Does the Stockholm Programme Matter? The Struggles Over Ownership of AFSJ Multiannual Programming
Does the 2009 Stockholm Programme matter? This paper addresses the controversies experienced at EU institutional levels as to ‘who’ should have ownership of the contours of the EU’s policy and legislative multiannual programming in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) in a post-Lisbon Treaty landscape. It examines the struggles around the third multiannual programme on the AFSJ, i.e. the Stockholm Programme, and the dilemmas affecting its implementation. The latest affair to emerge relates to the lack of fulfilment by the European Commission of the commitment to provide a mid-term evaluation of the Stockholm Programme’s implementation by mid-2012, as requested by both the Council and the European Parliament. This paper shifts the focus to a broader perspective and raises the following questions: Is the Stockholm Programme actually relevant? What do the discussions behind its implementation tell us about the new institutional dynamics affecting European integration on the AFSJ? Does the EU actually need a new (post-Stockholm) multiannual programme for the period 2015-20? And last, what role should the EP play in legislative and policy programming in order to further strengthen the democratic accountability and legitimacy of the EU’s AFSJ?
EU NGOs’ impact on shaping the EU future migration and asylum policies
In 1999 the European Union (EU) defined for the first time common priorities in the area of migration and asylum. In 2014 the Justice and Home Affairs Council is deciding on the fourth multi-annual strategic guidelines. This thesis examines the role of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in the EU influencing these guidelines through the European Commission public consultation, and their impact on shaping the future agenda for migration and asylum. While the EU has gained more competences in this field and increased legal protection standards across the EU, member states favour restrictive and security-oriented policies. EU NGOs represent a more liberal rights based approach, and having difficulties getting their points across. A step-by-step process tracing reveals the factors that enabled influence, such as a structured civil dialogue with opportunities for input. However, there were also elements disabling this influence, related to the disconnection between civil society and the Council, which partly undermined the purpose of the consultation.
The Italian (In)Security Package: Security vs. Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights in the EU. CEPS Challenge Paper No. 14, 10 March 2009
The 2008 Italian security package has triggered various concerns and criticism in Italy and across Europe. This working paper aims at analysing the nature, scope and implications of some of the legislative measures and practices constituting the package. In particular, it is argued that they are incompatible with the relevant provisions and principles of EU law – namely non-discrimination and free movement of persons – as well as international human rights standards. The paper also evaluates the impact that laws of exception and practices of derogation facilitated by the Italian measures may have on basic principles laying at the heart of the EU’s foundations (respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law) and shows how fundamental rights cannot be taken for granted in the EU.