2018年-CEPS欧洲政策研究中心_Can_the_EU_Deliver_the_Area_of_Freedom_Security_and_Justice_14页_292kb

Summary: Can the EU Deliver the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice?

Core Content

The document analyzes the EU's ability to deliver on its commitment to establish an "Area of Freedom, Security and Justice" (AFSJ), a major policy initiative launched in 1997. It evaluates the draft Constitutional Treaty and its potential impact on the EU's capacity to harmonize justice and home affairs (JHA) policies across member states. The paper highlights both the positive reforms and the remaining limitations of the treaty, particularly in the context of cross-border crime, migration, and the enforcement of EU laws.

Main Views

• The EU has set an ambitious goal to create a unified legal and security framework, but progress has been slow and inconsistent.
• The Tampere Agenda (1999) outlined key objectives, but they have not been fully realized.
• The draft Constitutional Treaty introduces several positive reforms, including:
  • A single legal procedure for JHA legislation.
  • Qualified majority voting in the Council for most JHA laws.
  • Increased role of the European Parliament in JHA law-making.
  • Incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the treaty.
  • Expanded jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to cover JHA matters.
  • Formal recognition of the Charter as part of the Union’s legal framework.
• However, the treaty does not provide the necessary powers for the EU to effectively implement the AFSJ, particularly in areas like cross-border crime, migration, and judicial cooperation.
• Member states have reluctantly ceded some sovereignty to the EU, but national resistance remains strong, especially in the UK, Denmark, and Ireland, due to concerns over sovereignty, public support, and legal interpretation.

Key Information

Progress So Far

• The EU has not fully delivered on the AFSJ objectives, with most progress being incomplete or unsatisfactory.
• The Schengen area has removed internal border controls, but external border management remains fragmented.
• Cross-border crime and terrorism have become more challenging due to the lack of coordinated legal and security systems.
• National legal systems differ significantly, leading to inconsistent application of laws and complicated legal procedures for cooperation.

The Draft Constitutional Treaty

• The treaty aims to strengthen the EU’s legal foundation and increase oversight of its institutions.
• It includes the Charter of Fundamental Rights as a key component, which is legally binding under the treaty.
• However, uncertainty remains due to amendments that limit the Charter’s enforceability and create ambiguity in its application.
• The ECJ's jurisdiction is expanded to cover JHA, but the court is overburdened and slow, raising concerns about its efficiency.

Judicial Reforms

• The treaty introduces three levels of federal courts, including the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the High Court, and specialized courts.
• It restricts appeals from the High Court to the ECJ, which is intended to reduce the ECJ’s workload.
• The "direct and individual concern" rule for standing in court remains, but delegated acts are now more open to judicial review.
• Despite these reforms, the EU courts lack the capacity to handle the increased caseload, which will continue to rise with enlargement and increased cross-border legal issues.

Challenges and Concerns

• National governments are reluctant to cede control over sensitive areas like criminal law, police cooperation, and border management.
• The Charter of Fundamental Rights is controversial, especially in the UK, where it is seen as a threat to national sovereignty.
• Legal interpretation of the Charter and other rights provisions will be crucial, and uncertainty could lead to litigation and public skepticism.
• The ECJ is unlikely to become an activist court, but its role in interpreting the Charter may still influence the balance of power between the EU and member states.

Conclusion

While the draft Constitutional Treaty represents progress in strengthening the AFSJ, it falls short of the necessary reforms to ensure effective implementation. The EU needs more power and better institutional capacity to address cross-border challenges like crime, migration, and security. The success of the treaty will depend on clear legal interpretation, efficient court systems, and willingness of member states to pool sovereignty in favor of a more unified legal and security framework.