01 March 2017
EU-Turkey deal: who is responsible? Not the EU, says the Court of Justice
Follow us: | | Tweet
Press release: The General Court declares that it lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the actions brought by three asylum seekers against the EU-Turkey statement which seeks to resolve the migration crisis (28 February 2017, pdf)
And the "deal": EU-Turkey statement, 18 March 2016 (pdf)
As summarised in the court's press release (emphasis in original):
"In the orders made today, the General Court declares that it lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the actions pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, and, accordingly, dismisses them.
In those orders, the Court states, first of all, that there were inaccuracies in the press release of 18 March 2016 regarding the identification of the authors of the EU-Turkey statement as the press release indicates, first, that it was the EU, and not its Member States, which had agreed on the additional action points referred to in that statement and, secondly, that it was the Members of the European Council who had met with their Turkish counterpart during the meeting of 18 March 2016 which gave rise to that press release.
The Court takes the view that the evidence, provided by the European Council and relating to the meetings on the migration crisis held successively in 2015 and 2016 between the Heads of State or Government of the Member States and their Turkish counterpart, shows that it was not the EU but its Member States, as actors under international law, that conducted negotiations with Turkey in that area, including on 18 March 2016.
The Court holds that it was in this latter capacity that, on 18 March 2016, the Heads of State or Government of the Member States met with their Turkish counterpart to discuss the migration crisis and proceeded to adopt the EU-Turkey statement, the main points of which were set out in the press release of the same day.
The Court therefore considers that neither the European Council nor any other institution of the EU decided to conclude an agreement with the Turkish Government on the subject of the migration crisis. In the absence of any act of an institution of the EU, the legality of which it could review under Article 263 TFEU, the Court declares that it lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the actions brought by the three asylum seekers."
Further reading: The todays Court (non) decision on the (non) EU deal(?) with Turkey(FREE Group, link)
"Even assuming that the Court has no competence to intervene in such a case, the real problem is that apparently the General Court does not object on the fact that all the members of an EU institution can adopt measures falling in the EU competence without being bound by the EU law (procedural and material). This fuzziness on the legal nature of the EU-Turkey statement paves the way on further questions. Do the EU Member States have the power to act in a matter which is already covered by EU measures such as the EU-Turkey readmission agreement? Does this behavior comply with the principle of sincere cooperation between the MS and the EU institutions and notably the European Parliament which will be under the moral obligation to implement measures which it has not approved?"
Spotted an error? If you've spotted a problem with this page, just click once to let us know.
Statewatch does not have a corporate view, nor does it seek to create one, the views expressed are those of the author. Statewatch is not responsible for the content of external websites and inclusion of a link does not constitute an endorsement. Registered UK charity number: 1154784. Registered UK company number: 08480724. Registered company name: The Libertarian Research & Education Trust. Registered office: c/o MDR, 88 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1DH, UK. © Statewatch ISSN 1756-851X. Personal usage as private individuals "fair dealing" is allowed. We also welcome links to material on our site. Usage by those working for organisations is allowed only if the organisation holds an appropriate licence from the relevant reprographic rights organisation (eg: Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK) with such usage being subject to the terms and conditions of that licence and to local copyright law.