Slow road to ‘freedom, justice and security’

Date: 26/06/1997

THE Amsterdam Treaty proudly boasts of creating an area of freedom, justice and security for all the Union's 370 million citizens.

Such was the importance attached to this that the Dutch presidency's draft treaty text declared that achieving this goal was “central to citizens' concerns”.

But whether the watered-down text which finally emerged from the long months of negotiations has laid the foundations for achieving that remains to be seen.

Many doubt whether the transfer of asylum and immigration policy to the Union's communitarised 'first pillar' will speed up progress in this sensitive policy area.

Germany's insistence that any decision to introduce majority voting into the decision-making process in this field must be approved unanimously has cast serious doubts over whether it will ever be used at all.

The only matter which will automatically be decided by a majority vote is the issuing of visas for stays in the Union of under three months. Member states will have to decide whether to extend this to other areas no later than five years after the new treaty is ratified.

Under Amsterdam, asylum and immigration policy will no longer be made through 'third pillar' intergovernmental agreement. It will instead pass to the first pillar.

Supporters of the change say it will speed things up to some extent, not least because individual asylum and immigration laws will no longer have to be ratified by all 15 member states' national parliaments. But the unanimity rule means progress is likely to be sluggish.

The European Commission admits it is disappointed about what was finally agreed last week, but nevertheless feels that some progress was made.

Although it will have to share its traditional right of initiative with member states in this area for five years, it will then gain the sole prerogative to propose laws, as it already does in all other first pillar fields.

One source of contention in the new treaty is a controversial protocol designed to discourage member states from accepting asylum applications from citizens of another EU country.

The so-called Aznar Protocol, named after Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar, was included following a well-publicised Hispano-Belgian spat over the repatriation of suspected Basque separatist terrorists. It lays down strict criteria under which a member state can consider asylum applications from EU nationals and concludes with the proviso that “the application shall be dealt with on the basis of the presumption that it is manifestly unfounded”.

Human rights organisations, including Amnesty International and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), claim this contravenes international law.

“Amnesty has been supporting the UNHCR on this. We oppose any form of suppression or limitation of the right to seek asylum in European Union nations. This is a clear breach of the 1951 refugee convention,” said an Amnesty spokeswoman.

But a last-minute addition to the protocol, which says the new rules will not affect national decision-making powers, has softened its impact. Indeed Belgium has already issued a statement saying it will continue to examine asylum applications.

Those hoping the new treaty would also mark a significant step towards creating a free movement area embracing all 15 EU member states were also disappointed.

Although the Schengen Convention on free movement will now be incorporated into the main body of EU law, the UK and Ireland secured opt-outs which will allow them to impose whatever controls they “consider necessary” to protect their borders.

Meanwhile, Denmark managed to overcome national constitutional difficulties over the change in the convention's status. Copenhagen will get an opt-out allowing it to remain legally outside the agreement, but participate politically.

The fight against crime is seen as another key area where EU-level action can play a real role. To this end, the new treaty contains provisions to strengthen judicial and police cooperation between member states - although both will continue to be dealt with on an intergovernmental basis - and boost the role of the fledgling European police agency Europol.