Evelien R Brouwer

Building on discourses on trust developed by other social sciences, this collective working paper aims to frame the meaning and reach of the notion of mutual trust as relied upon in the field of EU law with a view to contributing to its conceptualization. The structure of the paper reflects that ambition: starting with a rich contribution replacing mutual trust within the context of the history of ideas, followed by a critical reflection on the role of mutual trust in the EU market integration process, the working paper then carefully inquires into the role of mutual trust in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice - in particular in the fields of civil and criminal justice cooperation - where references to mutual trust have been the most apparent over the past decade, before attempting to understand the significance of mutual trust for the management of the Union as a polity. Albeit to varying extent, all legal contributions explore the potential and limits of mutual trust as a notion governing regulatory choices and judicial interpretations, if not the EU legal system as a whole, while being anchored in substantive law analyses. All contributions were finalized at the end of 2015.

In this paper, we address three connected central issues in refugee law. Firstly, who is entitled to protection? Secondly, what should that protection entail – merely allowing the presence of refugees in the territory, or allowing access to the labour market and health and welfare systems? Thirdly, where should refugees receive protection – in the first country in which they arrive after fleeing their home country, or elsewhere? We analyze the current crisis of European refugee law by looking back at the drafting history of the 1951 Refugee Convention. European policy makers can learn from the way in which the drafters partially solved these issues in 1950/1951.

In a judgment of 2014, Dhabhi v. Italy, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that an Italian family allowance scheme, which treated TCNs less favourably than EU workers, violated Article 14 ECHR in combination with 8 ECHR. Whereas, in earlier cases, the ECtHR had already granted TCNs equal treatment with the respondent state’s own nationals, the judgment in Dhabhi explicitly addresses the position of TCNs compared to EU workers as a privileged category of foreigners. These developments raise the question to what extent the apparently limited scope of Article 18 TFEU –only EU citizens are covered- still fits with the broader body of European law, in particular EU migration law and the ECHR. This contribution seeks to answer this question through an examination of existing instruments and case law on equal treatment of TCNs. It does not argue that equal treatment of TCNs is always called for. However, it asks whether differential treatment of TCNs should not in principle be covered by Article 18 TFEU and be subject to the requirement of a reasonable and objective justification also taking into account that this right to non-discrimination has been included in Article 21 (2) of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the EU.
This article is published in: in M. van den Brink, S. Burri and J. Goldschmidt  (eds.) Equality and Human Rights: Nothing But Trouble? SIM specials no. 38, Utrecht University 2015, p. 123-146

This paper examines the main EU-level initiatives that have been put forward in the weeks following the attacks in Paris in January 2015. It argues that a majority of these proposals predated the Paris shootings and had until that point proved contentious as regards their efficacy, legitimacy and lawfulness. The paper proposes that the EU adopts a new European Agenda on Security and Liberty based on an EU security (criminal justice-led) cooperation model that is firmly anchored in current EU legal principles and rule of law standards. This model would call for ‘less is more’ concerning the use, processing and retention of data by police and intelligence communities. Instead, it would pursue better and more accurate use of data meeting the quality standards of evidence in criminal judicial proceedings.

This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs on request of the Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties and Justice, aims to provide a detailed mapping and analysis of the central legal changes and issues characterising the five main legislative proposals accompanying the Pact on Migration and Asylum, presented by the Commission in September 2020. The legislative instruments under consideration include a new Screening Regulation, an amended proposal for an Asylum Procedures Regulation, an amended proposal revising the Eurodac Regulation, a new Asylum and Migration Management Regulation, and a new Crisis and Force Majeure Regulation. As a second step, the study provides a critical assessment of the five proposals as to their legal coherence, fundamental rights compliance, and application of the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility enshrined in Article 80 TFEU.