Skip to main content

Asylum Policy: A Measure of the EU’s Fidelity to Its History and Values

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
What Market, What Society, What Union?
  • 96 Accesses

Abstract

In his last book, entitled ‘Amsterdam: From the Market to the European Society’, the late Professor Francisco Lucas Pires singled out the EU’s asylum law and policy as the measure of its fidelity to its history and values. He also expressed the hope that enlarging the ECJ’s jurisdiction in the area of asylum law and policy and elevating the right to request asylum to a constitutional right would remedy the problems arising from the entanglement of law with politics. Although these aspirations subsequently materialized, they were not sufficient to deal with the challenges that the EU and its asylum policy recently faced as a result of the influx of asylum seekers from Syria and other troubled parts of the world. These circumstances ultimately exposed not a legal but a political challenge to transform the European Union in the minds of its citizens from a necessity to a coherent identity.

The author is a senior associate at the International Arbitration Practice of Shearman & Sterling LLP. Prior to that, he was a référendaire for First Advocate General Melchior Wathelet at the European Court of Justice from 2012 to 2018. He is also a Lecturer at the Executive Master of European and International Business Law E.M.B.L.-HSG at the University of St. Gallen. Email: paschalis.paschalidis@shearman.com.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS 137 (entered into force 22 April 1954).

  2. 2.

    Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 4 November 1950, 213 UNTS 221 (entered into force 3 September 1953).

  3. 3.

    Lucas Pires 2020, Chap. 4 in the present book.

  4. 4.

    Hungarian Helsinki Committee 2018.

  5. 5.

    European Parliament, Report on a proposal calling on the Council to determine, pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union, the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values on which the Union is founded, 4 July 2018, A8-0250/2018, para 67. On 24 January 2019, the European Commission announced that it had decided to send a reasoned opinion to Hungary concerning legislation criminalizing activities that support asylum and residence applications and further restricting the right to request asylum (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-469_en.htm).

  6. 6.

    Lucas Pires 2020, Chap. 4 in the present book.

  7. 7.

    [2016] OJ C202/47.

  8. 8.

    The EU-Turkey Statement is available on the European Council’s website (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/03/18/eu-turkey-statement/).

  9. 9.

    Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, [2013] OJ L180/60.

  10. 10.

    See GCEU, NF v European Council, Order, 28 February 2017, T-192/16, EU:T:2017:128, para 73; NG v European Council, Order, 28 February 2017, T-193/16, EU:T:2017:129, para 74; NM v European Council, Order, 28 February 2017, T-257/16, EU:T:2017:130, para 72. The appeals to the ECJ were rejected as manifestly inadmissible (see ECJ, NF and Others v European Council, Order, 12 September 2018, C-208/17 P to C–210/17 P, EU:C:2018:705).

  11. 11.

    Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast), [2013] OJ L180/31.

  12. 12.

    Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, [2008] OJ 2008 L348/98.

  13. 13.

    See Article 2(2) TFEU and Protocol (No 25) on the exercise of shared competence.

  14. 14.

    For the notion of ‘common rules’, see ECJ, EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, Opinion 2/15, 16 May 2017, EU:C:2017:376, paras 231–234.

  15. 15.

    See ECJ, X and X, Judgment, 7 March 2017, C-638/16 PPU, EU:C:2017:173.

  16. 16.

    ECJ, X and X, Opinion of Advocate General Megozzi, 7 February 2017, C-638/16 PPU, EU:C:2017:93, para 175.

  17. 17.

    See ECJ, A.S., Judgment, 26 July 2017, C-490/16, EU:C:2017:585 and Jafari, Judgment, 26 July 2017, C-646/16, EU:C:2017:586.

  18. 18.

    [2015] OJ L248/80.

  19. 19.

    See ECJ, Slovakia and Hungary v Council, Judgment, 6 September 2017, C-643/15 and C-647/15, EU:C:2017:631, paras 58–66.

  20. 20.

    Indeed, Advocate General Wathelet had defended the view that every procedure, according to which the Council must obtain the European Parliament’s consent, such as in the case of approval of international agreements, is a legislative procedure. See ECJ, Council v Front Polisario, Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet, 13 September 2016, C-104/16 P, EU:C:2016:677, paras 151–158.

  21. 21.

    See Slovakia and Hungary v Council, above n 325, para 302.

  22. 22.

    See Treaty of Peace Between the United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan and Poland, 28 June 1919. For a brief description of the treaty and the circumstances that gave rise to it, see Sands 2016, 71–74.

  23. 23.

    See Slovakia and Hungary v Council, above n 325, para 305.

  24. 24.

    See pending proceedings in Commission v Poland (C-715/17), Commission v Hungary (C-718/17) and Commission v Czech Republic (C-719/17).

  25. 25.

    The term ‘European necessity’ is borrowed from Steven Beller who used it to describe the Habsburg Monarchy. He argues that the Habsburg Monarchy was seen as a European necessity by other powers as well as its own nations and people due to its ability to play both sides of its dichotomy as a supra-national, multinational, polyglot, quasi-federated refuge for the small nations of Central Europe and a subordinate part of the great power complex of the greater German Empire. See Beller 2018, 241.

  26. 26.

    Ibid., 283–284.

  27. 27.

    Ibid., 284.

  28. 28.

    A similar conclusion is reached in relation to the failure of the ideology of Ottomanism to unite and embrace all the subjects of the Ottoman Empire, regardless of ethnicity, language or faith. See Şükrü Hanioğlu 2010, 106–107, 209.

  29. 29.

    Ibid., 286.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paschalis Paschalidis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Paschalidis, P. (2020). Asylum Policy: A Measure of the EU’s Fidelity to Its History and Values. In: Lucas Pires, M., Pereira Coutinho, F. (eds) What Market, What Society, What Union?. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-371-9_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-371-9_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-370-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-371-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics