AG Mengozzi’s conclusion in X and X v. Belgium on the positive obligation to issue humanitarian visas. A legitimate plea to ensure safe journeys for refugees. CEPS Policy Insights No 2017/09, March 2017

Introduction – Findings of the Advocate General On 7 February 2017, Advocate General (AG) Paolo Mengozzi published his opinion in the case X and X v Belgium, C-638/16 PPU, in which he concluded that EU member states have a positive obligation to issue a humanitarian visa to Syrian families based on the Visa Code and their obligations under Article 4 of the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights (CFR) to protect individuals against inhuman and degrading treatment or torture. Even if there may be doubts whether the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will follow the reasoning of the AG, his conclusions have been welcomed by many who criticise the current EU governments for their lack of an effective and humanitarian response to the current refugee crisis.

The European Court of Justice on Humanitarian Visas: Legal integrity vs. political opportunism? CEPS Commentary, 16 March 2017

Even before the outcome of the case between Syrian asylum-seekers v. the Belgian state (X and X v. Belgium) was known, on the morning of the 7th of March 2017 a Dutch newspaper printed the headline: “Decision of the European Court today could lay a bomb under the European asylum system”.1 Well, it did not. In X and X v. Belgium, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decided to take a rather formal, possibly even politically motivated approach, concluding that member states have no positive obligation to issue humanitarian visa to Syrian families, even if they are at risk of ill treatment, in violation of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights

Large-scale databases and interoperability in migration and border policies:The Non-Discriminatory Approach of Data Protection

In the EU, different measures have been adopted with regard to the storage and exchange of personal data of third-country nationals for external border controls. Large-scale databases and risk assessment are used to facilitate the entry of those considered as ‘bona fide travelers' and to identify those considered as a risk of irregular migration or security threat. The purposes of existing databases have been gradually extended, blurring the line between the objectives of immigration control and security and law enforcement. Emphasizing the non-discriminatory approach of data protection and applying criteria from the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), this contribution questions the legitimacy of these measures from the perspective of the principles of necessity and proportionality, purpose limitation, and the prohibition of automated-decision making

Aansprakelijkheid Frontex voor schade na terugkeeroperaties: vragen bij de benadering van het Gerecht

In de uitspraak WS e.a./Frontex van 6 september 2023 besluit het Gerecht dat Frontex niet aansprakelijk kan worden gesteld voor schade die voor een Syrisch gezin is ontstaan nadat het in een door Frontex gecoördineerde terugkeeroperatie is uitgezet naar Turkije. Volgens het Gerecht kan de causaliteit tussen het vermeend onrechtmatig handelen van dit agentschap en door eisers geleden schade niet worden aangetoond. In deze bijdrage worden vraagtekens geplaatst bij de gekozen benadering van het Gerecht. In de eerste plaats wordt betoogd dat het Gerecht in plaats van te kijken naar de besluiten waarvoor Frontex niet verantwoordelijk is, had moeten beoordelen of Frontex zijn verplichtingen ten aanzien van de bescherming van grondrechten bij terugkeeroperatie voldoende had nageleefd. Ten tweede is het de vraag of het Gerecht zich in deze specifieke zaak niet actiever had moeten opstellen: vanwege de in het geding zijnde grondrechten en met name het non-refoulementbeginsel, maar ook de ongelijke machtsverhouding tussen eisers en Frontex

Schengen Entry Bans for Political Reasons?: The Case of Lyudmyla Kozlovska

On 13 August 2018, Lyudmyla Kozlovska, an Ukrainian national and the President of the Open Dialog Foundation (ODF) in Poland, was detained at Brussels airport on the basis of a Polish entry ban reported into the Schengen Information System (SIS II). One day later, the Belgian border authorities deported her to Kiev, Ukraine. This case raises questions on the discretionary power of states to use the SIS II for entry bans on ‘unwanted migrants’ and the obligation of executing states, in this case Belgium, to check the legitimacy or proportionality of these other states decisions. Furthermore, this case illustrates the necessity of effective remedies against decisions reported in large-scale databases such as SIS

What is happening to the Schengen borders? CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe No. 86, December 2015

What is happening to the Schengen borders? Is Schengen in ‘crisis’? This paper examines the state of play in the Schengen system in light of the developments during 2015. It critically examines the assertion that Schengen is ‘in crisis’ and seeks to set the record straight on what has been happening to the intra-Schengen border-free and common external borders system. The paper argues that Schengen is here to stay and that reports about the reintroduction of internal border checks are exaggerated as they are in full compliance with the EU rule of law model laid down in the Schengen Borders Code and subject to scrutiny by the European Commission. It also examines the legal challenges inherent to police checks within the internal border areas as having an equivalent effect to border checks as well as the newly adopted proposal for a European Border and Coast Guard system. The analysis shows that the most far-reaching challenge to the current and future configurations of EU border policies relates to ensuring that they are in full compliance with fundamental human rights obligations to refugees, effective accountability and independent monitoring of the implementation of EU legal standards. This should be accompanied by a transparent and informed discussion on which ‘Schengen’ and which 'common European Border and Coast Guard Agency' we exactly want within current democratic rule of law and fundamental rights remits

An Analysis of the Schengen Area in the Wake of Recent Developments. 30 June 2016. CEPS researchers’ work published externally

This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizen’s Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the LIBE Committee, analyses the Schengen area in the wake of the European ‘refugee crisis’ and other recent developments. With several Member States reintroducing temporary internal border controls over recent months, the study assesses compliance with the Schengen governance framework in this context. Despite suggestions that the end of Schengen is nigh or arguments that there is a need to get ‘back to Schengen’, the research demonstrates that Schengen is alive and well and that border controls have, at least formally, complied with the legal framework. Nonetheless, better monitoring and democratic accountability are necessary