23 July 2018
David Moya, a law professor at the University of Barcelona, has argued that following the Supreme Court judgment, "similar suits could be filed in other EU countries to force Governments through judicial suits and/or injunctions to reach those quotas or to look for equivalent remedies."
See the judgment: 1.168/2018 (9 July 2018, pdf) and the article by David Moya: Are National Governments Liable if They Miss Their Relocation Quota of Refugees? (Verfassungsblog, link)
"Last week, the Spanish Supreme Court declared that between 2015 and 2017 the Government of Spain had failed to relocate 19.449 refugees from Greece and Italy. The Court considered in its Judgement of 9th July of 2018 that Spain was bound by two Council Decisions of May and September 2015 establishing an EU Emergency Relocation Mechanism aimed at distributing some of the refugees that arrived at their coasts during the so-called refugee crisis (see some key documents here). The relocation mechanism included a table with the number of refugees Member States were obliged to accommodate in their own international protection systems (quota).
(...) the Court finds that Spain was not diligent enough in providing the relocation mechanism with sufficient and timely relocation options for the managers of the mechanism to send refugees relocated from Greece or Italy. The Court does not go further to admit as the plaintiffs requested that the Spanish Government acted in bad faith slowing down the process and disincentivizing the relocation to Spain, by providing each month purposefully insignificant numbers to avoid being sent larger groups of refugees. Nevertheless, the Court considers that the effort made by Spain was clearly insufficient to reach its 19.449 quota of refugees. Having relocated less than 13% of its quota, we could say that the Supreme Court was more than generous in considering it was only insufficient diligence instead of a tactic to slow down the relocation of refugees as the NGO tried to argue...
Summing up, the Spanish Supreme Courts Judgement opens several questions and even some avenues of action that show transnational potential. First of all, it is reasonable to ask ourselves why the European Commission was so mild with the Member States given their overall low rates of fulfilment of their refugee quotas; more specifically, why did it not start infringement proceedings against the Member States that were most ineffective in supporting the relocation mechanism although it was asked to do so by several NGOs? And second, and more importantly, if the Spanish Supreme Court is right in its reasoning, similar suits could be filed in other EU countries to force Governments through judicial suits and/or injunctions to reach those quotas or to look for equivalent remedies. If that would be the case, Governments would be forced to stay loyal to their solidarity duties and to contribute in good faith to established mechanisms for burden sharing."
See also: Visegrad nations united against mandatory relocation quotas(EurActiv, link):
"When it comes to migration and refugees, the Visegrad 4 governments speak with one voice: the EU should abandon any idea of a compulsory mechanism for refugee relocation. EURACTIVs network reports."
End of the infamous EU refugee "relocation" scheme (27 February 2018)
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.