1. ΙII. The evolution of the AFSJ1

2. 1. Hesitant evolution (6 steps)
1.1. Early intergovernmental attempts
Before Schengen
Pompidou Group (drugs), terrorism etc
1975: Terrorisme, Radicalisme, Extremisme, Violence Internationale (TREVI) (MS police chiefs wining and dinning)
TREVI I: Terrorism
TREVI II: training and information exchange
TREVI III: organised crime
TREVI IV: opening up of borders
SEA ‘86:
1986: Ad hoc immigration group
1989: UCLAF  1999 OLAF
1995: EUROPOL replaces TREVI
Judicial cooperation: signature of 7 Conventions (penal and civil law) most of which not ratified by MS
+++ Decision 85/381 (//98/34) on prior notification of migratory measures of the MS – upheld by CJEU  Dec 2006/668
Schengen (see PPS IV) 2

3. 1. Hesitant evolution (6 steps)
1.2. The institutionalisation of intergovernmentalism: Maastricht T
Pillars
Core Role of JHA Council under unanimity
Non-binding legal instruments:
Conventions : ratified – mostly non-ratified
Common actions: guidance for MS Parliaments
Other non binding: resolutions, ccl, recommandations
Lack of parliamentary or judicial control
 Limited efficiency: 5 binding measures 2

4. EU’s Structure - Maastricht
European Union
1 Pillar
ECSC
EAEC EC
2 Pillar
CFSP
3 Pillar
Migration + Asylum
Police/Judicial cooperation
9/18/17
Vassilis G. Hatzopoulos 13

5. 1. Hesitant evolution (6 steps)
1.3. Limited “communautarisation”: Amsterdam T
Title IV + judicial cooperation BUT 5 year transition
Integration of the Schengen Acquis BUT Opt outs
More efficient legal instruments
Title IV: normal EU acts  re-formating (Eurodac, Brussels I, Dublin)
3d pillar: framework decision // Dirs (Puppino’05) + decisions
Consultation of the EP and ltd role for the ECJ
Guiding role of EurCouncil:
Tampere:
Hague:
Stockholm:
European Agenda for Migration: :
Reducing incentives for irregular migration
Saving lives and securing external borders
Strong asylum policy
New policy for legal migration 2

6. Creation of the Area of Freedom Security and Justice
ΑFSJ (Lisbon)
1st Pillar
Immigration- Asylum – Visas
Judicial Cooperation in civil matters
2nd Pillar
CFSP
3rd Pillar
Police and Judicial cooperation in criminal matters
FLEXIBILITY
Schengen Acquis
Prüm Treaty 3

7. EU Acts before the Lisbon Treaty
European Union
1 Pillar
Regulations Directives
Decisions
Recommend ations
Opinions
Other
2 Pillar
Principles
Common
Strategies
Decisions
Common Action
Common Positions
3 Pillar
Common Positions
Fr/work Decisions
Decisions
++Conventions
F L E X I B I L I T Y
9/22/17
Vassilis G. Hatzopoulos 6

8. Creation of the Area of Freedom Security and Justice
European Union
1 Pillar
ECSC
EAEC EC
Title IV
2 Pillar
CFSP
3 Pillar
Police and Judicial cooperation
AFSJ
Closer cooperation
9/18/17
Vassilis G. Hatzopoulos 15

9. 1. Hesitant evolution (6 steps)
1.4. The “community method” re-empowered: Nice T
 Management of the end of the “transitional period”: Dec 937/04 for the passage from unanimity to QMV (but for legal immigration) 2

10. 1. Hesitant evolution (6 steps)
1.5. The full integration : Lisbon T
Full EUization
AFSJ becomes a shared competence
BUT, special arrangements:
Role of European Council (68 TFEU)
MS Parliaments control subsidiarity (69 TFEU)
Standing committee in the Council (71 TFEU)
Legislative initiative: COM, ¼ MS (76)
Special blocking minority in the Council
Political scrutiny of Europol (88 TFEU)
Control of all acts, including of Europol
Veto from 1 ΜS ( 4 months EurCouncil – 82(3) TFEU)
Ordinary legislative procedure (co-decision) + Consultation
Closer cooperation from 9 ΜS
Rights based approach (EUCFD + accession to the ECHR) 2

11. Abolition of the pillars
European Union
Internal market
WHO?
EurParl+Council (Commission)
HOW? Majority
AFSJ
WHO?
EurParl+Council (Commission/MS/EurCounci l)
HOW? Majority + Unanimity
CFSP
WHO?
EurCouncil+ Council+ HighComm
HOW? Unanimity 5

12. 1. Hesitant evolution (6 steps)
1.6. BUT Looming intergovernmentalism : the Prüm Treaty 2005
Convention on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism, cross-border crime and illegal migration,
Promoted by Germany + Austria, BENELUX, France, Spain
Now 14 signatory states
Partly “communautarised” by Dec 2008/616 2

13. 2. A multi-speed Area 2.1. For the Schengen acquis
Ireland (and the UK) are not members but
May subscribe to the acquis at any time, wholy/partially
Receive notification of any new measure for them to opt in
Denmark is member but is only bound by the acquis as it stood at the time of “communautarisation”
Norway and Iceland (associated since 1996)
Agreement with the 26: negotiate but do not vote
Agreement with the UK/Ireland: for their parts in the acquis
Switzerland: Bilatérales 2004
New MS: transitory periods + Bulgaria, Romania, Cyprus, Croatia are still OUT 2

14. 2. A multi-speed Area 2

15. 2. A multi-speed Area 2.2. For Title IV policies Ireland (and the UK)
Do not participate in decision making – are not bound – do not pay
May within 3 m from the notification of a draft declare that they wish to participate, BUT may not block indeterminately
May declare their intention to be bound by an adopted measure
Denmark
Does not participate – is not bound – does not pay
May within 6 months from the adoption of a measure decide to adopt an obligation under international law
May “exit” the protocol
Norway and Iceland: Dec EC/1999/439 2

16. 2. A multi-speed Area
2.3. For the impact the AFSJ has on 3d country nationals
Ireland (and the UK)
2.4. For the different programmes and other initiatives
2.5. For its external dimension 2

17. 3. Critiques Institutional complexity – internal and external
Internationalisation of migratory policy as the result of institutional venue shopping
Transformation of the executive power into legislative + Agencies – in an area where sensitive human rights are at stake
Schengen acquis was based on police priorities – has been “communautarised” by a single stroke, without EP or MS parliaments understanding 2