disponibilità delle informazioni. Ciò allo scopo di evidenziare gli ostacoli che, di frequente, impediscono il buon esito delle procedure di cooperazione e di comprendere le potenzialità e le criticità derivanti dall’utilizzo della rete rispetto alla concreta applicazione di tali procedure. La seconda parte si focalizza sull’analisi delle principali reti attive in materia di giustizia e sicurezza, con particolare attenzione ai rispettivi meccanismi di funzionamento. La trattazione si suddivide in due distinte sezioni che si concentrano sulle a) reti che operano a supporto dell’applicazione delle procedure di assistenza giudiziaria e degli strumenti di mutuo riconoscimento e sulle b) reti che operano nel settore della cooperazione informativa e agevolano lo scambio di informazioni operative e tecniche nelle azioni di prevenzione e lotta alla criminalità - specialmente nel settore della protezione dell’economia lecita. La trattazione si conclude con la ricostruzione delle caratteristiche di un modello di rete europea e del ruolo che questo esercita rispetto all’esercizio delle competenze dell’Unione Europea in materia di giustizia e sicurezza.

Tempering the EU? NGO Advocacy in the Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice

The European Union’s (EU) area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) portfolio comprises policy areas such as immigration and asylum, and police and judicial cooperation. Steps were taken to bring this field into the mandate of the EU first by the Maastricht Treaty, followed by changes implemented by the Amsterdam and Lisbon Treaties, the last one ‘normalizing’ the EU’s erstwhile Third Pillar. As the emergent EU regime continues to consolidate in this field, NGOs of various kinds continue to seek to influence policy-making and implementation, with varying success. This article seeks to establish the context in which NGOs carry out their work and argues that the EU-NGO interface is impacted both by the institutional realities of the European Union and the capacities of EU-oriented NGOs to seize and expand opportunities for access and input into the policy cycle. Using EU instruments representing three different policy bundles in AFSJ (immigration, asylum and judicial cooperation in criminal matters), the article seeks to map out NGO strategies in engaging and oftentimes resisting European Union policy instruments.

The ‘Lisbonisation’ of the European Parliament: Assessing progress, shortcomings and challenges for democratic accountability in the area of freedom, security and justice. CEPS Paper on Liberty and Security in Europe No. 58, September 2013

This paper examines the performance of the European Parliament in EU AFSJ law and policy-making from the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty until the end of the first half of 2013. The paper situates the EP in the new post-Lisbon institutional setting, documenting its transition to ‘AFSJ decision-maker’, and its new powers to shape and make policy covering the EU’s internal and external security agenda. While the paper finds that the EP has become an active co-owner of the EU AFSJ post-Lisbon, with the Parliament demonstrating a dynamic adjustment to its new post-Lisbon role and powers, the authors identify a set of new developments and challenges that have arisen in the conduct of democratic accountability by the EP in the AFSJ since 2009, which call for critical reflection ahead of the new parliamentary term 2014-2019 and the post-2014 phase of the EU’s AFSJ.

With or without you...judging politically in the field of Area of Freedom, Security and Justice? Research Papers in Law, 3/2007

From the Introduction. The study of the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) case law of the regarding the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (AFSJ) is fascinating in many ways.1 First, almost the totality of the relevant case law is extremely recent, thereby marking the first ‘foundational’ steps in this field of law. This is the result of the fact that the AFSJ was set up by the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 and only entered into force in May 1999.2 Second, as the AFSJ is a new field of EU competence, it sets afresh all the fundamental questions – both political and legal – triggered by European integration, namely in terms of: a) distribution of powers between the Union and its member states, b) attribution of competences between the various EU Institutions, c) direct effect and supremacy of EU rules, d) scope of competence of the ECJ, and e) measure of the protection given to fundamental rights. The above questions beg for answers which should take into account both the extremely sensible fields of law upon which the AFSJ is anchored, and the EU’s highly inconvenient three-pillar institutional framework.3 Third, and as a consequence of the above, the vast majority of the ECJ’s judgments relating to the AFSJ are a) delivered by the Full Court or, at least, the Grand Chamber, b) with the intervention of great many member states and c) often obscure in content. This is due to the fact that the Court is called upon to set the foundational rules in a new field of EU law, often trying to accommodate divergent considerations, not all of which are strictly legal.4 Fourth, the case law of the Court relating to the AFSJ, touches upon a vast variety of topics which are not necessarily related to one another. This is why it is essential to limit the scope of this study. The content of, and steering for, the AFSJ were given by the Tampere European Council, in October 1999. According to the Tampere Conclusions, the AFSJ should consist of four key elements: a) a common immigration and asylum policy, b) judicial cooperation in both civil and penal matters, c) action against criminality and d) external action of the EU in all the above fields. Moreover, the AFSJ is to a large extent based on the Schengen acquis. The latter has been ‘communautarised’5 by the Treaty of Amsterdam and further ‘ventilated’ between the first and third pillars by decisions 1999/435 and 1999/436.6 Judicial cooperation in civil matters, mainly by means of international conventions (such as the Rome Convention of 1981 on the law applicable to contractual obligations) and regulations (such as (EC) 44/20017 and (EC) 1348/20008) also form part of the AFSJ. However, the relevant case law of the ECJ will not be examined in the present contribution.9 Similarly, the judgments of the Court delivered in the course of Article 226 EC proceedings against member states, will be omitted.10 Even after setting aside the above case law and notwithstanding the fact that the AFSJ only dates as far back as May 1999, the judgments of the ECJ are numerous. A simple (if not simplistic) categorisation may be between, on the one hand, judgments which concern the institutional setting of the AFSJ (para. 2) and, on the other, judgments which are related to some substantive AFSJ policy (para. 3).

The Juncker Commission: A New Start for EU Justice and Home Affairs Policy? CEPS Essay No. 15, 18 September 2014

The team comprising Jean-Claude Juncker’s Commission was revealed on 10 September 2014: does it herald a new start for Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) cooperation in the EU? This essay outlines the main structural and thematic changes introduced by the new Commission, in particular those with direct or indirect relevance to EU JHA or the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) policies. It also reflects on the new institutional configuration and what it means for the substantive work of the new Commission services and for their intra- and inter-institutional relations. The essay concludes with a set of proposed policy priorities for the new Commission.

The European Council’s Guidelines for the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice 2020: Subverting the ‘Lisbonisation’ of Justice and Home Affairs? CEPS Essay No. 13, 14 July 2014

In its Conclusions of 26-27 June 2014, the European Council has adopted the new “Strategic Guidelines for Legislative and Operational Planning for the coming years within the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ)”. These Guidelines reveal a pre-Lisbon Treaty mindset among the EU member states and the Justice and Home Affairs Council. This essay argues that the Guidelines are mainly driven by the interests and agendas of national Ministries of Interior and Justice and are only “strategic” to the extent that they aim at first, re-injecting ‘intergovernmentalism’ or bringing back the old EU Third Pillar ways of working to the new EU institutional setting of the AFSJ and second, at sidelining the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and rule of law in the AFSJ. The paper argues that the European Council Guidelines seek to prevent the advances in Justice and Home Affairs cooperation as envisaged in the Treaty of Lisbon, particularly its emphasis on supranational democratic, legal and judicial accountability. As a consequence of this move to ‘de-Lisbonise’ JHA cooperation, fundamental rights and rule of law-related initiatives will be neglected and the interest of the individual will be displaced from the centre of gravity in the coming AFSJ 2020 policy agenda.

"The Godfather goes to Brussels". A evolução do conceito de crime organizado no contexto da área de liberdade, segurança e justiça

Oartigo tem como objectivo reconstruir de forma crítica o discurso da união europeia relativa-mente ao crime organizado, tentando estabelecer uma relação entre este e um discurso mais lato sobre a criação e desenvolvimento da área de liber-dade, Segurança e Justiça (alsj). ésalientada a forma como os argumen-tos justificadores de uma cooperação mais profunda da alsjassentaram na necessidade de compensar pelas exter-nalidades negativas do mercado interno e de proteger a liberdade de circulação de possíveis abusos. esta tendência levou à gradual institucio-nalização da área de Justiça e assuntos internos a nível europeu, caracterizada por uma luta permanente entre a sua intergovernamentalização e a comuni-tarização This article aims at tracing, critically, the European Union’s discourse on organized crime, by establishing its relation with a wider discourse on the creation and development of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (afsj). It pointed out how the rationale for the afsj’s deeper integration was the need to compensate for the negative externalities of the Internal Market and to protect the liberty of movement from abuse. This trend led to the definition of a balance between freedom and security, characterized by a gradual eu institutionalization of Justice and Home Affairs and a permanent struggle between the intergovernmentalisation and the communitarization of this area.

Constructivism, constitutionalism and the EU's area of freedom security and justice post-Lisbon

This essay addresses the fundamental conceptual challenges which face the development of the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (AFSJ) in the post-Lisbon Treaty era. It argues that Onuf style constructivism is a valid lens with which to examine the development of the AFSJ to date, involving as it does the development of a shared understanding by practitioners, predominantly law enforcement and prosecution professionals, within the structures provided for them, in order to develop a completely new area of law and practice. While this approach will continue to need to be deployed in the development of further new operational areas, such as cybercrime, a new approach is now required, that of constitutionalism. A variety of forms of constitutionalism are then examined in order to establish their suitability as a mode of analysis for these developments.

New challenges for the EU internal security strategy

In recent years, the EU and its member states have experienced a number of changes, as well as challenges, in the areas of politics, economics, security and law. As these areas are interconnected, changes and challenges to any of them have implications for the others, as well as implications for the populations and institutions of the EU or those coming into contact with its international power and influence. This edited collection focuses primarily on security and law, particularly the EU’s internal security strategy. The EU’s Internal Security Strategy, adopted by the Spanish presidency early in 2010, followed the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, building on previous developments within the EU in the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (AFSJ) policy. The focus of the EU Internal Security Strategy is to prevent and combat “serious and organised crime, terrorism and cybercrime, in strengthening the management of our external borders and in building resilience to natural and man-made disasters”. The Internal Security strategy intersects and overlaps with the European Union’s Counter-terrorism strategy, the Strategy for the External Dimension of JHA, and the EU’s Security Strategy. The role of and interaction between these strategies, their supplementing documents, and their implications for crime, victims, the law, political relations, democracy and human rights, form the backdrop against which the chapters in this collection are written. Building on original research by its contributors, this collection comprises work by authors from a wide variety of academic and professional areas and perspectives, as well as different countries, on a variety of areas and issues related to or raised by the EU’s Internal Security Strategy, from intelligence-led policing to human trafficking and port security. This book examines, from a wide variety of disciplinary perspectives including law, geography, politics and practice, both this further refinement of existing internal provisions on cross-border crime, and the increasing external relations of the EU in the AFSJ.