EU: "Voluntary" repatriation and surveillance of EU-widedemonstrations
01 May 1997
The meeting of the Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers (JHA Council) on 26-27 May in Brussels began at 2.30 in the afternoon and by 5.30 the Ministers were reported to have finished all their business and were drinking champagne prior to the formal signing of a Convention on corruption. In the three-hour meeting they had discussed 11 points on the main agenda and nodded through 23 items without debate. It was an apparently lacklustre JHA Council with little media interest or coverage.
Four of the items passed without debate were on: voluntary repatriation, a Joint Action on public order, implementation of the Dublin Convention, and the "analysis files" of Europol.
"Voluntary" repatriation
The Decision on "the exchange of information concerning assistance for the voluntary repatriation of third-country nationals" is reminiscent of the evolution of EU policy on extradition. In March 1995 the JHA Council adopted a Joint Action on "voluntary" extradition (officially termed "Simplified extradition") which provoked the question whether this was to be followed by action on "involuntary" extradition? In November 1995 a new Convention on (involuntary) extradition was adopted.
The language and ideology behind this Decision on "voluntary repatriation" encourages the view that the "exchange of information" will be followed by action, and that "involuntary" may follow "voluntary". Indeed there is a reference to "finding a dignified solution to reducing the number of illegally resident third-country nationals" in the Preamble. For the "legally resident third-country nationals" it says "assistance for voluntary return.. is purely designed to facilitate return of those who have taken a decision of their own free will".
The EU Member States who have established "support programmes.. [for] the voluntary return of legally as well as illegally resident third-country nationals" are to send details to the General Secretariat of the Council in Brussels each year. This information will include: the designated authorities carrying out the "programme"; the numbers; "requirements" placed on "the country of origin" and on the "returnees"; the level of "assistance" (eg: travel costs, removal costs, and "repatriation allowance") (Article 1). The aim to is achieve "possible approximation" of the "programmes". While:
"The Member States.. which have not introduced these programmes shall examine the results and usefulness thereof." (Article 4)
If there was any doubt as to the long-term direction of EU policy the Amsterdam Treaty says that measures will be taken to combat:
"illegal immigration and illegal residence including repatriation of illegal residents."
Surveillance of football fans extended to demonstrations
The JHA Council held in March 1996 adopted a "Recommendation on guidelines for preventing and restraining disorder connected with football matches". This was a UK initiative in the run-up to the European Championships to be held in June. Even though there was no mention of accountability or data protection it was generally welcomed in the media (but see the case of the Boore brothers, Statewatch, vol 3 no 2, vol 4 no 5, vol 5 no 5, vol 6 no 4 & vol 7 no 2). This seemingly uncontentious measure has just been extended to cover all aspects of public order through the Joint Action regarding cooperation on law and order and security which was adopted, without debate - nor do Joint Actions have to be ratified by national parliaments.
The Joint Action says cooperation on "football hooliganism" should be extended and "strengthen cooperation on law and order and security" and goes on:
"more detailed arrangements need to be made for cooperation with regard to events taken in a broad sense, ie: meetings attended by large numbers of people from more than one Member State, at which policing is primarily aimed at maintaining law and order and security and preventing criminal offences;
such me