Chancen-Gleichheit für Geduldete?

Neben dem X. Gesetz zur Beschleunigung von Asylverfahren hat der Bundestag am heutigen Freitag auch das sog. Chancen-Aufenthaltsrecht (CAR) für langjährig Geduldete beschlossen. Damit endet ein rund einjähriger Prozess, während dessen das CAR bereits früh eine Kontroverse hervorrief: Zahlreiche Bundesländer erließen sog. Vorgriffserlasse, die potentielle Adressat*innen des CAR bis zu dessen Inkrafttreten vor einer Abschiebung schützen sollten. Andere Länder setzten ihre Abschiebepraxis unbeirrt fort – gerade gegenüber potentiellen Adressat*innen. Der folgende Beitrag setzt sich mit dieser Praxis kritisch auseinander und zeigt auf, dass das CAR bereits vor Inkrafttreten eine Vorwirkung in Form eines Frustrationsverbotes entfaltete, das Ausländerbehörden irreversible aufenthaltsbeendende Maßnahmen untersagt.

Picking Primacy over Procedural Autonomy

On 8 November, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the Court’) decided that national courts are required to ascertain of their own motion whether detention of an illegally staying foreign national or asylum seeker is lawful. This judgment is an example of the ever-growing impact of EU law on national procedural rules, especially in the migration law area. The judgment is also noteworthy because of the difference in approach between, on the one hand, the Court and, on the other hand, the Dutch referring courts and AG Richard de la Tour.

Seven Months in the Freezing Forest

On 10 November 2022, Latvia extended the emergency situation at its border with Belarus for a further three months – now until February 2023. Introduced in August 2021 in response to the perceived ‘hybrid attack’ organised by Minsk, the state of emergency has since been renewed five times, effectively becoming a permanent condition. In practical terms that means that Latvia will continue carrying out systematic pushbacks – despite the very low number of border crossing attempts and allegations of gross violations of human rights.

Verschlusssache Lagebericht

In behördlichen und gerichtlichen Asylverfahren spielt die Beurteilung der Lage im Herkunftsstaat eine wesentliche Rolle. Die dafür erforderlichen Tatsachen sind durch Behörden und Gerichte zu ermitteln, was sich jedoch schwierig gestaltet und vielfach in Kritik gerät. Dem Problem der Uneinheitlichkeit der Rechtsprechung will die Bundesregierung nun mit einem Gesetzentwurf begegnen, der das Bundesverwaltungsgericht dazu ermächtigen soll, bei Divergenz selbst Tatsachen zu ermitteln und sogenannte Länderleitentscheidungen zu treffen. Damit bleibt jedoch ein Problem unangetastet.

Länderleitentscheidungen durch das Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Die Entscheidungspraxis in Asylverfahren ist sowohl beim BAMF als auch bei den Gerichten uneinheitlich. Dabei hängt nicht nur die Beurteilung der Glaubwürdigkeit der Antragsstellenden von den jeweiligen Entscheider*innen oder Richter*innen ab, sondern auch die Beurteilung der allgemeinen Lage im Herkunftsstaat. Die Bundesregierung schlägt nun vor, das Bundesverwaltungsgericht sogenannte Länderleitentscheidungen treffen zu lassen, ihm also eine Tatsachenkompetenz zu grundlegenden Fragen zu verleihen. Die hinter der Uneinheitlichkeit stehenden Probleme werden damit nur teilweise gelöst.

The Swedish Change of Government

With the current turbulences of British politics, Sweden may come across as a quiet Nordic country where not much is happening. Surprisingly little has been written about the Swedish elections from a legal perspective. On September 11, 2022, Swedes voted for a center-rightwing coalition with support from the far right. The purpose of this blog post is to discuss whether the Swedish election is as dangerous as it has been portrayed or if it (simultaneously) represents a mainstreaming of Swedish laws with some of the EU legal framework and is perhaps likely to activate Swedish courts to refer to EU courts more often.

Unexploited Monitoring Opportunities

Over the last year and a half, the European Border Coast Guard Agency has been under an unprecedented scrutiny. The Frontex saga started in 2020 when investigative journalists published ground-breaking findings, revealing how the Agency was breaching the law being complicit with human rights violations committed by Greek authorities. National Parliaments could play a bigger role in monitoring Frontex, serving as a complementary avenue for democratic oversight, in addition to the European Parliament.

Evolution and Mutation in the EU’s DNA

In order to get rid of “classical” border controls between Member States, the EU Commission is trying to incentivise Schengen States to substitute them with so called “alternative measures”, for example the enforced use of police powers and monitoring and surveillance technologies. These technologies and their impacts confront us with the question what it means to move “freely” within an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers.

Frontex and ›Algorithmic Discretion‹ (Part II)

Part I of this contribution explains how the regulatory design of the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) raises issues in relation to the rule of law principle of legality. Essentially, the ETIAS screening rules algorithm illustrates how automation can lead to what I suggest is a new form of arbitrariness. Part II reflects on how these legality issues affect other rule of law principles, including the principle of effective judicial protection. In turn, it raises three accountability issues and calls into question the assumption that the safeguard of manual processing in case of a ‘hit’ is a panacea for all rule of law challenges stemming from this semi-automated decision-making.

Frontex and ›Algorithmic Discretion‹ (Part I)

This contribution, presented in two parts, offers a predictive glimpse into future rule of law challenges due to the European Border and Coast Guard Agency’s (Frontex) primary responsibility for the automated processing and screening rules of the soon-to-be-operational European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) at the EU’s external borders. . In Part I on legality, I argue that the ETIAS screening rules algorithm illustrates how automation can lead to what I suggest is a new form of arbitrariness – which I refer to as ‘algorithmic discretion’. This can be defined as a situation where the exercise of power and discretion and their limitations are not sufficiently specified at the legislative level but are delegated to an algorithm instead.