EU Commission proposal re emergency measures for Poland, Latvia and Lithuania re asylum applications at border with Belarus - ec.europa.eu/commission/pre…
Creates temporary exceptions re EU law asylum procedures, fast-track returns, reception conditions
I'm absent from Twitter in principle during the USS strike action - but I'm making an exception to tweet about this, as it's an emergency proposal on the human rights of people starving/freezing to death on the border.
More when the full text is available
Full text of proposal for emergency measures re EU asylum law and Poland, Lithuania and Latvia re Belarus border now published - ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/p…
Comments to follow
Striking that Lithuania has received EU support re beds and heating for the people needing it, while the implication is that Latvia and Poland turned that support down. I hope that they are providing their own support where needed.
The proposal starts with some exceptions from EU law on asylum procedures. Note that it does *not* provide for an exception from the basic rule that Member States must consider asylum applications made at the border.
The three Member States may set different modalities of support for the basic needs of asylum seekers, but this is *not* an exception from the whole reception conditions Directive, and there is still an explicit obligation to provide for basic needs in some form.
For failed asylum seekers, those Member States can derogate from the whole Returns Directive (which concerns the status and treatment of irregular migrants), but in fact certain parts of this Directive would still have to be complied with.
There would have to be procedural guarantees for the people concerned.
Part of the clause on support from Frontex. The proposal also includes support from the EU asylum agency and Europol.
It would apply for six months but could be extended or repealed. Also applies to those already on the territory or those still awaiting a decision when it expires.
Remember the Council can amend this proposal (or refuse to adopt it) - vote is by a qualified majority. The European Parliament is only consulted on such emergency measures.
The EU previously adopted emergency asylum laws re the perceived asylum crisis in 2015 and one of them was unsuccessfully challenged before the CJEU. The details are different but that judgment might be partly relevant by analogy.
1/ Imagine taking this guy seriously as a source of interpretation of EU law. In my field, the ultimate example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Let's look at the claim in more detail.
2/ "illegal": Digital Services Act expressly provides for the possible negotiation of commitments from the platform
"Secret": Art 80 DSA expressly requires publication of those commitments
"Other platforms did a deal": according to the Commission, all other cases are pending
2/ "illegal": Digital Services Act expressly provides for the possible negotiation of commitments from the platform
"Secret": Art 80 DSA expressly requires publication of those commitments
"Other platforms did a deal": according to the Commission, all other cases are pending
2/ EU/UK youth mobility treaty proposal - questions and answers
Note equal treatment in tuition fees, points re traineeships, visa fees, health surcharges, application to all Member States - would UK government accept all this? (Also a question to ask Labour)
3/ EU/UK proposed youth mobility treaty - text of proposed Council decision and explanatory memo
Note it would also include family reunion (not further detailed at this point). Dispute settlement system of the Brexit deal would apply (not the CJEU) commission.europa.eu/publications/c…
2/ The context of the bill is the recently agreed Rwanda treaty. The issues in clause 1.3 *might* be enough to convince courts to change their mind on the safety of Rwanda since the Supreme Court judgment, but as we'll see it's a moot point: the bill dispenses with courts anyway.
3/ clause 1.4.b is correct: an Act of Parliament that breaches international law is still valid *domestic* law. BUT it will remain a breach of international law.
(We are likely to hear from people who do not understand these basic points)
2/ The spiel in the link confuses the two EU courts, which is not impressive. In fact the applicants in this case lost earlier in the EU General Court, then lost their appeal this year to the CJEU. And this omits to point out that the CJEU had ruled on the substance in June 2022.
3/ My comments on the previous judgment: '.
Because the Court ruled here that Brits lost EU citizenship because UK left the EU, it said this year that Brits had no legal interest to sue the EU to challenge the withdrawal agreement to get it back.eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2022/06/its-en…
Profoundly ignorant on both points. A) the Good Friday Agreement requires compliance with the ECHR. That necessarily entails the Strasbourg Court. There's no legal route to saying that it applies but to the peace process only. 1/
2/ And the idea that it applies to the "peace process" but not "foreign nationals" is confused - for the obvious reason that some of those covered by the former ground may be Irish citizens.
3/ The Strasbourg Court jurisdiction is relevant to Northern Ireland for a very, very obvious reason: it had ruled that the UK had breached the ECHR in Northern Ireland after British courts had ruled that it had not. "Just rely on British courts" therefore misses the point.