Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T21:01:21.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Securing the EU Public Order: Between an Economic and Political Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Michiel Besters  and
Milda Macenaite

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Until recently, throughout the European Union's integration process, public order and internal security matters have been marked by a concern and respect for the national sovereignty of the EU Member States. Member States enjoyed their respective regulatory autonomy, as public order and internal security matters were dealt with at the EU level merely on the basis of the internal market logic. This is particularly evident in Articles 45(3) and 52 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). These Articles establish the exceptions of public policy and public security as grounds that may be invoked by the Member States to limit the fundamental right to free movement. These grounds have been primarily viewed as deriving from impediments to the creation of the common market.

Type
Lisbon vs. Lisbon Part IV: Security and the EU Public Order
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 14 , Issue 10: Special Issue—Lisbon vs. Lisbon , 01 October 2013 , pp. 2075 - 2089
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Monar, Jörg, The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, in Principles of European Constitutional Law 551, 555 (Armin von Bogdandy & Jürgen Bast eds., 2010).Google Scholar

2 Treaty of Amsterdam Amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties Establishing the European Communities and Certain Related Acts, Oct. 2, 1997, 1997 O.J. (C 340) 1.Google Scholar

3 The Agreement signed in Schengen, Luxembourg, (“Schengen Agreement”) on 14 June 1985 by the three States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic, and Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (CISA), signed on 19 June 1990. Council Decision 1999/435, art. 1(2), 2000 O.J. (L 239) 1 (EC).Google Scholar

4 Annex to the Communication for the Commission, Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: Assessment of the Tampere Programme and Future Orientations, at 4, COM (2004) 401 final, SEC (2004) 693 final (June 2, 2004).Google Scholar

5 Lavenex, S. & Wallace, W., Justice and Home Affairs. Towards a ‘European Public Order,’ in Policy-Making in the European Union 457, 457–480 (Helen Wallace, William Wallace & Mark A. Pollack eds., 2005); Dino Rinoldi, L'ordine pubblico europeo (2008).Google Scholar

6 Walker, Neil, In Search of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: A Constitutional Odyssey, in Europe's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice 3–37 (Neil Walker ed., 2004).Google Scholar

7 Twomey, Patrick, Constructing a Secure Space: The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, in Legal Issues of the Amsterdam Treaty 351 (David O'Keeffe & Patrick Twomey eds., 1999); Hans K. Lindahl, Finding a Place for Freedom, Security and Justice: The European Union and its Claim to Territorial Unity, 29(4) Eur. L. Rev. 461 (2004). Notice that the absence of internal borders is not the same as the freedom of movement: “[I]t should be noted, however, that in the context of the AFSJ the ‘free movement of persons’ is essentially defined through the absence of controls on persons at internal borders … no reference is being made in this context to the fundamental (market) freedoms under Community law, which arguably contribute to an ‘area without internal borders’ in a different sense.” Monar, supra note 1, at 555.Google Scholar

8 Sergio Carrera, Marie De Somer & Petkova, Bilyana, The Court of Justice of the European Union as a Fundamental Rights Tribunal: Challenges for the Effective Delivery of Fundamental Rights in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (Ctr. for Eur. Policy Studies, Working Paper No. 49, 2012).Google Scholar

9 Council Directive 2004/38, 2004 O.J. (L 158) 77 (EC).Google Scholar

10 Kessedjian, Catherine, Public Order in European Law, 1 Erasmus L. Rev. 25, 28 (2007).Google Scholar

11 Case C-41/74, Yvonne van Duyn v. Home Office, 1974 E.C.R. 1337.Google Scholar

12 Case C-50/06, Comm'n v. Netherlands, 2007 E.C.R. I-4383. For a conceptual analysis of the notion of public policy, see Hans Lindahl, Discretion and Public Policy: Timing the Unity and Divergence of Legal Orders, in The Coherence of EU Law: The Search for Unity in Divergent Concepts 291 (Sacha Prechal & Bert van Roermund eds., 2008).Google Scholar

13 Case C-30/77, Regina v. Pierre Bouchereau, 1977 E.C.R. 1999. See also Case C-36/75, Rutili v. Minister of the Interior, 1975 E.C.R. 1219; Joined Cases C-482/01 & C-493/01, Georgios v. Land Baden-Württemburg, 2004 E.C.R. I-5257.Google Scholar

14 N. Rogers, R. Scannell & Walsh, J., Free Movement of Persons in the Enlarged European Union 256 (2nd ed. 2012).Google Scholar

15 Case C-434/10, Petar Aladzhov v. Zamestnik director na Stolichna direktsia na vatreshnite raboti kam Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti, 2011 E.C.R. I-0000.Google Scholar

16 Id. Google Scholar

17 Case C-423/98, Alfredo Albore, 2000 E.C.R. I-5965; Case C-285/98, Kreil v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 2000 E.C.R. I-69.Google Scholar

18 Communication on Guidance for Better Transposition and Application of Directive 2004/38/EC on the Right of Citizens of the Union and Their Family Members to Move and Reside Freely within the Territory of the Member States, para. 3.1, COM (2009) 313 final (July 2, 2009) [hereinafter Communication on Guidance for Better Transposition].Google Scholar

19 Case C-100/01, Ministre de l'Intérieur v. Olazabal, 2002 E.C.R. I–10981.Google Scholar

20 Case C-348/09, P.I. v. Oberbürgermeisterin der Stadt Remscheid, 2012 E.C.R. I-0000.Google Scholar

21 Case C-145/09, Land Baden-Württemberg v. Panagiotis Tsakouridis, 2010 E.C.R. I-11979.Google Scholar

22 See Case C-348/09, P.I. v. Oberbürgermeisterin der Stadt Remscheid, 2012 E.C.R. I-0000, ¶ 38.Google Scholar

23 See, e.g., Case C-355/98, Comm'n v. Belgium, 2000 E.C.R. I-01221; Case C-54/99, Association Eglise de Scientologie de Paris v. The Prime Minister, 2000 E.C.R. I–1355. Cf. Kessedjian, supranote 10, at 29.Google Scholar

24 Cf. Ferdinand Wollenschläger, A New Fundamental Freedom Beyond Market Integration: Union Citizenship and its Dynamics for Shifting the Economic Paradigm of European Integration, 17 Eur. L.J. 1, 17 (2011). See Case C-33/07, Ministerul Administraţiei şi Internelor - Direcţia Generală de Paşapoarte Bucureşti v. Gheorghe Jipa, 2008 E.C.R. I-05157.Google Scholar

25 Council Directive 2004/38, art. 28(1-3), 2004 O.J. (L 158) 77 (EC).Google Scholar

26 Id. at art. 28(1).Google Scholar

27 Communication on Guidance for Better Transposition, supra note 18, ¶ 3.1.Google Scholar

28 Id. Google Scholar

29 Id. ¶ 49.Google Scholar

30 Id. ¶ 41.Google Scholar

31 For a normative analysis of this problem, see A Right to Inclusion and Exclusion? Normative Fault Lines of the EU's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (Hans Lindahl ed., 2009).Google Scholar

32 On the co-ordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals that are justified on grounds of public policy, public security, or public health, see Council Directive 64/211 2001 O.J. (C 270E) 150 (EEC).Google Scholar

33 The Directive 2004/38/EC amends Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on Freedom of Movement for Workers within the Community and repeals the following acts: Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families, Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to establishment and the provision of services, Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence, Council Directive 90/365/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence for employees and self-employed persons who have ceased their occupational activity and Council Directive 93/96/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the right of residence for students. The Directive also includes relevant case law of the CJEU. Council Directive 2004/38, 2004 O.J. (L 158) 77 (EC).Google Scholar

34 See Council Decision 1999/435, supra note 3, at Title IV.Google Scholar

35 See id. at art. 96.Google Scholar

36 Case C-67/74, Carmelo Angelo Bonsignore v. Oberstadtdirektor der Stadt Köln, 1975 E.C.R. 00297.Google Scholar

37 Case C-30/77, Regina v. Pierre Bouchereau, 1977 E.C.R. I-01999, ¶ 35; Case C-36/75, Rutili v. Minister of the Interior, 1975 E.C.R. I-01219, ¶ 28; Joined Cases C-482/01 & C-493/01 Georgios Orfanopoulos, Raffaele Oliveri v. Land Baden-Württemburg, 2004 E.C.R. I-05257, ¶ 66.Google Scholar

38 Case C-30/77, Regina v. Pierre Bouchereau, 1977 E.C.R. I-01999, ¶ 28. See also, inter alia, Case C-348/96, Criminal Proceedings Against Donatella Calfa, 1999 E.C.R. I-11; Case C-503/03, Comm'n v. Spain, 2006 E.C.R. I– 1097; Case C-441/02, Comm'n v. Germany, 2006 E.C.R. I-3449.Google Scholar

39 Case C-19/92, Kraus v. Land Baden-Wuerttemberg, 1993 E.C.R. I-01663; Case C-55/94, Reinhard Gebhard v. Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano, 1996 E.C.R. I-04165.Google Scholar

40 Directive 2004/38/EC, supra note 9, art. 27(2).Google Scholar

Measures taken on grounds of public policy or public security shall comply with the principle of proportionality and shall be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned. Previous criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for taking such measures. The personal conduct of the individual concerned must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. Justifications that are isolated from the particulars of the case or that rely on considerations of general prevention shall not be accepted.

Id.

41 The issue of “general prevention” is particularly significant in light of Germany's track record regarding Article 96 alerts. See Evelien Brouwer, Digital Borders and Real Rights: Effective Remedies for Third Country Nationals in the Schengen Information System 371 (2008).Google Scholar

42 Oosterom-Staples, Helen, Botsende openbare-orderbegrippen in het Europese Migratierecht, 12 Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees Recht [NtEr] 169, 177 (2006) (Neth.).Google Scholar

43 In the Carpenter case the grounds of public policy and public security were invoked under the general limitation clause of Article 52 of the Charter. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Oct. 26, 2012, 2012 O.J. (C 326) 406. This Article states, “any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized by this Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality,” the article continues, “limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognized by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.” Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Oct. 26, 2012, 2012 O.J. (C 326) 391, 406.Google Scholar

44 Regulation 1612/68, 1968 O.J. (L 257) 2 (EEC).Google Scholar

45 Costello, Cathryn, Metock: Free Movement and “Normal Family life” in the Union, 46 Common Mkt L. Rev. 587, 588 (2009).Google Scholar

46 Case C-5/88, Hubert Wachauf v. Bundesamt für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft, 1989 E.C.R. 2609.Google Scholar

47 Case C-127/08, Metock v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, 2008 E.C.R. I-6241; Case C-441/02, Comm'n v. Germany, 2006 E.C.R. I-3449; Case C-157/03, Comm'n v. Spain, 2005 E.C.R. I-2911; Case C-109/01, Akrich, 2003 E.C.R. I-9607; Case C-540/03, Parliament v. Council, 2006 E.C.R. I-5769.Google Scholar

48 Case C-503/03, Comm'n v. Spain, 2006 E.C.R. I-01097, ¶ 47.Google Scholar

49 See the contribution of Chiara Raucea to this volume for a thorough analysis of the relevant CJEU case law. See generally Chiara Raucea, Fundamental Rights: The Missing Pieces of European Citizenship?, 14 German L.J. XX (2013).Google Scholar

50 Id. Google Scholar

51 Kingreen, Thorsten, Fundamental Freedoms, in Principles of European Constitutional Law 515, 544 (Armin von Bogdandy & Jürgen Bast eds., 2010).Google Scholar

52 Case C-60/00, Carpenter v. Sec'y of State for the Home Dep't, 2002 E.C.R. I-6279.Google Scholar

53 Id. ¶ 43.Google Scholar

54 Id. ¶ 44.Google Scholar

55 Id. Google Scholar

56 Id. ¶ 41.Google Scholar

57 Kingreen, supra note 51, at 543–44.Google Scholar

58 Emphasizing that “economic, social and territorial cohesion” is a precondition for the EU to succeed as a collective enterprise, the Europe 2020 strategy is a nice illustration of what we could call the EU's “exclusive” approach. See Europe 2020, A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth, COM (2010) 2020 final (March 3, 2010).Google Scholar