Well I hope that Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic tell the EU court to go fuck themselves.
Well I hope that Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic tell the EU court to go fuck themselves.
The Court dismantles the arguments put forward by the three countries to refuse to comply with the quota system established in 2015.
Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic are one step away from being condemned by the European Court of Justice for their refusal to participate in the refugee relocation system approved by the European Union in 2015 to help Italy and Greece, countries facing a massive influx of emigrants.
In a sharp provisional opinion published on Thursday, Eleanor Sharpston, one of the General Attorneys of the European Court, dismantles one after another the arguments put forward by the three countries judged to refuse to collaborate with a solidarity mechanism that had been launched in circumstances as exceptional as the immigration crisis of 2015.
The trial confronts the European Commission with the three countries that refused to collaborate in the relocation of 160,000 asylum seekers with a system of mandatory quotas that largely failed. The importance of the dispute does not lie in the specific case of that mechanism, which has already expired , but in the interest of the Commission in establishing jurisprudence in the obligation of all Member States to collaborate in a distribution system that was implemented based on the Article 78 of the Treaty. This article contemplates the possibility of adopting exceptional measures in case a Member State faces "an emergency situation characterized by the sudden influx of third-country nationals".
The final sentence will take weeks to arrive, but if the judges follow the reasoning of the Advocate General ( as often happens ), Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic will be denied their right not to participate in the cast invoking a possible impact on public safety or difficulties in verifying the identity and risk of asylum seekers. The Advocate General considers all these arguments unfounded and recalls that, in any case, the three countries should at least have communicated how many refugees they were willing to host even if, if necessary, the quota had not been completed.
But Sharpston, of British nationality, seems to want to go further from the file itself. And he takes advantage of what may be one of his last opinions in the Court before Brexit, to make an ignited plea for the maintenance of the rule of law and the legal system of the Union in an opinion that affects, precisely, three suspicious countries of easily violating the fundamental rules of the club.
The rule of law, says Sharpston, "implies compliance with the legal obligations incumbent upon each other. Disobeying those obligations because they are inappropriate or unpopular ... constitutes a dangerous step towards the collapse of the orderly and structured society governed by The rule of law".
https://elpais.com/internacional/2019/10/31/actualidad/1572548542_180324.html
**The Court dismantles the arguments put forward by the three countries to refuse to comply with the quota system established in 2015.**
Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic are one step away from being condemned by the European Court of Justice for their refusal to participate in the refugee relocation system approved by the European Union in 2015 to help Italy and Greece, countries facing a massive influx of emigrants.
In a sharp provisional opinion published on Thursday, Eleanor Sharpston, one of the General Attorneys of the European Court, dismantles one after another the arguments put forward by the three countries judged to refuse to collaborate with a solidarity mechanism that had been launched in circumstances as exceptional as the immigration crisis of 2015.
The trial confronts the European Commission with the three countries that refused to collaborate in the relocation of 160,000 asylum seekers with a system of mandatory quotas that largely failed. The importance of the dispute does not lie in the specific case of that mechanism, which has already expired , but in the interest of the Commission in establishing jurisprudence in the obligation of all Member States to collaborate in a distribution system that was implemented based on the Article 78 of the Treaty. This article contemplates the possibility of adopting exceptional measures in case a Member State faces "an emergency situation characterized by the sudden influx of third-country nationals".
The final sentence will take weeks to arrive, but if the judges follow the reasoning of the Advocate General ( as often happens ), Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic will be denied their right not to participate in the cast invoking a possible impact on public safety or difficulties in verifying the identity and risk of asylum seekers. The Advocate General considers all these arguments unfounded and recalls that, in any case, the three countries should at least have communicated how many refugees they were willing to host even if, if necessary, the quota had not been completed.
But Sharpston, of British nationality, seems to want to go further from the file itself. And he takes advantage of what may be one of his last opinions in the Court before Brexit, to make an ignited plea for the maintenance of the rule of law and the legal system of the Union in an opinion that affects, precisely, three suspicious countries of easily violating the fundamental rules of the club.
The rule of law, says Sharpston, "implies compliance with the legal obligations incumbent upon each other. Disobeying those obligations because they are inappropriate or unpopular ... constitutes a dangerous step towards the collapse of the orderly and structured society governed by The rule of law".
https://elpais.com/internacional/2019/10/31/actualidad/1572548542_180324.html
(post is archived)