The European Court of Justice (CJEU) ruled on Thursday 2 April in favour of the European Commission, which in 2017 prosecuted Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic for refusing to implement two decisions on the relocation of 160,000 asylum seekers from Greece and Italy (joined cases C-715/17, C-718/17 and C-719/17).
In a judgment, the Court confirmed the conclusions of the Advocate General (see EUROPE 12361/2) and concluded that these countries could not “rely on either their responsibilities for the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security or on the alleged malfunctioning of the relocation mechanism” in order to evade this responsibility.
This judgment was welcomed by the European Commission. Its President, Ursula von der Leyen, described it as useful for the forthcoming work on the Pact on Asylum and Migration, which is due to be presented “after Easter”. “This judgment is important, [because] it refers to the past and will guide us for the future”, she said.
Through a binding decision, the Commission asked Member States in September 2015 to relieve Greece and Italy by taking responsibility for a total of 120,000 asylum seekers (see EUROPE 11394/1).
Before the summer of 2015, the Commission had made the same appeal, but on a voluntary basis, for 40,000 people. Once again, Poland and the Czech Republic did not respond, while this first appeal was not relevant to Hungary, as it was faced with numerous migrants arriving on its territory.
With regard to the September decision rendered by the Court, Poland had indicated in December 2015 that 100 people could be rapidly relocated on its territory, without however concretising this announcement. Hungary, for its part, “at no time indicated a number of persons who could be relocated on its territory”. In February and May 2016, the Czech Republic had indicated that it would relocate 50 people, but in the end, 12 persons were received from Greece. These shortcomings led the Commission to prosecute the three countries.
In their defence, the Member States argued that the relocation decisions had expired in September 2017 and that they could therefore no longer remedy these shortcomings. This argument was rejected by the Court.
The European judge also rejected Poland and Hungary’s argument that the relocation decisions encroached on their authority to maintain public order and to safeguard internal security.
The Court held that the use of Article 72 TFEU by these three countries to justify their exclusive authority does not confer on them the power to derogate but, on the contrary, requires them to prove the need for such derogation.
And while a wide margin of discretion must be given to the competent authorities when determining whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a national who is to be relocated may constitute a danger, these authorities must rely on “a case-by-case examination of consistent, objective and precise elements leading to the suspicion that the applicant in question represents an actual or potential danger”.
Therefore, the relevant countries could not peremptorily invoke a refusal to relocate without substantiating these risks.
Finally, the Court refutes the Czech Republic’s argument concerning the malfunctioning of the relocation mechanism. Allowing a Member State to unilaterally determine that the relocation mechanism is inefficient or dysfunctional would be tantamount to “allowing the objective of solidarity inherent in relocation decisions, as well as the binding nature of these acts, to be undermined”, it said.
See the judgment of the Court: https://bit.ly/3dNpXxM (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)