- Philosophy Of Law, Migration Studies, International Migration, Immigration Law, European Immigration and Asylum Law, European Union external relations, and 13 moreEuropean Union-Africa relations, African Migration to Europe, International Cooperation, Theory of Law, Neo Colonalism and European Exploitation of Africa, Soft Law, European Legal History, European Studies, European Law, European Union Law, European Court of Human Rights, European Court of Justice, and Preliminary References to the European Court of Justiceedit
- Eleonora Frasca is a PhD candidate in EU law at UCLouvain (Belgium). Her PhD research focuses on the process of “info... moreEleonora Frasca is a PhD candidate in EU law at UCLouvain (Belgium). Her PhD research focuses on the process of “informalisation” of the EU external dimension of migration law, particularly on EU cooperation with African countries. Prior to her PhD, she worked for the International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC Europe) at the European Resettlement Network, in cooperation with IOM and UNHCR, on the topic of safe and legal pathways for refugees to Europe.edit
The EU-Tunisia MoU of July 2023 raises a series of legal issues that attracted severe criticisms and deserve attention. Shedding light on procedural and substantive issues, we focus on the context behind the MoU’s negotiations (1), the... more
The EU-Tunisia MoU of July 2023 raises a series of legal issues that attracted severe criticisms and deserve attention. Shedding light on procedural and substantive issues, we focus on the context behind the MoU’s negotiations (1), the soft (political) nature of the instrument and the procedure followed for its adoption (2) and its vague content (3).
Research Interests: European Law, European Union, European Immigration and Asylum Law, European Union Law, EU Law, and 5 moreEuropean Union external relations, Tunisia, EU Law (EU legal order: EU legal sources, institutions, remedies, relations with national laws); General Principles of EU Law; EU Migration and Asylum Law, EU Antidiscrimination Law, EU Fundamental Rights and links with the ECHR, EU Migration and Asylum Law, and European Migration Crisis
The informalisation trend in EU migration law-making is seen most often in EU readmission policy. Informal readmission agreements and multi-purpose agreements which include readmission objectives have multiplied with new third countries... more
The informalisation trend in EU migration law-making is seen most often in EU readmission policy. Informal readmission agreements and multi-purpose agreements which include readmission objectives have multiplied with new third countries involved in the EU external relations on migration, beyond the EU Neighbourhood. In discussing the legal nature of informal agreements, this Article focuses on two main issues. First, the interplay between informal agreements and conditionality, with positive conditionality replaced by negative conditionality in a blind search for effectiveness in the EU return policy. Second, the use of informal agreements to return or push back asylum seekers are the epitome of the EU externalisation strategy. While informality is part and parcel of the EU readmission policy, increasing informalisation has significant unintended long-term effects, both for the European Union as an international organisation with law-making capacity, and for individuals in a field of law – migration – where human rights should be protected rather than frustrated.
Research Interests:
Under the current architecture established by the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection cannot move freely within the EU territory. Their legal status as third-country nationals... more
Under the current architecture established by the Common European
Asylum System (CEAS), asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection cannot move freely within the EU territory. Their legal status as third-country nationals is linked to the Member State responsible for their asylum application. Even so, asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection continue to move before and after acquiring a status. Both the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the activation of the Temporary Protection Directive show that it is possible to pose a disruptive challenge to this legal framework and foster a reflection on the extent to which current restrictions on intra-EU free movement rights of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of an international protection status are necessary, effective and respectful of fundamental rights.
Asylum System (CEAS), asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection cannot move freely within the EU territory. Their legal status as third-country nationals is linked to the Member State responsible for their asylum application. Even so, asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection continue to move before and after acquiring a status. Both the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the activation of the Temporary Protection Directive show that it is possible to pose a disruptive challenge to this legal framework and foster a reflection on the extent to which current restrictions on intra-EU free movement rights of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of an international protection status are necessary, effective and respectful of fundamental rights.
Research Interests:
Soft law plays an increasing role in EU external migration law, particularly in the context of EU-Africa cooperation on migration. A legal-analytical inquiry into the formats and functions of soft law, based on the example of EU-Africa... more
Soft law plays an increasing role in EU external migration law, particularly in the context of EU-Africa cooperation on migration. A legal-analytical inquiry into the formats and functions of soft law, based on the example of EU-Africa cooperation on migration, reveals that the EU preference for soft law is functional to achieve the EU's own migration objectives in Africa, namely preventing and containing irregular migration, rather than facilitating mobility, as envisaged in the UN Global Compact for Migration. This article presents and discusses the formats of soft law in EU-Africa cooperation, distinguishing between informal agreements and quasi-legal mechanisms for cooperation, and their respective para-law and pre-law functions. It then suggests that while informal agreements set the broad objectives of international cooperation and prepare the ground for legal changes in third countries, quasi-legal mechanisms for cooperation guarantee their implementation. Their combined effects ignite broader processes of domestic reforms in the African States through a technique of legal influence.
Research Interests: European Studies, European Law, Migration Law, EU External Relations Law, European Union, and 7 moreEuropean Immigration and Asylum Law, European Union Law, EU Law, External Relations of the EU, European Union external relations, EU Law (EU legal order: EU legal sources, institutions, remedies, relations with national laws); General Principles of EU Law; EU Migration and Asylum Law, EU Antidiscrimination Law, EU Fundamental Rights and links with the ECHR, and Soft Law
In Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Thai mother of a Dutch minor child), the Court of Justice of the European Union interprets Article 20 TFEU in a case where the mother of an EU citizen, who is a minor child born and living... more
In Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Thai mother of a Dutch minor child), the Court of Justice of the European Union interprets Article 20 TFEU in a case where the mother of an EU citizen, who is a minor child born and living in a third country, applies for a derived right of residence in the Member State of which the child is a national. This case note focuses on the Court’s fluctuating approach to the best interests of the child and inconsistent use of references to Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This analysis compares the Advocate General’s opinion and the Court’s decision and points out the differences in their reasoning about the best interests of the child.
Research Interests: European Law, European Union, Migration Studies, European Union Law, EU Law, and 7 moreCitizenship, Preliminary References to the European Court of Justice, European Court of Justice, EU Law (EU legal order: EU legal sources, institutions, remedies, relations with national laws); General Principles of EU Law; EU Migration and Asylum Law, EU Antidiscrimination Law, EU Fundamental Rights and links with the ECHR, EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Children's Best Interests, and Case Review of Law
While the New Pact on Migration and Asylum remains stuck in Brussels between negotiations and renewals of the Council’s presidencies, ‘emergencies’ routinely shaken the EU migration and asylum governance and prompt a plethora of soft law... more
While the New Pact on Migration and Asylum remains stuck in Brussels between negotiations and renewals of the Council’s presidencies, ‘emergencies’ routinely shaken the EU migration and asylum governance and prompt a plethora of soft law solutions. These acts have been mushrooming in the last few years. The most recent example is the EU Action Plan for the Central Mediterranean, presented on 21 November 2022 by the Commissioner for Home Affairs and later endorsed by the extraordinary JHA Council on 25 November 2022.
Research Interests:
L’accueil, par protection temporaire, des personnes fuyant l’Ukraine contraste singulièrement avec la multiplication des dérogations aux droits fondamentaux d’autres migrants. Plus qu’avant, la Cour de justice affine sa jurisprudence par... more
L’accueil, par protection temporaire, des personnes fuyant l’Ukraine contraste singulièrement avec la multiplication des dérogations aux droits fondamentaux d’autres migrants. Plus qu’avant, la Cour de justice affine sa jurisprudence par de nombreuses références à la Charte des droits fondamentaux. Dans la jurisprudence de 2022, plusieurs affaires concernent la difficile circulation des familles de réfugiés au sein de l'Union européenne.
Research Interests:
This article discusses whether and how the best interests of the child, enshrined in Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, became an instrument for increased protection of the rights of migrant children and their families in... more
This article discusses whether and how the best interests of the child, enshrined in Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, became an instrument for increased protection of the rights of migrant children and their families in the European Union. First, an overview is presented of the temporal and substantive expansion of the case law of the European Court of Justice reflecting on the use of references to Article 24(2) of the Charter. Then, a range of issues is analysed concerning the interpretation of the legal instruments of the Common European Asylum System, the Family Reunification Directive, and the Return Directive. The ECJ decisions are grouped by sub-topics and presented in chronological order. This analysis allows for a reflection of the evolution of the Court's interpretation of the best interests of the child in this field of Union law. It is observed that the primary consideration of the best interests of the child is gradually becoming, if not a general principle, at least a safeguard principle for the genuine enjoyment of the substance of children's rights.
Research Interests:
Il presente lavoro analizza il contesto peculiare delle frontiere europee e dei relativi controlli nell’ambito dell’area Schengen. Con riferimento all’assenza di controlli alle frontiere interne, si dà conto dei c.d. movimenti secondari,... more
Il presente lavoro analizza il contesto peculiare delle frontiere europee e dei relativi controlli nell’ambito dell’area Schengen. Con riferimento all’assenza di controlli alle frontiere interne, si dà conto dei c.d. movimenti secondari, mentre, rispetto alle frontiere esterne, si esamina la politica dei visti e l’azione esterna dell’Unione nei Paesi terzi. Le pratiche di anticipazione, esternalizzazione e privatizzazione dei controlli alle frontiere producono una segmentazione delle verifiche, una scarsa trasparenza delle diverse fasi del controllo e l’extra-territorialità dello stesso. Da qui discende la difficol-tà a intervenire nel merito di tali pratiche e di assoggettarle a eventuale controllo da parte dei giudici. È su questo aspetto, in particolare, che si concentra il presente contributo.
Research Interests:
La Cour maintient le refus de tout automatisme dans la prise de décision par les autorités, tant en matière d’asile que d’éloignement, mais elle montre aussi une réticence à se prononcer sur l’applicabilité de certaines dispositions de la... more
La Cour maintient le refus de tout automatisme dans la prise de décision par les autorités, tant en matière d’asile que d’éloignement, mais elle montre aussi une réticence à se prononcer sur l’applicabilité de certaines dispositions de la Charte des droits fondamentaux, à l’exception de l’article 24 sur les droits de l’enfant.
Research Interests: International Law, Human Rights, Asylum Law, European Union, European Immigration and Asylum Law, and 8 moreReturn Migration, Asylum seekers, European Court of Human Rights, Droits de l'homme, Common European Asylum System, Refugee Law, Cour De Justice De L'Union Européenne, and Cour Européenne Des Droits De L'homme
This Article summarises the complex ebbs and flows of EU migration law and policy. It is the result of an interdisciplinary research project called GLOBMIG, which includes a legal inventory that can be used by any reader or researcher. In... more
This Article summarises the complex ebbs and flows of EU migration law and policy. It is the result of an interdisciplinary research project called GLOBMIG, which includes a legal inventory that can be used by any reader or researcher. In the Article, we focus on the main outcomes observable from the inventory by taking several examples from EU legislation and case law that try to capture the evolution of migration law and governance in Europe during the last four decades. Key issues and their underlying dynamics are explored under three major trends: 1) State sovereignty vs migrants’ individual rights; 2) traditional law-making vs informal pragmatic governance; 3) unilateral vs multilateral migration governance. Each trend confirms the tension, but also the positive interaction, between competing interests as well as period of fluctuations between them. Two earmarks of EU migration law are taken into account: the internal and external dimension layout of migration and asylum law and the relationship between free movement of EU citizens and third country national immigration.
Research Interests:
L’arrêt ASGI e.a. de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne contribue à sa jurisprudence sur l’étendue des clauses d’égalité de traitement dans les directives européennes qui régissent les différents statuts juridiques des... more
L’arrêt ASGI e.a. de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne contribue à sa jurisprudence sur l’étendue des clauses d’égalité de traitement dans les directives européennes qui régissent les différents statuts juridiques des ressortissants de pays tiers. Il s’agit de la première affaire dans laquelle la Cour interprète les clauses d’égalité dans l’accès aux biens et aux services offerts au public. L’arrêt fournit une occasion de revenir sur cette jurisprudence et de la replacer dans le contexte des questions préjudicielles déjà posées à la Cour dans cette matière.
Research Interests:
Con il caso D.A. e altri c. Polonia, la Corte EDU è tornata a pronunciarsi sui respingimenti sommari dalla Polonia alla Bielorussia e ha dichiarato violazione dell’articolo 3 CEDU per il diniego di accesso alla procedura d’asilo e per il... more
Con il caso D.A. e altri c. Polonia, la Corte EDU è tornata a pronunciarsi sui respingimenti sommari dalla Polonia alla Bielorussia e ha dichiarato violazione dell’articolo 3 CEDU per il diniego di accesso alla procedura d’asilo e per il rischio di refoulement a catena, dell’art. 4 protocollo n. 4 CEDU per mancanza di una valutazione individualizzata delle circostanze personali dei ricorrenti e dell’art. 13 CEDU per l’assenza di un ricorso con effetto sospensivo automatico in grado di prevenirne l’espulsione. I fatti di causa mettono in luce la scarsa effettività del diritto europeo nelle zone di frontiera nonché l’assenza di meccanismi di monitoraggio efficaci volti a prevenire le violazioni di diritti fondamentali delle persone migranti.
Research Interests:
This paper examines the European Union’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic and its impact on the common systems of asylum and migration governance while questioning the delicate balance between sovereignties, public health needs and... more
This paper examines the European Union’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic and its impact on the common systems of asylum and migration governance while questioning the delicate balance between sovereignties, public health needs and migrants fundamental rights. If public health reasons provide a legal justification for the measures taken, the measures introduced by the EU Member States also produced various side effects. On the one hand, the multiplic- ity and variety of unilateral national reactions contributed to the already fragmented and flawed implementation of the Schengen and the Dublin frameworks. On the other hand, some of those measures significantly affected fundamental rights of migrants, including asylum seekers. Responding to these findings will require, in the short term, a strict control of fundamental rights by the Courts and, in the long term, a reconstruction of the common policies both on the free movement of persons and on asylum and migration.
Research Interests:
Questo contributo analizza il Nuovo Patto sulla migrazione e l’asilo alla luce delle evoluzioni del diritto europeo e di alcune macro-tendenze che ne ca- ratterizzano lo sviluppo. L’odierna proposta di riforma della Commissione europea... more
Questo contributo analizza il Nuovo Patto sulla migrazione e l’asilo alla luce delle evoluzioni del diritto europeo e di alcune macro-tendenze che ne ca- ratterizzano lo sviluppo. L’odierna proposta di riforma della Commissione europea interviene in un contesto di cicliche crisi, tipico dell’integrazione eu- ropea, all’indomani del parziale fallimento di quella presentata nel 2016. Ne emerge una riforma in cui la tutela dei diritti umani dei migranti è posta in relazione alle soluzioni pragmatiche di contrasto all’immigrazione irregolare e di ricerca di meccanismi di solidarietà flessibili. L’esigenza di inglobare le misure emergenziali emerse nel corso degli ultimi anni nel quadro giuridico dell’Unione si confronta, infatti, con le politiche interne degli Stati membri e la necessità di un più efficace coordinamento delle stesse.
Research Interests:
Negli ultimi anni, le relazioni internazionali dell’Unione europea con i Paesi terzi hanno riguardato sempre di più i fenomeni migratori. Lo stallo nella cooperazione tra autorità marocchine e autorità spagnole a Ceuta, dovuto... more
Negli ultimi anni, le relazioni internazionali dell’Unione europea con i Paesi terzi hanno riguardato sempre di più i fenomeni migratori. Lo stallo nella cooperazione tra autorità marocchine e autorità spagnole a Ceuta, dovuto all’assopimento repentino e inatteso dei controlli alla frontiera dal lato marocchino, può essere interpretato in vario modo: di certo, la conseguenza è stata quella di una forte destabilizzazione della situazione alla frontiera. Inoltre, è il segno che il Marocco può ritornare unilateralmente sugli impegni presi con l’Unione in materia di prevenzione e controllo degli ingressi irregolari.
Research Interests: European Studies, European Law, International Law, Border Studies, European Union, and 10 moreInternational Migration, European Immigration and Asylum Law, Migration Studies, Contemporary International Migration, Border area Spain - Morocco, International Migration and Immigration Policy, Borders and Frontiers, Schengen Visa policy, Migraciones Internacionales, and Diritto Unione Europea
Lungi dal rimanere una questione di sovranità, nel rispetto del principio che stabilisce l’uguaglianza sovrana di tutti gli Stati, nella cooperazione tra i Paesi africani e l’Unione europea il controllo delle frontiere diviene un... more
Lungi dal rimanere una questione di sovranità, nel rispetto del principio che stabilisce l’uguaglianza sovrana di tutti gli Stati, nella cooperazione tra i Paesi africani e l’Unione europea il controllo delle frontiere diviene un argomento cardine delle relazioni internazionali e diplomatiche a tal punto da essere integrato in altre politiche estere. In questa lunga relazione fra Africa e UE, necessaria e significativa per entrambe, sembra che sia prediletta una visione distorta delle migrazioni.
Research Interests:
Through a variety of examples, an appraisal of EU third-country informal cooperation on migration is provided to show that a preference towards softer instruments of cooperation has emerged. To illustrate the breadth and depth of such... more
Through a variety of examples, an appraisal of EU third-country informal cooperation on migration is provided to show that a preference towards softer instruments of cooperation has emerged. To illustrate the breadth and depth of such informal tools, four perspectives are adopted: first, a geographical one, which elucidates the reach of the EU action; second, a perspective related to the vastness and variety of the objectives pursued through informal cooperation; third, one which focuses on the role of funding in support of this action; and lastly, a perspective which examines the narrative framework of soft cooperation. This paper aims to assess whether and to what extent this trend reflects either a 'more' or 'less' law approach to third country migration cooperation in the EU. Through the lens of European soft law theory, the status of informal cooperation within the realm of soft law is examined. As the choice of 'more' or 'less' law is inherently political, the preference for alternative law-making methods can have an immense impact on the functioning of a legal system. Thus, some of the practical consequences produced by soft law in this field are presented, namely de-proceduralisation, de-formalisation and de-legalisation.
Research Interests: European Studies, European Law, EU External Relations Law, European Union, International Migration, and 9 moreEuropean Immigration and Asylum Law, Migration Studies, European Union Law, Contemporary International Migration, Return Migration, European Union Politics, Theory of Law, Migraciones Internacionales, and International cooperation for development
With the ruling RNNS and KA (C-225/19 and C-226/19), the CJEU deals with the prior consultation procedure in the context of visa application whereby a Member State can object to the issuing of a Schengen visa by another Member States. On... more
With the ruling RNNS and KA (C-225/19 and C-226/19), the CJEU deals with the prior consultation procedure in the context of visa application whereby a Member State can object to the issuing of a Schengen visa by another Member States. On the one hand, the Court strengthens the procedural safeguards surrounding the decision of refusal, by clarifying (and expanding) the scope of the duty to state reasons for the decision of refusal. On the other hand, it complexifies the scope of the right to an effective remedy (and of appeal procedures) by judging that the domestic Court that adopted the final decision on the visa cannot review the merits of the objection of the other Member State.
Research Interests:
The M.A. v. Belgium judgement of the European Court of Human Rights is important for three reasons. Firstly, it provides clarification on the real and effective access to asylum procedures, particularly in cases where applicants are held... more
The M.A. v. Belgium judgement of the European Court of Human Rights is important for three reasons. Firstly, it provides clarification on the real and effective access to asylum procedures, particularly in cases where applicants are held in pre-removal detention and thus in a situation of increased vulnerability. Secondly, the judgment sheds lights on the procedural guarantees surrounding the organisation of meetings between an applicant and the authorities of their country of origin with a view to positively identify and issue documents for their return, before the applicant’s protection needs have been assessed. Thirdly, the Court rejected the State’s arguments regarding the voluntary character of the applicant’s return to Sudan and provided guidelines to clearly distinguish voluntary departure from forcible return.
Research Interests:
The GCM’s potential depends on recent developments in the material and institutional frameworks of the European Union which have been deeply influenced by the migration crises. The paper examines the tensions between human rights and... more
The GCM’s potential depends on recent developments in the material and institutional frameworks of the European Union which have been deeply influenced by the migration crises. The paper examines the tensions between human rights and State sovereignty through relevant case law from the European Courts of Luxembourg and Strasbourg (1); light is shed on new migration governance methods, such as policies and non- legal instruments deployed by the EU and its Member States, as opposed to traditional law making (2); the interplay between unilateral, bilateral and multilateral cooperation in migration matters is addressed (3).
Research Interests:
Attraverso un confronto tra la pronuncia del Tribunale UE nel caso Izuzquiza e Semsrott/Frontex e la sentenza n. 1121/2020 del Consiglio di Stato, questo contributo mette in luce le potenzialità, ma soprattutto i limiti, del diritto di... more
Attraverso un confronto tra la pronuncia del Tribunale UE nel caso Izuzquiza e Semsrott/Frontex e la sentenza n. 1121/2020 del Consiglio di Stato, questo contributo mette in luce le potenzialità, ma soprattutto i limiti, del diritto di accesso civico generalizzato. Tale strumento giuridico potrebbe risultare utile a portare alla conoscenza della collettività informazioni relative allo svolgimento delle operazioni navali nel Mediterraneo centrale, in ottemperanza agli obblighi giuridici di ricerca e soccorso in mare. Tale giurisprudenza è rivelatoria delle difficoltà che si profilano nell’interpretazione dell’ampiezza dell’accesso, sia da parte delle amministrazioni nelle motivazioni dei provvedimenti diniego, sia da parte del giudice con rispetto al sindacato di tali provvedimenti.
Research Interests:
In the case Commission v. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, the Court of Justice of the EU, upholding the actions for failure to fulfill obligations brought by the European Commission, ruled that the defendant States breached EU law... more
In the case Commission v. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, the Court of Justice of the EU, upholding the actions for failure to fulfill obligations brought by the European Commission, ruled that the defendant States breached EU law by failing to comply with the relocation decisions adopted in 2015 by the Council. The Court rejects the States’ argumentation as to the need to safeguard their national order and security, adduced as justification for not relocating asylum seekers, and confirms that solidarity is a legally binding obligation. It also does not accept the alleged existence of malfunctioning and flaws of the relocation mechanism as a valid reason not to cooperate and show solidarity: it is exactly when obstacles and difficulties arise that solidarity and a sincere, genuine spirit of cooperation are most needed.
Research Interests: European Law, Refugee Studies, Asylum Law, European Union, International Migration, and 11 moreEuropean Immigration and Asylum Law, Migration Studies, European Union Law, Rule of Law, Poland, Czech Republic, Solidarity, European Commission, European Court of Justice, Hungary, and Rule of law and Justice
The European Court of Human Rights declared the case M.N. and others v. Belgium inadmissible by excluding that Belgium exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction over a family of Syrians requesting humanitarian visas from the Belgian embassy... more
The European Court of Human Rights declared the case M.N. and others v. Belgium inadmissible by excluding that Belgium exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction over a family of Syrians requesting humanitarian visas from the Belgian embassy in Beirut. With its assessment as to jurisdiction, the Court insists upon keeping the status quo of access to asylum procedures.
Research Interests:
The Malta declaration confirms and even reinforces a trend towards informal solutions, agreed outside the EU legal and procedural framework, which has been alarmingly common in the last years’ decision-making process on asylum and... more
The Malta declaration confirms and even reinforces a trend towards informal solutions, agreed outside the EU legal and procedural framework, which has been alarmingly common in the last years’ decision-making process on asylum and migration matters. Without a proper framework for implementation, elaborated in the context of a legitimate, transparent and EU-driven decision-making process, the Malta declaration is destined to belong to the already long list of EU (in)actions that are running countless in the history of European legal answers towards migrant dignity-seeking journeys in the Mediterranean.
Research Interests:
Con la sentenza Izuzquiza e Semsrott /Frontex (T-31/18), il Tribunale dell’Unione europea respinge il ricorso per l’annullamento di una decisione di Frontex di diniego dell’accesso ai documenti relativi alle operazioni navali nel... more
Con la sentenza Izuzquiza e Semsrott /Frontex (T-31/18), il Tribunale dell’Unione europea respinge il ricorso per l’annullamento di una decisione di Frontex di diniego dell’accesso ai documenti relativi alle operazioni navali nel Mediterraneo, la cui richiesta era stata avanzata da due cittadini europei, attivisti per la libertà d’informazione e la trasparenza. La sentenza rileva che: a) il potere del Tribunale di esercitare il controllo sulla legittimità della decisione di Frontex è limitato alla verifica della plausibilità delle spiegazioni da essa fornite; b) l’Agenzia gode di un ampio potere discrezionale nell’utilizzo dell’eccezione dirimente di esigenze di tutela dell’interesse pubblico in materia di sicurezza come giustificazione della mancata divulgazione di tali documenti. Quali sono, dunque, i limiti della legislazione sulla trasparenza nell’Unione europea?
Research Interests:
Caselaw commentary of the General Court (European Union), judgement of 27 november 2019, Izuzquiza and Semsrott v. Frontex, T-31/18: Sailing through transparent waters? A comparison between cases concerning public access to information related to Search and Rescue operations in the Mediterraneanmore
With the ruling Izuzquiza and Semsrott v. Frontex (T-31/18), the General Court dismisses the action for annulment of a decision of Frontex concerning the refusal to access information related to naval operations in the Mediterranean... more
With the ruling Izuzquiza and Semsrott v. Frontex (T-31/18), the General Court dismisses the action for annulment of a decision of Frontex concerning the refusal to access information related to naval operations in the Mediterranean brought by EU citizens. The General Court power to review the legality of Frontex’ decision is limited to the assessment of the credibility of Frontex explanation. The Agency enjoys great discretion in using the exception of the protection of European public security to justify non-disclosure of such information, but what are the limits of EU transparency legislation?
Research Interests:
L’ordinanza del 21 febbraio 2019 che ha imposto al Ministero degli esteri l’obbligo di rilasciare un visto umanitario ex art. 25 del codice dei visti europeo nei confronti di un minore non accompagnato bloccato in Libia fornisce... more
L’ordinanza del 21 febbraio 2019 che ha imposto al Ministero degli esteri l’obbligo di rilasciare un visto umanitario ex art. 25 del codice dei visti europeo nei confronti di un minore non accompagnato bloccato in Libia fornisce l’occasione per riannodare le fila delle riflessioni e delle azioni intraprese in funzione della costruzione di canali d’ingresso legale in Europa per persone bisognose di protezione internazionale. A livello legislativo, il visto umanitario ex art. 25 è stato più volte sottoposto a tentativi di modifica in vista di un suo potenziamento, sollecitati dal Parlamento europeo e ostacolati dal Consiglio. Per quanto riguarda la giurisprudenza europea, l’art. 25 è stato oggetto della famosa sentenza XX contro Belgio. Attualmente, la Corte EDU è chiamata a pronunciarsi sul tema dei visti umanitari nel caso M.N. e altri contro Belgio. Nel contempo, per iniziativa della società civile, i visti umanitari ex art. 25 sono stati funzionali all’apertura dei Corridoi Umanitari in diversi Paesi europei. Quest’analisi mette in luce le tante incertezze e contraddizioni relative all’interpretazione e alla portata dell’art. 25 del codice dei visti europeo. Interpretando tale articolo alla luce dei diritti fondamentali, il Tribunale di Roma, partecipa alla costruzione del visto umanitario come strumento giuridico di protezione, inserendosi nel dibattito tra le relative politiche del diritto e le esigenza di tutela.
Research Interests: European Law, Immigration, European Court of Justice, European Court of Human Rights, Fundamental Rights, and 11 moreLibia, Schengen Visa policy, Diritti Umani, Immigrazione in Europa, Refugee Law, Case law, Diritti Fondamentali E Inviolabili, Schengen, Diritto europeo, Immigrazione, and Humanitarian Visa
With the Torubarov ruling, the CJEU clarifies that, in asylum procedures, the mechanism of judicial review of unlawful decisions on international protection which consist of referral back to the administrative authority, in cases where... more
With the Torubarov ruling, the CJEU clarifies that, in asylum procedures, the mechanism of judicial review of unlawful decisions on international protection which consist of referral back to the administrative authority, in cases where the authority do not comply with the judicial decision, can deprive applicants of their right to an effective remedy. Having Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32 read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter direct effect, the national Court must substitute its own decision from the one of the administrative authorities, disapplying as necessary the national law that would prohibit it from proceeding in that way, thus granting protection.
Research Interests:
Refugee private sponsorship is emblematic of asylum governance’s evolution towards a greater involvement of private actors. Domestic factors explain the emergence of private sponsorship schemes in Europe; the peculiarity of the Common... more
Refugee private sponsorship is emblematic of asylum governance’s evolution towards a greater involvement of private actors. Domestic factors explain the emergence of private sponsorship schemes in Europe; the peculiarity of the Common European Asylum System, migrant death toll in the Mediterranean, the rise of resettlement and the institutional crisis which followed the increase in refugee and other migrants’ arrivals in the years 2014-2016. Private sponsorship is currently one of the few examples of the opening of safe and legal pathways for refugee protection and it offers remarkable insights into the European “asylum crisis” of the past years.
Research Interests: Refugee Studies, Asylum Law, Asylum, Civil Society and the Public Sphere, Refugee Resettlement, and 9 moreMigration Studies, Rule of Law, Governance and Civil Society, Multi-level governance, Internatinal Migration, International Law/Politics/Relations, Human Rights, Migration and Refugee issues, Asylum Seekers and Refugees, The Rule of Law, and Refugees Issues
EU-Africa cooperation on migration has ranked high in the European Union’s policy priorities of the past years. This paper reviews and presents the most recent developments in the area of EU- Africa relations on migration while offering... more
EU-Africa cooperation on migration has ranked high in the European Union’s policy priorities of the past years. This paper reviews and presents the most recent developments in the area of EU- Africa relations on migration while offering some critical insights into the current year (2019). In the context of the EU external action, migration is increasingly mainstreamed into other policies areas raising issues of horizontal policy incoherence; EU institutions and Member States also bear conflicting interests leading to vertical policy incoherence. Those two trends, which exemplify the current state of EU-Africa migration cooperation, are often the reason why policy actions set unrealistic goals. Some conclusive remarks illustrate how migration cooperation should be given the appropriate weight within the broader context of EU engagement with African countries.
Research Interests:
With the judgment of 13 September 2018 (C-368/17), the Court of Justice of the European Union established that the national authority ruling on the application for subsidiary protection must assess the seriousness of the crime that could... more
With the judgment of 13 September 2018 (C-368/17), the Court of Justice of the European Union established that the national authority ruling on the application for subsidiary protection must assess the seriousness of the crime that could result in a person being excluded from the benefit of subsidiary protection. This assessment shall consist of a full investigation into the circumstances of the individual case in question and cannot be taken automatically. By applying by analogy its own case-law on exclusion from refugee status to this subsidiary protection case, the Court has contributed to further aligning refugee and subsidiary protection in the direction of a single international protection status.
Research Interests:
In Touring Tours und Travel and Sociedad de Transportes of 13 December 2018 (joint cases C-412/17 and C-474/17), the Court of Justice rules on the prohibition of internal border controls within the Schengen Area. In line with its previous... more
In Touring Tours und Travel and Sociedad de Transportes of 13 December 2018 (joint cases C-412/17 and C-474/17), the Court of Justice rules on the prohibition of internal border controls within the Schengen Area. In line with its previous case-law, the Court addresses the issue of a national obligation imposing on coach travel operators the task of checking passengers’ passports and residence permits on routes crossing internal borders as a “measure having an effect equivalent to border checks”.
Research Interests:
Caselaw commentary of CJEU X and X judgement of 13 November 2018 (joint cases C-47/17 and C-48/17): Rapid processing of the asylum application “in the spirit of sincere cooperation”: the case of failing to reply in a timely manner to a re-examination request in take back and take charge proceduresmore
With the ruling X and X of 13 November 2018 (joint cases C-47/17 and C-48/17), the Court of Justice of the European Union established that in case of a failure to reply to a re-examination request within the prescribed period of two weeks... more
With the ruling X and X of 13 November 2018 (joint cases C-47/17 and C-48/17), the Court of Justice of the European Union established that in case of a failure to reply to a re-examination request within the prescribed period of two weeks in Dublin take back or take charge procedures, the requesting Member State becomes responsible for the examination of the asylum application. The Court of Justice contributes to the interpretation of the Dublin system implementation, stressing that the rules and procedures underlying the allocation of responsibility for the asylum claim should be in compliance with the objective of facilitating a swift examination of applications.
Research Interests:
Following the recent increase in migrants arrivals by sea, Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) have mobilised resources, made use of their knowledge and expertise, and provided policymakers with effective responses to migratory challenges... more
Following the recent increase in migrants arrivals by sea, Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) have mobilised resources, made use of their knowledge and expertise, and provided policymakers with effective responses to migratory challenges in Europe.
The Italian pilot project known as “Humanitarian Corridors” is an example of civil society’s commitment. A coalition of faith-based organisations, namely the Italian Federation of Evangelical Churches, the Community of Sant’Egidio, and the Waldensian Church acted as policy entrepreneurs and advocated a policy proposal that makes an innovative use of visas. These are issued on humanitarian grounds and based on the Community Code on Visas. Migrants in need of protection are provided with a safe travel to Italy, and supported and assisted during the reception and socio-economic integration process.
This research is part of the broader topic of alternative legal pathways to Europe. Civil society actions and bottom-up projects that target refugees and immigrants protection, such as the Humanitarian Corridors, fill the gap left by European and national policymakers at the time of the so-called “refugee crisis.” These initiatives are based on values such as solidarity, welcome, and have the objective of decreasing mortality in the Mediterranean.
This case study explores the Humanitarian Corridors key actors’ success in advocating for a policy change. Networks, resources, power and persuasions, and knowledge are some of the factors that can explain the policy achievements of these civil society organisations. Through 15 in-depth interviews with key stakeholders, who were directly or indirectly involved in the Humanitarian Corridors, this study extensively explored the motivation, multiple steps, challenges, and objectives behind this action in order to understand how this policy emerged.
The Italian pilot project known as “Humanitarian Corridors” is an example of civil society’s commitment. A coalition of faith-based organisations, namely the Italian Federation of Evangelical Churches, the Community of Sant’Egidio, and the Waldensian Church acted as policy entrepreneurs and advocated a policy proposal that makes an innovative use of visas. These are issued on humanitarian grounds and based on the Community Code on Visas. Migrants in need of protection are provided with a safe travel to Italy, and supported and assisted during the reception and socio-economic integration process.
This research is part of the broader topic of alternative legal pathways to Europe. Civil society actions and bottom-up projects that target refugees and immigrants protection, such as the Humanitarian Corridors, fill the gap left by European and national policymakers at the time of the so-called “refugee crisis.” These initiatives are based on values such as solidarity, welcome, and have the objective of decreasing mortality in the Mediterranean.
This case study explores the Humanitarian Corridors key actors’ success in advocating for a policy change. Networks, resources, power and persuasions, and knowledge are some of the factors that can explain the policy achievements of these civil society organisations. Through 15 in-depth interviews with key stakeholders, who were directly or indirectly involved in the Humanitarian Corridors, this study extensively explored the motivation, multiple steps, challenges, and objectives behind this action in order to understand how this policy emerged.