Brussels, 14/11/2008 (Agence Europe) - In these times of crisis, the European Commission is seeking to steer a steady course towards reform in various sectors of economic and social life in Europe. Proof of such continuity lies in the European Union's evolution towards an area of freedom, security and justice. With the commissioner responsible for justice, freedom and security (JFS), Jacques Barrot, we look at the prospects of this key sector in European integration within which asylum policy has a very important role to play. (B.C.)
EUROPE: Between now and the end of your mandate, what will be your priorities for achieving the area of justice, freedom and security?
Jacques Barrot: The first part concerns problems of migration flow management. This calls for legal texts, some of which are in the process of being adopted especially for regular “blue card” immigration, and others are to come for seasonal workers and those on paid trainee courses. When it comes to unlawful immigration, it is necessary to adopt the directive on sanctions on those who employ illegal workers. Discussion on texts on asylum will go on till spring 2009. All that also means a global approach as we cannot successfully manage migratory flows unless we do so in a concerted manner with immigration countries. We shall also need a better knowledge of migratory flows through perhaps the creation of an observatory, and we shall finally seek to launch public information campaigns as we shall only be successful with immigration policy if it really manages to arouse some interest. The second chapter aims to back up the Schengen Area of free movement. When one speaks of freedom of movement, that also means better external border surveillance. A successful Schengen is therefore intimately linked to the setting in place of surveillance systems such as the second generation information system (SIS II). To this must be added visa policies as, if the European area is to be protected, it must also remain truly open. The third chapter is that of the European judicial area that makes it possible to ensure citizens are able to move around with the certainty that their rights will be respected in the other member states. This leads to the whole problem of the movement of authentic acts, guaranteed access to justice in all member states and progression towards mutual recognition of court decisions. In the fourth section we attack the problem of the European ideal of fundamental rights. As we approach the 60th anniversary of adoption of the universal declaration on human rights, signed on 10 December 1948, we must ensure with all our might that we can fight any violation of fundamental rights. The fifth workshop corresponds to the fight against organised crime and terrorism thanks to increased police and judicial cooperation. [See other article for the recapitulative timetable of measures to be taken by the Commission in the field of JFS.]
EUROPE: What changes does the Commission plan to make to the Dublin II regulation?
J.B.: As far as I see it, asylum remains an absolute priority. The package to be presented on 3 December includes review of the directive on reception of asylum seekers and of the Eurodac and Dublin II regulations. The Dublin regulation has fulfilled its role which was to put an end to “asylum shopping”, i.e. the temptation to apply for asylum in several member states. But Dublin has been rigid in a manner that is doubly unjust, first of all towards refugees depending on the country in which they request asylum (a Chechen has a 63% chance of being protected in Austria and a 0% chance in Slovakia), and secondly between States as some countries, such as Sweden and Malta, receive many asylum seekers. We are thinking of possibly suspending the Dublin regulation in some cases in order to allow asylum seekers not to be forced to return to the country where they first arrived because this country is submerged by requests. Also, if the asylum seeker states that his/her family is present in another member state, it is possible at that point to see how application for asylum may be processed in the State where his/her family is to be found.
EUROPE: Can the September 2009 deadline for operational establishment of the Schengen second generation information system (SIS II) be kept?
J.B.: We have testing problems due partly to the fact that member states have set more practicalities in place. Tests are continuing but some delay is nonetheless possible. What we want is really to limit this delay as much as we can and perhaps place the SIS II in service end 2009, completing it during the year 2010.
EUROPE: Switzerland should soon enter the Schengen Area. When can we hope to see Liechtenstein join, as well as Romania and Bulgaria?
J.B.: Switzerland will enter the Schengen Area on 12 December. We are put out by voting to be held in February on freedom of movement. If there is a no vote, Switzerland could obviously not remain in Schengen, but for now it is entering. As for Liechtenstein, it is not yet entering in so far as some member states have reserves largely linked to tax problems. However, Liechtenstein will have to be a part. For Romania and Bulgaria, we shall proceed to assessment between 2009 and 2010. We shall see whether these two countries are prepared to enter Schengen in 2011. We must be very attentive to surveillance of external borders as these two countries have access to the Black Sea.
EUROPE: Has the Italian government bowed before the Commission's orders relating to security measures to combat unlawful immigration?
J.B.: On the whole, the Italian government has complied with the demands made of it. But there are still provisions concerning a decree on automatic expulsion and on aggravating circumstances that would be linked to unlawful stay. Unlawful stay cannot constitute aggravating circumstances and expulsions can never be automatic - they are done on a case by case basis. We have asked the Italian government to withdraw these two provisions that do not appear in line with EU law. We await its answer. But progress has been made as the other Italian legislative proposals have been amended or withdrawn.
EUROPE: Has the Commission moved forward in its negotiations with third countries like Turkey or Morocco with a view to concluding re-entry agreements?
J.B.: I was myself in Istanbul to see the foreign minister on 1 November and I thought he seemed keen on reopening the negotiation that had been broken off. The only problem for the Turks concerns the transit of nationals from third countries with which they do not have re-entry agreements. Talks must now be resumed but normally things are on the right track. With Morocco, the 12th round of talks was held in March 2007 and for now the situation remains blocked. I wrote again on 7 October to see whether Morocco could resume these talks and we await an answer. Here also, I think it is a problem of transit.
EUROPE: Would you be in favour of including, in a future framework agreement with Libya, a chapter dedicated to cooperation in the field of immigration?
J.B.: Yes, of course. Our whole foreign policy approach should now comprise a chapter on joint management of migratory flows as these are linked to development problems, and problems of general cooperation.
EUROPE: How far have we got in talks with the United States on data protection and on visas? Do you plan to take retaliatory measures against the United States when six new member states are to enter the Visa Waiver Program (VWP)?
J.B.: Our European and American experts have identified 12 common principles for protection of personal data in the event of information exchange. The latter recommend that such principles be taken up in the form of an international agreement as, at this stage, they are not compulsory and are not legally binding. We are rather in pre-negotiation pending perhaps that, under the Lisbon Treaty, we can enter true negotiation to which it will be very useful to fully involve the Parliament, which is particularly keen on data protection. When it comes to visa reciprocity, things have moved as we now have six countries that should be part of the VWP on 17 November thus exonerating their nationals from the visa requirement for entry into the United States. The announcement made by the American authorities represents a major breakthrough in our strategy for mutually abolishing visa requirements, and it is therefore difficult to see how one could take retaliatory measures. My concern remains, therefore, that the same thing should be gained for the six remaining member states (Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, Cyprus, Malta and Poland). That will be part of my priorities to come with the new US administration.
EUROPE: Does the Commission consider the ESTA (Electronic System for Travel Authorisation) can be compared to a visa?
J.B.: ESTA is today voluntary, free of charge, but its compulsory nature (as of 12 January 2009) obviously raises questions. It is wondered whether it is the equivalent to a visa request procedure. One could think that ESTA is not at all comparable to a visa in so far as it simply asks, online, for elements already gathered from passengers on paper. If it were the same thing as a visa, of course, one would have to ask whether this reintroduction of a form of visa would not lead to retaliatory measures. But we are not there yet.
EUROPE: Are you going to propose enhanced cooperation with regard to the law applicable in the case of divorce?
J.B.: We do not rule out enhanced cooperation which has been requested of us by 9 member states.
We are torn between two concerns: making life easier for divorced persons and, so, making progress on judicial Europe, but, at the same time, we don't want to make family law more complex. We are now legally required to give a response. That is why we are carrying out a further consultation exercise to see how many countries would be willing to agree to this cooperation, given that it would seem to be desirable to have a critical mass of member states, at least two thirds, to avoid family law's becoming too fragmented in Europe. For the moment, there would not appear to be any outright opposition to this enhanced cooperation. By the end of the year, we will have to work out if we are going to go with it or not.
EUROPE: In a book entitled “Europe n'est pas ce que vous croyez” (“Europe is not what you think”), you said that “there does not have to be enlargement at all costs”. While the Balkans are still on course to become part of the European Union in the long term, is it still the case that there has to be caution exercised for other neighbours, such as Turkey?
J.B.: A great success has first to be made of integrating the Balkans, perhaps before considering other accessions and alternatives to pure and simple accession, which could take the form of a confederation. Our European neighbourhood policy will probably have to be expanded and be given increased funding. We have to pay attention to the dangers of a Europe which, having grown too big, loses drive in a world which needs determined players. At the same time, Europe must not be undemanding on globalisation.
EUROPE: It has been proved that countries such as Bulgaria and Romania were not ready in the areas of Justice, Liberty and Security (JLF) when they joined the EU in 2007. What lessons can be drawn for forthcoming enlargements?
J.B.: We cannot build a judicial Europe if some member sates do not have an adequate judicial system. We are continuing to monitor the situation in Bulgaria and Romania particularly closely. There has been progress, but they are not yet as far along the road as we might have hoped. As things stand, assessment of chapters relating to JLF (Chapters 23 and 24) would mean Croatia will have to make a major effort. We have to be much more careful because experience has shown that the best time for judicial reform is the pre-accession period.
EUROPE: Would you be willing to take on a further period as a commissioner when the Commission is reappointed next year?
J.B.: I would not rule out continuing in the Commission, but that would depend, too, on how things are nationally, and the wishes of the president. I have found the various portfolios for which I have had responsibility hugely interesting. This latest, it's true, would need a little more time to achieve all the progress I would like. (B.C./transl.jl./rt)