Search

In deze kroniek wordt onder meer aandacht besteed aan de verdergaande bewaking van de buiten- en binnengrenzen van Europa, de veranderde rechtspositie van criminele vreemdelingen, de op stapel staande wijzigingen van het Europees asielrecht en het verlagen van de waarborgen van de Nederlandse asielprocedure tot het Europees minimum. Uit de recente ontwikkelingen blijkt dat we in Nederland en Europa telkens weer geneigd zijn om de teugels van het migratierecht nog wat verder aan te trekken. Wat zal, gelet hierop, het komende jaar brengen?

In 2015-2016, migration towards Europe has pressured on the EU asylum and migration systems, challenging the adequacy of the legal design of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). This impact on the implementation of both the CEAS and national asylum systems in practice called theurther harmonisation into question. This baseline study provides a comprehensive overview of the commentaries and evaluations that were made on the functioning of the CEAS between January 2014 and December 2017. The baseline study examines in particular the EU wide responses to the high influx of refugees, the hotspot approach, and the implementation and effectiveness of the Dublin system with regard to the determination of the responsible state for an asylum application. Furthermore, this study provides an overview of the main comments and evaluations dealing with the Procedure Directive, the Qualification Directive, and the Reception Directive, also taking into account new proposals of the European Commission.

Het migratiebeleid blijft de grenzen van wat onder het (Europees) recht betamelijk is nadrukkelijk opzoeken, zoals we dat onderhand wel gewend zijn. Dat levert dan ook nogal eens knetterend juridisch materiaal op. Een representatieve greep daaruit vindt u in deze kroniek. Hoe het Nederlandse beleid onder een nieuw kabinet ook zal uitpakken, de vraag hoe dit zich verhoudt tot het eveneens in beweging zijnde Europese recht blijft reuze spannend. En dat vindt de Raad van State kennelijk nu ook al. Dat valt af te leiden uit de opmerkelijke hoeveelheid prejudiciële vragen die zij de afgelopen maanden stelde.

In the YS. and M. and S. judgment, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on three procedures in which Dutch judges asked for clarification on the right of asylum seekers to have access to the documents regarding the decision on asylum applications. The judgment is relevant for interpreting the concept of personal data and the scope of the right of access under the Data Protection Directive, and the right to good administration in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. At first glance, the judgment seems disappointing from the viewpoint of individual rights. Nevertheless, in our view the judgment provides sufficient grounds for effective access rights to the minutes in future asylum cases.

The European Commission presented the ‘EU Passenger Name Record (PNR) system’ in 2007 as a tool in the fight against terrorism and organised crime. One of the proposed instruments of this system is the Framework Decision on the use of PNR, which provides for the storage and exchange of passenger data between EU member states and between member states and non-EU countries. Current Council proposals make clear that the passenger data may also be used to investigate other (serious) crimes or to prevent illegal immigration, which raises both practical and legal concerns. This paper describes the legal implications of the EU PNR system, focusing in particular on international human rights standards. It is to be hoped that, when preparing the so-called ‘Stockholm programme’, including a new multiannual programme for policies in the field of freedom, security and justice, both the EU institutions and member states will take these standards sufficiently into account.

The recent proposals of the European Commission for a European Border Management Strategy are based on an almost blind faith in the use of large-scale databases, identification measures and biometrics for immigration and border control purposes. It is clear that these measures entail a risk to the protection of not only the right to privacy and the right to data protection, but also to the freedom of movement and the principle of non-discrimination. This paper by Evelien Brouwer, lecturer at the Law School of Utrecht University, considers the human rights implications of the Schengen Information System (SIS). Describing the case of Mr. and Mrs. Moon, who have been reported as “inadmissible” in the SIS for more than ten years, the difficulties for third-country nationals trying to remedy a false or unlawful SIS report are highlighted. The Moon case illustrates that the outcome of national proceedings dealing with an SIS alert can be very different. The author concludes with recommendations to guarantee individuals’ rights to effective remedies and to improve the position and powers of national courts.