I've seen an advance copy of the proposal to amend the Schengen Borders Code that the Commission is due to table tomorrow. Some key excerpts follow. (It's possible that there will be some last-minute changes to this draft).
There would be new rules dealing with Belarus-type situations, defined here. This is on top of the temporary changes to asylum law proposed two weeks ago.
The substance of the proposed new Belarus rules - the limitation of border crossing points. Note that the right to asylum is protected. (What happens in practice might be different)
Also possibly some new border surveillance rules and recommendations by the Frontex boss
Covid! Currently there's soft law (ie non-binding) on external border control re covid. Commission says it's not applied consistently in practice. Proposes a framework for the Council to adopt binding law.
Some groups of people would be exempt
Further details of external borders and covid
An overhaul of the rules on internal border checks. Still banned in principle but changes to the exceptions, including more police checks *near* the border
A new possibility to return unauthorised entrants quickly to another Member State. The returns directive would be amended to match. The annex includes a right to appeal.
Remember all this would have to be agreed by the Council (qualified majority vote) and European Parliament, which is not guaranteed. They failed to agree on the Commission's last proposal re internal border checks, tabled in 2017 (to be withdrawn).
At first glance there's nothing here of specific relevance to Brexit. Those Brexit supporters who wanted the UK to be a non-EU country without free movement will presumably still be refraining from whining that they got what they asked for /s
Full text of the draft proposal to amend the Schengen Borders Code here
Note that there will be *two* proposals today - not only the amendments to the Borders Code, but also a separate proposal on the Belarus situation. Both are separate from the emergency temporary proposal on that situation tabled two weeks ago.
Official version of proposals to a) amend the Schengen Borders Code and b) to set up a permanent framework to respond to Belarus situations by suspending some EU immigration and asylum law - ec.europa.eu/commission/pre…
The latter proposal is very similar to the proposal for temporary exceptions to EU asylum law which the EU Commission tabled two weeks ago.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.