Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T05:25:40.771Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

II. Justice and Home Affairs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Steve Peers
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since the last note on Current Developments in this area, the Amsterdam Treaty has entered into force on 1 May 1999, leading to a number of important developments in the legal system governing EU Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) law. In addition, the Court of Justice has clarified several aspects of the relationship between the first and third pillars.

Type
Current Developments: European Community Law
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , January 2000 , pp. 222 - 227
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See Walker, (1998) 47 I.C.L.Q. 231.Google Scholar

2. Walker supra n.1; see also Peers, , EU Justice and Home Affairs Law (Longman, 2000) ch.3.Google Scholar

3. O.J. 1998, C221; see proposal for Regulation in COM(99)220, 4 May 1999.

4. O.J. 1997, C261; see proposal for Directive in COM(99)219, 4 May 1999.

5. O.J. 1999, C221/8.

6. COM(99)348, 14 Jul. 1999.

7. COM(99)260, 26 May 1999.

8. O.J. 1997, C254.

9. See Dec. 1998 and March 1999 JHA Council Press Releases. The Commission's proposal docs suggest changes as regards the data protection provisions of the text.

10. Not yet published; the previous proposals are respectively Council does. 10225/98 and 10224/98, on line in the Council's JHA website at: http://ue.eu.int/jai/default.asp?lang=en.

11. See the German Presidency's view on the subject in the May 1999 JHA Council Press Release.

12. On these opt-outs, see Walker or Peers, supra note 2 above. Denmark can opt-in to Title IV measures “building on the Schengen acquis,” which arguably encompasses all visa measures.

13. The exception is the UK's refusal to sign the Insolvency Proceedings Convention.

14. See Mar. 1999 JHA Council Press Release.

15. Resolutions on international crime (O.J. 1999, C162/1), counterfeiting the euro (O.J. 1999, C171/1) and a handbook on football hooliganism (O.J. 1999 C196/1); Common Position on Cyber-crime Convention (O.J. 1999, L 142/1).

16. Proposed text at O.J. 1999, C251.

17. Council doc. 9966/99.

18. COM(99)438, 14 Sept. 1999.

19. This proposal (not yet published) is likely a revised version of the proposed Joint Action agreed “politically” at the Dec. 1998 JHA Council (for agreed text, see Press Release of that meeting). It was not adopted before entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam because the EP took some time in subsequently giving its opinion on the proposal.

20. Respectively O.J. 1999. C176/1 and Council doc 9961/99.

21. The Council had earlier agreed on this full coverage (see Resolution on counterfeiting the euro, supra note 15).

22. See Peers, “Caveat Emptor? Integrating the Schengen Acquis into the Union's Legal Order” (forthcoming).

23. O.J. 1999, L 176/1.

24. O.J. 1999, L 176/17.

25. O.J. 1999, L 176/35; see also O.J. 1999, L 176/31, L 176/53 and C211/9.

26. Council doc. 9356/99, on line in JHA website (supra n.10).

27. Council doc. 8562/99.

28. O.J. 1999, L 119/49.

29. O.J. 1999, L 123/49, L 123/51 and L 176/34.

30. See now the challenge to this Decision by a Schengen Secretariat staff member who was not appointed (Case T–107/99 Garcia de Retort, pending).

31. Council doc 6166/2/99.

32. On the Court's JHA jurisdiction, see Peers, “Who's Judging the Watchmen? The Judicial System of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice” (1999) 19 Y.E.L. (forthcoming).

33. See the Court's “Reflection Paper”, attached to http://europa.eu.int/cj/en/pres/persp.htm.

34. See http://europa.cu.int/cj/en/txts/txt5a.pdf.

35. All except the UK, France, Ireland and Denmark. See O.J. 1999, C120/24.

36. All except Spain. Most have reserved the option to compel “top” courts to refer cases.

37. There are no binding post-Amsterdam third pillar measures yet, but in accordance with the Schengen Protocol, the Court had Title VI jurisdiction from May 1999 over the portions of the Schengen acquis allocated to the third pillar.

38. Case C–170/98 Commission v. Council [1998] E.C.R. 1–2763.

39. The Commission has already argued that the proposed third pillar Decision on counterfeit travel documents (supra n.20) falls within the first pillar.

40. Case T–174/95 Svenska Journalistforbundet [1998[ E.C.R. 11–2289.

41. Case C–378/97, judgment of 21 Sept 1999 (not yet reported).

42. O.J. 1999, C19/1.