THE VISEGRAD GROUP AGAINST EU INSTITUTIONS: CJEU DECISIONS DURING THE MIGRATION CRISIS

Öz

Attitudes towards the migration crisis turned the Visegrad Group (V4) into a new bloc within the European Union (EU). Disputes between V4 - Czech Re-public, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia - and other EU members and institu-tions were forwarded to the judiciary. V4 lost the case against the Council for the annulment of the relocation mechanism. Subsequently, the Commission opened infringement cases. This study analyses the tension between V4 and EU institutions during the migration crisis, through three concluded cases on Common European Asylum System (CEAS). Their political and legal features are evaluated in conjunction with the position of V4 within the EU. These are important both for V4 - EU relations and EU case law. The contributions of the Court of Justice (CJEU) by its first-time evaluation of provisional measures for the migration crisis and interpretation of the scope of derogations within the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice are examined.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• European Union
• Visegrad Group
• Migration Crisis
• Common European Asylum System
• Case Law

Visegrad Grubu AB Kurumlarına Karşı: Göç Krizinde ABAD Kararları

Öz

Göç krizine yönelik tutumları, Visegrad Grubu’nu (V4) Avrupa Birliği (AB) içinde yeni bir blok haline getirmiştir. V4 ülkelerinin - Çek Cumhuriyeti, Macaristan, Polonya ve Slovakya - diğer AB üyeleri ve AB kurumlarıyla uyuşmazlıkları, yargıya da taşınmıştır. İlk etapta, V4 ülkeleri, Konsey’e karşı açtıkları yeniden yerleştirme mekanizmasını iptal davasını kaybetmişlerdir. Adından Komisyon, V4 ülkelerine karşı çeşitli ihlal davaları açmıştır. Bu çalışma, göç krizi süresince, V4 ülkeleri ile AB kurumları arasındaki gerilimi, Avrupa Ortak Sığınma Sistemi (AOSS) kapsamındaki sonuçlanmış davalar üzerinden incelemektedir. Davaların, bu devletlerin AB içindeki konumlarına ilişkin siyasi ve hukuki nitelikleri değerlendirilmektedir. Davalar, sadece V4 - AB ilişkileri değil, AB içtihadı açısından da önemlidir. Bu bağlamda, Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı’nın (ABAD), kararlarında göç krizi geçici önlemlerine ilişkin ilk kez yaptığı değerlendirme ve Özgürlük, Güvenlik ve Adalet Alanında üye devletlere sağlanacak derogasyonların kapsamına ilişkin yorumunun, içtihada katkıları irdelenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Visegrad grubu
• Göç krizi
• AB içtihadı
• Avrupa Birliği
• Avrupa Ortak Sığınma Sistemi

Kaynakça

1. AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, “Integrating Muslims into Europe is 'Im-possible', Says Czech President,” The Guardian, 18.01.2016, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/18/integrating-muslims-into-europe-is-impossible-says-czech-president, E.T. 27.01.2021.
2. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, “Human Rights in Europe: Review of 2019,” EUR 01/2098/2020, 2020, 38-40, 59-61, https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur01/2098/2020/en/. E.T. 27.01.2021.
3. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, “Hungary: Alarming Rollback of Hu-man Rights under Consideration by UN Human Rights Com-mittee,” EUR 27/8089/2018, 19.03.2018, https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/EUR2780892018ENGLISH.pdf, E.T. 27.01.2021.
4. CEYHAN, Ayşe / TSOUKALA, Anastassia, “The Securitization of Mig-ration in Western Societies: Ambivalent Discourses and Poli-cies”, Alternatives, C. 27, S. 1 supp., 02.2002, ss. 21-39.
5. CJEU, “Case-law,” http://curia.europa.eu/juris/recherche.jsf?language=en, E.T. 27.01.2021.
6. COMAN, Ramona / LECONTE, Cécile, “Contesting EU Authority in the Name of European Identity: the New Clothes of the Sovere-ignty Discourse in Central Europe,” Journal of European Integra-tion, C. 41, S. 7, 2019, ss. 855-870.
7. ÇİLİNGİR, Sevgi, “‘Europe Without Borders’ and the Future of Euro-pean Integration: Internal Border Controls in the Schengen Area", Handbook of Research on Social and Economic Development in the European Union, Ed. BAYAR, Yılmaz, IGI Global, Hershey, 2020, ss. 455-474.
8. DUDZINSKA, Agnieska / KOTNAROWSKI, Michal, “Imaginary Mus-lims: How the Polish Right Frames Islam,” Brookings Institute, 24.06.2019, https://www.brookings.edu/research/imaginary-muslims-how-polands-populists-frame-islam/, E.T. 27.01.2021.

9. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, “Accession Criteria,” 2016, https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/policy/glossary/terms/accession-criteria_en, E.T. 27.01.2021.
10. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, “Annual Reports on Monitoring the App-lication of EU Law,” https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/annual-reports-monitoring-application-eu-law_en, E.T. 27.01.2021.
11. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, “Country Responsible for Asylum Appli-cation (Dublin Regulation),” 2021, https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/asylum/examination-of-applicants_en, E.T. 27.01.2021.
12. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, “Infringement Decisions,” https://ec.europa.eu/atwork/applying-eu-law/infringements-proceedings/infringement_decisions/?lang_code=en, E.T. 27.01.2021.
13. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, “Infringement Procedure,” 2021, https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/applying-eu-law/infringement-procedure_en, E.T. 27.01.2021.
14. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, “Member States’ Notifications of the Temporary Reintroduction of Border Control at Internal Bor-ders Pursuant to Article 25 and 28 et seq. of the Schengen Bor-ders Code,” 2021, https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/schengen/reintroduction-border-control/docs/ms_notifications_-_reintroduction_of_border_control.pdf, E.T. 27.01.2021.
15. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, “Relocation: Commission Refers the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland to the Court of Justice,” Press Release, 07.12.2017, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_17_5002, E.T. 27.01.2021.
16. EUROPEAN COUNCIL, “European Council Meeting (10 and 11 De-cember 2020),” EUCO 22/20, Brussels, 11.12.2020, para. 2e-f, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/47296/1011-12-20-euco-conclusions-en.pdf, E.T. 27.01.2021.
17. EUROPEAN COUNCIL / COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, “EU Migration Policy,” 06.01.2021, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/migratory-pressures/, E.T. 27.01.2021.
18. EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, “Implementation of the 2015 Council De-cisions Establishing Provisional Measures in the Area of Inter-national Protection for the Benefit of Italy and Greece,” 07.03.2017, ss. 26-29, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/583132/IPOL_STU(2017)583132_EN.pdf, E.T. 27.01.2021.
19. EUROPEAN UNION, “The 2004 Enlargement: the Challenge of a 25-Member EU,” 23.01.2007, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Ae50017, E.T. 27.01.2021.
20. FELLER, Erika, “Refugees are not Migrants,” Refugee Survey Quarterly, C. 24, S. 4, 2005, ss. 27-32.
21. GODZIAK, Elzbieta M., “Using Fear of the “Other,” Orbán Reshapes Migration Policy in a Hungary Built on Cultural Diversity,” MPI, 10.10.2019, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/orban-reshapes-migration-policy-hungary, E.T. 27.01.2021.
22. HEKİMLER, Oktay, “Batı – Doğu Çekişmesi: Göçmen Meselesi Avru-pa’da Yeni bir Bloklaşmaya Sebep Verebilir mi?,” Ankara Üniver-sitesi SBF Dergisi, C. 73, S. 1, 2018, ss. 19-48.
23. HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, “Hungary: Events of 2020,” 2021, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2021/country-chapters/hungary#, E.T. 27.01.2021.
24. HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, “Poland: Events of 2020,” 2021, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2021/country-chapters/poland, E.T. 27.01.2021.
25. IARLJ-EUROPE, “An Introduction to the Common European Asylum System for Courts and Tribunals: A Judicial Analysis,” EASO, 08.2016, s. 18, https://www.iarmj.org/iarlj-documents/general/Introduction_to_the_CEAS_FINAL.pdf, E.T. 27.01.2021.
26. IOV, Claudia A. / BOGDAN Maria C., “Securitization of Migration in the European Union: Between Discourse and Practical Action,” Research and Science Today, C. 1, S. 13, 2017, ss. 12-19.
27. MARUSIAK, Juraj, “Visegrad Group: an Unstable Periphery of the Eu-ropean Union?,” Internal Cohesion of the Visegrad Group, Ed. MARUSIAK, Juraj v.d., Publishing House of the Slovak Aca-demy of Sciences, Bratislava, 2013, ss. 122-159.
28. “Migrants Crisis: Slovakia 'Will only Accept Christians',” BBC News, 19.08.2015. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33986738, E.T. 27.01.2021.
29. MIHALIK, Jaroslav / JANKOL’A, Matus, “European Migration Crisis: Positions, Polarization and Conflict Management of Slovak Poli-tical Parties,” Baltic Journal of Law and Politics, C. 9, S. 1, 2016, ss. 1-25.
30. “Mix of Muslim, Christian Society not Possibly Peaceful, Hungary's Orban Says,” Daily Sabah, 25.09.2020, https://www.dailysabah.com/world/europe/mix-of-muslim-christian-society-not-possibly-peaceful-hungarys-orban-says?gallery_image=undefined#big, E.T. 27.01.2021.
31. NEWS WIRES, “EU Reaches Landmark Budget Deal with Hungary and Poland,” France 24, 11.12.2020, https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20201210-eu-reaches-landmark-budget-deal-with-hungary-and-poland-salvaging-covid-19-recovery-plan, E.T. 27.01.2021.
32. NIC, Milan, “The Visegrád Group in the EU: 2016 as a Turning‑Point?,” European View, C. 15, 2016, ss. 281–290. “No New Dawn for Far-Right in European Election,” DW, 2020, https://www.dw.com/en/no-new-dawn-for-far-right-in-european-election/a-48945615, E.T. 27.01.2021.
33. PODGÓRZAŃSKA, Renata, “The Migration Crisis from the East-Central European Perspective: Challenges for Regional Secu-rity,” Polish Political Science Yearbook, C. 46, S. 2, 2017, ss. 87–104.
34. PORTES, Jonathan, “Immigration Between the Referandum and Brexit,” UK in a Changing Europe, 20.06.2020, https://ukandeu.ac.uk/long-read/immigration-between-the-referendum-and-brexit/, E.T. 27.01.2021.
35. SAMUR, Hakan, “Polonya: İdealist Avrupalılıktan Pragmatist Avrupa Birliği Üyeliğine,” Uluslararası Hukuk ve Politika, C. 11, S. 41, 2015, ss. 37-68.
36. TANNER, Arno, “Owerwhelmed by Refugee Flows, Scandinavia Tem-pers its Warm Welcome”, Migration Information Source, 16.2.2016, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/overwhelmed-refugee-flows-scandinavia-tempers-its-warm-welcome, E.T. 27.01.2021.
37. VISEGRAD GROUP, “Joint Declaration of the Ministers of the Interior,” Ministerial Meeting, Prague, 19.01.2016, https://www.visegradgroup.eu/download.php?docID=287, E.T. 27.01.2021.
38. VISEGRAD GROUP, “Joint Declaration of the Visegrad Group Prime Ministers,” Prague, 08.06.2016, https://www.visegradgroup.eu/documents/official-statements/joint-declaration-of-the-160609, E.T. 27.01.2021.
39. VISEGRAD GROUP, “Joint Statement of the Visegrad Group Countries,” Prague, 03.12.2015, https://www.visegradgroup.eu/calendar/2015/joint-statement-of-the-151204, E.T. 27.01.2021.
40. VISEGRAD GROUP, “Joint Statement on Migration,” Prague, 15.02.2016, https://www.visegradgroup.eu/calendar/2016/joint-statement-on, E.T. 27.01.2021.
41. VISEGRAD GROUP, “Joint Statement on the Migration Crisis Respon-se Mechanism,” Warsaw, 21.11.2016, http://www.visegradgroup.eu/calendar/2016/joint-statement-of-v4, E.T. 27.01.2021.
42. VISEGRAD GROUP, “Visegrad Declaration 1991,” 2019, https://www.visegradgroup.eu/documents/visegrad-declarations/visegrad-declaration-110412, E.T. 27.01.2021.
43. ZALAN, Ester, “EU Leaders Unblock Budget in Deal with Hungary and Poland,” EU Observer, 11.12.2020, https://euobserver.com/political/150357, E.T. 27.01.2021.
44. ZSOLT, Balla, “UNHCR Concerned Hungary Pushing Asylum Seekers Back to Serbia,” 15.07.2016, https://www.unhcr.org/news/latest/2016/7/5788c85a4/unhcr-concerned-hungary-pushing-asylum-seekers-serbia.html, E.T. 27.01.2021.