AB’nin İnformel Göç Araçlarının Hukukî Denetimi - AB-Tunus Mutabakatına İlişkin Davaların Kabul Edilebilirliği

Öz

Avrupa Birliği'nin (AB) dış göç yönetimi alanındaki hukuki sorumluluğu, informel araçların yaygın kullanımı nedeniyle giderek daha fazla sorgulanmaktadır. Amsterdam Antlaşması’ndan itibaren AB bu alandaki yetkisini geri kabul antlaşmaları ile kullanmaktaydı. Ancak, 2015 sonrası göç krizinin aciliyeti, geri kabul anlaşmalarının prosedürel ve hukuki kısıtları ile esneklik ihtiyacı sebepleriyle Türkiye ile AB arasındaki 18 Mart Mutabakatı (2016) gibi informel araçlar mevcut hukuki kaynaklar yerine tercih edilmektedir. Bu araçların yargısal denetimi sadece Türkiye örneğinde test edilmiştir ve ABAD kabul edilebilirlik aşamasında davayı reddetmiştir. Bu makale, AB'nin gayri resmi göç araçlarının yargısal denetiminin olası yollarını değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu değerlendirme AB ile Tunus arasındaki Mutabakat Zaptı (2023)’na karşı gidilebilecek yargısal yolları usuli açıdan incelenerek yapılacaktır. İptal davası kapsamında davacıların statüsüne ve ön karar prosedürü kapsamında ulusal dava açmaya ilişkin mevcut kriterlerin bu araçları ABAD önünde getirmeyi zorlaştırdığı sonucuna varılmıştır. Dolayısıyla, informel araçların kullanımındaki artış nedeniyle, ABAD’ın usul kurallarını reform etme ihtiyacı bulunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• AB göç hukuku
• informelleşme
• esnek hukuk
• hukuki sorumluluk
• iptal davası

Judicial Review of the EU's Informal Migration Instruments - Admissibility in the case of the EU-Tunisia MoU

Abstract

The accountability of the EU in external migration management has become increasingly challenging due to the widespread use of informal instruments. Since the Amsterdam Treaty, the EU has exercised this competence mainly through readmission agreements. However, due to the urgency of the post-2015 migration crisis, coupled with the procedural and legal constraints of readmission agreements and the need for flexibility, soft law sources such as the EU-Turkey Statement (2016) have been favoured over hard law sources like readmission agreements. Judicial review of informal instruments has only been tested in the EU-Turkey Statement, where the CJEU dismissed the case at the admissibility stage. This article aims to assess the potential avenues for judicial review of the EU's informal migration instruments. It does so by examining the possible cases under EU law concerning the EU-Tunisia Memorandum of Understanding (2023) from a procedural perspective. It concludes that the current criteria regarding the status of applicants under action for annulment and the difficulty of initiating national proceedings under the preliminary ruling procedure complicate litigation before the CJEU. Therefore, there is an urgent need to reform the procedural rules of the CJEU in light of the ever-increasing use of informal migration instruments.

Keywords

• EU migration law
• informalisation
• soft law
• accountability
• actions for annulment

References

1. Arroyo Jiménez, Luis. “Beyond bindingness”. in The Legal Effects of EU Soft Law - Theory, Language and Sectoral Insights. Láncos, Petra Lea / Péter, Pázmány / Xanthoulis, Napoleon / Arroyo Jiménez, Luis (Ed.s), 9-32. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023.
2. Baykal, Sanem. “Avrupa Birliği’nin geleceği: meşruiyet sorunu, anayasallaşma süreci ve bütünleşmenin nihai hedefi üzerine”. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, Vol. 1 Issue: 1 (2004): 119-153.
3. Baykal, Sanem. Avrupa Birliği Hukukunda Tazminat Davası. Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara, 2006.
4. Baykal, Sanem ve Göçmen, İlke. Avrupa Birliği Kurumsal Hukuku. Seçkin Yayıncılık, 2016.
5. Butler, Graham. “Pre-Ratifi cation Judicial Review of International Agreements to be Concluded by the European Union”. in The Court of Justice of the European Union: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Derlén, Mattias / Lindholm, Johan / Lundqvist, Björn (Ed.s), 53-77. Hart Publishing, 2018.
6. Cannizzaro, Enzo. "Denialism as the Supreme Expression of Realism - A Quick Comment on NF v. European Council". European Papers, Vol. 2, No. 1 (2017): 251-257.
7. Cardwell, Paul James and Dickson, Rachel. "'Formal informality" in EU external migration governance: the case of mobility partnerships". Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol. 49, No. 12 (2023): 3121–3139.
8. Carrera, Sergio, den Hertog, Leonhard and Stefan, Marco. "It wasn't me! The Luxembourg Court Orders on the EU-Turkey Refugee Deal". CEPS Policy Insights, No 2017-15/April 2017.

9. Carrera, Sergio, den Hertog, Leonhard and Stefan, Marco. "The EU-Turkey deal: reversing 'Lisbonisation' in EU migration and asylum policies". in Constitutionalising the External Dimensions of EU Migration Policies in Times of Crisi, Carrera, Sergio / Santos Vara, Juan / Strik, Tineke (Ed.s), 155-174. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019.
10. Craig, Paul and de Búrca, Gráinne. EU Law - Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press, Seventh Edition, 2020.
11. Erdenir, Burak. “18 Mart Mutabakatı: Bir Hukuki Analiz”. Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi Vol. 20, No. 2 (2021): 447-480.
12. Fernández Arribas, Gloria. "The EU-Turkey Agreement: A Controversial Attempt at Patching up a Major Problem". European Papers, Vol. 1, No. 3 (2016): 1097-1104.
13. Fernando-Gonzalo, Elsa. "The EU's Informal Readmission Agreements with Third Countries on Migration: Effectiveness over Principles?". European Journal of Migration and Law, 25 (2023): 83–108.
14. Fink, Melanie and Idriz, Narin. "Effective Judicial Protection in the External Dimension of the EU's Migration and Asylum Policies?". in The Informalisation of the EU's External Action in the Field of Migration and Asylum, Eva Kassoti / Narin Idriz (Ed.s), 117-146. Springer & T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, 2022.
15. Fink, Melanie and Rijpma, Jorrit J.. "Responsibility in Joint Returns after WS and Others v Frontex: Letting the Active By-Stander Off the Hook". EU Law Analysis, 22 September 2023, accessed 8 December 2023. https://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2023/09/responsibility-in-joint-returns-after.html.
16. Frasca, Eleonora. "More or less (Soft) Law? The Case of Third Country Migration Cooperation and the Long-Term Effects of EU Preference for Soft Law Instruments". Queen Mary Law Journal, Vol. 2021, No. 1 (2021): 1-32.
17. García Andrade, Paula and Frasca, Eleonora. “ The Memorandum of Understanding between the EU and Tunisia: Issues of procedure and substance on the informalisation of migration cooperation”. 26.01.2024, accessed 24 April 2024. https://eumigrationlawblog.eu/the-memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-eu-and-tunisia-issues-of-procedure-and-substance-on-the-informalisation-of-migration-cooperation/#:~:text=On%2016%20July%202023%2C%20the,Tunisia%20in%20macroeconomic%20stability%2C%20economy.
18. Gatti, Mauro and Ott, Andrea. "The EU-Turkey statement: legal nature and compatibility with EU institutional law". in. Constitutionalising the External Dimensions of EU Migration Policies in Times of Crisis, Carrera, Sergio, Santos Vara, Juan and Strik, Tineke (Ed.s), 175-200. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019.
19. Göçmen, İlke. “Türkiye ile Avrupa Birliği Arasındaki Geri Kabul Anlaşmasının Hukuki Yönden Analizi”. Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi, Vol.13, No.2 (2014): 21-86.
20. Idriz, Narin. "The EU-Turkey statement or the 'refugee deal': the extra-legal deal of extraordinary times?". Asser Research Paper 2017-06.
21. Kassoti, Eva and Carrozzini, Alina. "One Instrument in Search of an Author: Revisiting the Authorship and Legal Nature of the EU-Turkey Statement". in. The Informalisation of the EU's External Action in the Field of Migration and Asylum, Kassoti, Eva and Idriz, Narin (Ed.s), 237-258. Springer & T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, 2022.
22. Molinari, Caterina. "The General Court's Judgments in the Cases Access Info Europe v. Commission (T-851/16 and T-852/16): A Transparency Paradox?". European Papers, Vol. 3, No. 2 (2018): 961-972.
23. Monar, Jörg. "The External Dimension of the EU's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice - Progress, potential and limitations after the Treaty of Lisbon". SIEPS, 2012:1.
24. Natter, Katharina. "Reinventing a Broken Wheel: What the EU-Tunisia Deal Reveals over Europe's Migration Cooperation". VerfBlog, 05.09.2023, accessed 24 January 2024. https://verfassungsblog.de/reinventing-a-broken-wheel/, DOI: 10.17176/20230905-182925-0.
25. Osso, Berfin Nur. "Unpacking the Safe Third Country Concept in the European Union: B/orders, Legal Spaces, and Asylum in the Shadow of Externalization". International Journal of Refugee Law, 35 (2023): 272–303.
26. Ott, Andrea. “Informalization of EU Bilateral Instruments: Categorization, Contestation, and Challenges”. Yearbook of European Law, Vol. 39, No. 1 (2020): 586-592.
27. Passalacqua, Virginia / Costamagna, Francesco. “The law and facts of the preliminary reference procedure: a critical assessment of the EU Court of Justice’s source of knowledge”, European Law Open, 2 (2023): 322-344.
28. Peers, Steve / Costa, Marios. "Judicial Review of EU Acts after the Treaty of Lisbon; Order of 6 September 2011, Case T-18/10 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v. Commission & Judgment of 25 October 2011, Case T-262/10 Microban v. Commission". European Constitutional Law Review, 8(1), (2012): 82-104.
29. Pijnenburg, Annick. “Team Europe’s Deal - What’s Wrong with the EU-Tunisia Migration Agreement?”. 21.08.2023, accessed 24 January 2024. https://verfassungsblog.de/team-europes-deal/
30. Rijpma, Jorrit J.. "External Migration and Asylum Management: Accountability for Executive Action Outside EU-territory". European Papers, Vol. 2, No. 2 (2017): 571-596.
31. Roman, Emanuela. "The "Burden" of Being "Safe"—How Do Informal EU Migration Agreements Affect International Responsibility Sharing?". in The Informalisation of the EU's External Action in the Field of Migration and Asylum, Kassoti, Eva / Idriz, Narin (Ed.s), 317-346. Springer & T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, 2022.
32. Santos Vara, Juan and Pascual Matellán, Laura. “The Informalization of EU Return Policy: A Change of Paradigm in Migration Cooperation with Third Countries?”, in The Informalisation of the EU's External Action in the Field of Migration and Asylum, Eva Kassoti / Narin Idriz (Ed.s), 37-52. Springer & T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, 2022.
33. Santos Vara, Juan. "Soft international agreements on migration cooperation with third countries: a challenge to democratic and judicial controls in the EU". in Constitutionalising the External Dimensions of EU Migration Policies in Times of Crisis, Carrera, Sergio / Santos Vara, Juan / Strik, Tineke (Ed.s), 21-38. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019.
34. Senden, Linda. Soft Law in European Community Law. Hart Publishing, 2004.
35. Slominski, Peter / Trauner, Florian. "Reforming me softly – how soft law has changed EU return policy since the migration crisis". West European Politics, Vol. 44, No: 1 (2021): 93-113.
36. Ünalp-Çepel, Zühal. “Critical Arguments About Readmission Practices and Policies Between EU and Turkey”, Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi, Vol.19, No:2 (2020). 501-522.
37. Wessel, Ramses A. "Normative transformations in EU external relations: the phenomenon of ‘soft’ international agreements". West European Politics, Vol. 44, No. 1 (2021): 72–92.