Steve Peers, Emilio de Capitani, and Henri Labayle present a series of questions for Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to pose to the candidates for Commissioners of Immigration and Home Affairs and Justice. These questions aim to understand the candidates’ plans and secure commitments on crucial matters.
Immigration and Asylum
Given the Commission’s stance on framing migration policy with the non-binding Global Approach to Migration and Mobility Partnerships, would the candidate propose a legally binding basis for agreements with relevant nations, based on Articles 77, 78, and 79 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)?
How would the Commission guarantee complete and accurate implementation of EU immigration laws by member states?
Will the Commission revise the EU visa code to explicitly require member states to issue humanitarian visas to eligible individuals applying at consulates in third countries?
What is the Commission’s timeline for proposing EU legislation ensuring the reciprocal recognition of international protection decisions made by member states, encompassing the transfer of protection?
When will the Commission put forth proposals for a system to share responsibility for asylum seekers and those granted international protection, initially focusing on applicants outside EU borders?
Will the Commission propose an immigration code, and if so, what are its key elements?
Considering the Court of Justice’s recognition of the link between search and rescue duties and border surveillance, and the EU’s existing rules on Frontex-coordinated border control, will the Commission propose applying these rules to all member states’ border controls by modifying the Schengen Borders Code?
What immediate and long-term actions will the Commission take to address migrant deaths in the Mediterranean?
Will the Commission amend EU legislation on aiding unauthorized entry to protect individuals who save migrants’ lives during border crossings or act on humanitarian grounds from prosecution?
Internal Security and Police Cooperation
Given the previous reliance on “operational cooperation” for counterterrorism and transnational crime measures, will the Commission establish a clear legal basis for the Internal Security Strategy? Will it formalize the “Policy Cycle” into a transparent, legally binding framework? Will the Europol legislative proposal be revised to provide a clear framework for the “Policy Cycle”? How will the Commission uphold the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality outlined in the Treaty, ensuring the Charter’s application in police cooperation, and allowing European and national parliaments, along with the Court of Justice, to verify these principles’ implementation?
Considering Protocol 36 of the Treaty of Lisbon, which places pre-Lisbon police cooperation measures under the Commission and Court of Justice’s jurisdiction from December 1, 2014, will outdated measures be revoked or amended? Will sunset clauses be introduced in basic acts where EU measures significantly limit fundamental rights? Why was this absent from the candidate’s statement and the Commission’s REFIT exercise? Is this a priority, or does the candidate believe the Lisbon Treaty didn’t significantly alter this area?
Will the legislative agenda be based on the Treaty’s legal basis for judicial cooperation in criminal matters? If yes, how will this interact with the relevant Commissioner’s responsibilities?
Considering the success of Schengen cooperation, with advancements like SIS II and EUROSUR, and the emerging concept of integrated border management in Article 77 TFEU, will there be improvements in the roles of European and national parliaments? Are there plans for further initiatives similar to PRUM and Swedish initiatives based on the principle of availability?
Following the UK case of a convicted murderer moving freely within the EU, will the Commission propose exchanging criminal records for the most serious crimes (murder, rape, grievous bodily harm) committed by nationals of a member state, even if they are no longer imprisoned?
Will the Commission propose a police code to consolidate EU legislation in this domain?
When will the Commission submit a legislative proposal to implement Article 75 of the TFEU, addressing the freezing of terrorist assets?
Justice Commissioner
Given the CJEU’s stance on the primacy of EU law, including areas like judicial cooperation, and the need for the highest standards of fundamental rights protection in EU legislation, will all future EU criminal law proposals consider potential impacts on national law and allow for higher national standards as per Article 53 of the Charter?
Will the Commission commit to amending the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant and other pre-Lisbon measures on mutual recognition to ensure the same level of fundamental rights protection as the recent Directive on the European Investigation Order?
When will the Commission propose measures for the adequate protection of suspects regarding pre-trial detention in criminal proceedings across member states?
Will the Commission introduce further legislation to enhance procedural guarantees for suspects?
Given the importance of effective legal remedies, will the Commission upgrade the 2013 Recommendation on collective redress mechanisms? This would allow citizens and companies to enforce their EU law rights in case of infringement.
How will the Commission ensure member states fully and correctly implement EU legislation protecting victims’ and suspects’ rights in criminal procedures?
Considering the roles of OLAF, EUROJUST, and EPPO in protecting EU financial interests, is it time to streamline the institutional framework, such as merging OLAF with EPPO?
Given that some EU measures, like the Framework Decision on terrorism, restrict individual freedoms, should these measures and their delegated and implementing acts include sunset clauses, similar to US legislation like the Patriot Act?
Will the Commission propose to the Council the suspension of any EU treaty involving personal data sharing with third countries if the European Parliament, following an independent review, deems the level of data protection inadequate in that third country?
Given the Commission’s role in assessing the adequacy of data protection in third countries, should this evaluation be a delegated act due to its requirement for discretion?
Digital Agenda (Jointly with Commissioner Oettinger and VP Ansip)
Considering the ambitious legislative program mentioned by Candidate Commissioner Oettinger for the European Digital Agenda, and the need for a comprehensive legislative strategy upholding fundamental rights as defined in the Charter, how will this be achieved?
To avoid the risk of annulment by the Court of Justice, similar to the data retention Directive, will the candidates (including Timmermans and Ansip) collaborate on a legislative strategy akin to Brazil’s “Marco Civil,” ensuring future EU measures meet the Charter’s standards?
Considering the CJEU’s data retention ruling and the Council Legal Service’s view on the incompatibility of the EU-US TFTP and PNR agreements with these criteria, what actions will be taken at the next Transatlantic Summit? Will the US authorities be notified of the need for a significant revision of these agreements?
What is the Commission’s response to the CJEU ruling on the Data Retention Directive’s invalidity? Will a new Directive be proposed aligning with the judgment? Does the Commission believe the Directive allows for mass surveillance? Will infringement proceedings be initiated against non-compliant member states?
Barnard & Peers: chapter 25, chapter 26