Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2007:420
Date: 2007-07-10
Language of the case: English
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Border checks;Closer cooperation
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: United Kingdom

summary of which was published in Agence Europe No 9407 of 17 April 2007. 17 – Thym, Ungleichzeitigkeit und europäisches Verfassungsrecht, p. 83. The author also refers to Article 43(1) EU, which provides that the proposed closer cooperation is not to affect the provisions of the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union. 18 – Boer den, Monica, Not Merely a Matter of Moving House: Police Co-operation from Schengen to the TEU, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 7(2000), p. 336(337); Bender, Tobias, Die verstärkte Zusammenarbeit nach Nizza, ZaöRV 2001, p. 730(743); Gautier, Marie, Accords de Schengen, entry 2630, JurisClasseur Europe Traité, paragraph 38; Thym, Ungleichzeitigkeit und europäisches Verfassungsrecht, p. 82. The last-mentioned author maintains that the Schengen Protocol applies to the first and third pillars, and for that reason was adopted as an annex to the EU Treaty and the EC Treaty. 19 – In its judgment in Case C-503/03 Commission v Spain [2006] ECR I-1097, paragraph 34, the Court stated that ‘The provisions of the Schengen acquis are applicable only if and as far as they are compatible with European Union and Community law’. Article 1 of the Schengen Protocol provides that the closer cooperation is to be conducted within the institutional and legal framework of the European Union and with respect for the Treaties. That provision is an important expression of the principle, upheld in Article 43(1) EU, that closer cooperation is to respect the Treaties and the institutional framework of the Union, as well as Community law. 20 – Bender, Die verstärkte Zusammenarbeit nach Nizza, pp. 730, 731 and 767. 21 – Jacqué, Jean-Paul, Droit institutionnel de l’Union européenne, 3rd edition, Paris 2004, p. 161, maintains that closer cooperation derives from the idea that it is impossible for all the Member States to progress towards integration at the same speed. 22 – Blanke, Titel VII, Bestimmungen über eine Verstärkte Zusammenarbeit, in Grabitz/Hilf, paragraph 1. 23 – Referring to Article 134 CAA, legal commentators have pointed out that, even at its earliest stage, the Schengen acquis did not conflict with Community law (Van Simaeys, Benoit, Carlier, Jean-Yves, Le nouvel espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice, in Lejeune, Yves (ed.): Le traité d’Amsterdam, Espoirs et déceptions, Brussels, 1999, p. 250). 24 – Blanke, Titel VII, Bestimmungen über eine Verstärkte Zusammenarbeit, in Grabitz/Hilf, paragraph 9, Gautier, Accords de Schengen, paragraphs 1 and 2. A stage has been reached which goes beyond the founding Treaties, in that the Community, although enjoying competence regarding the free movement of persons, was not yet competent to regulate the legal position of the citizens of non-member countries. 25 – Gautier, Accords de Schengen, paragraph 3. According to the author, the Treaty of Amsterdam integrated the acquis deriving from the Schengen agreements into the European institutional framework. 26 – Reply in Case C- 77/05, paragraph 72. 27 – The English version of that protocol uses the following terms: ‘Proposals and initiatives to build upon the Schengen acquis’; the French version: ‘Les propositions et initiatives fondés sur l’acquis de Schengen’; the German version ‘Vorschläge und Initiativen auf der Grundlage des Schengen-Besitzstands’; the Italian version: ‘Le proposte e le iniziative che si baseranno sull’acquis di Schengen’; and the Spanish version ‘Las propuestas e iniciativas para desarrollar el acervo de Schengen’. 28 – OJ 2001 L 187, p. 45. 29 – In the Slovene version: ‘Ta direktiva pomeni nadaljnji razvoj schengenskega pravnega reda ...’; in the English version: ‘This Directive builds on the Schengen acquis …’; in the French version: ‘La présente directive constitue un développement de l'acquis de Schengen ...’; in the German version: ‘Diese Richtlinie stellt eine Weiterentwicklung des Schengen-Besitzstands ...’; in the Italian version: ‘Il presente strumento rappresenta uno sviluppo dell'acquis di Schengen […]’; in the Spanish version ‘La presente Directiva constituye un desarrollo del acervo de Schengen […]’. 30 – OJ 2004 L 64, p. 1. 31 – In the Slovene version: ‘Ta uredba je akt, ki temelji na schengenskem pravnem redu ...’; in the English version: ‘This Regulation constitutes an act building on the Schengen acquis...’; in the French version: ‘Le présent règlement constitue un acte fondé sur l'acquis de Schengen ...’; in the German version: ‘Diese Verordnung stellt einen auf dem Schengen-Besitzstand aufbauenden ...Rechtsakt ...’; in the Italian version: ‘Il presente regolamento costituisce un atto basato sull'acquis di Schengen ...’; in the Spanish version: ‘El presente Reglamento constituye un acto que desarrolla el acervo de Schengen ...’. 32 – OJ 2005 L 83, p. 48. 33 – In the English version: ‘...to the extent that its measures develop provisions of the Schengen acquis against the organisation of illegal immigration...’; in the French version: ‘...pour autant que ses mesures développent les dispositions de l'acquis de Schengen afin de lutter contre l'organisation de l'immigration illégale...’, in the German version: ‘...deren Maßnahmen eine Weiterentwicklung des Schengen-Besitzstands zur Bekämpfung der illegalen Einwanderung darstellen...’; in the Italian version: ‘...nella misura in cui le sue misure sviluppano le disposizioni dell'acquis di Schengen volte a combattere l'organizzazione di immigrazione illegale...’; in the Spanish version: ‘...en la medida en que desarrolla las disposiciones del acervo de Schengen en materia de lucha contra la organización de la inmigración ilegal...’. 34 – I should point out that in its judgment in Case C-296/95 EMU Tabac and Others [1998] ECR I‑1605, paragraph 36, in which, regarding the difference between the Danish and Greek versions of Council Directive 92/12/EEC on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive 92/108/EEC of 14 December 1992 (OJ 1992 L 390, p. 124), the Court stated that ‘… to discount two language versions, as the applicants in the main proceedings suggest, would run counter to the Court’s settled case-law to the effect that the need for a uniform interpretation of Community regulations makes it impossible for the text of a provision to be considered in isolation but requires, on the contrary, that it should be interpreted and applied in the light of the versions existing in the other official languages … Lastly, all the language versions must, in principle, be recognised as having the same weight and this cannot vary according to the size of the population of the Member States using the language in question’. 35 – Case C-30/77 Bouchereau [1977] ECR 1999, paragraph 14, and Case C-449/93 Rockfon [1995] ECR I-4291, paragraph 28. The Rockfon case concerned interpretation of Article 1 of Council Directive 75/129/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1975 L 48, p. 29). It was necessary to interpret a term contained in that article: ‘establishment’ in English, ‘stabilimento’ in Italian, ‘établissement’ in French and ‘obrat’ in Slovene. After an examination of the various language versions of the directive, the Court concluded that ‘[a] comparison of the terms used shows that they have different connotations signifying, according to the version in question, establishment, undertaking, work centre, local unit or place of work’ (paragraph 27). 36 – Michel, Valérie, Actes annexés au traité, entry 150 in JurisClasseur Europe Traité, paragraph 3. 37 – According to German legal literature, Community law contains no definition of the concept of protocol used in Article 311 EC (Weber, in von den Groeben/Schwarze, Article 311, paragraph 1). 38 – Michel, Actes annexés au traité, paragraph 36. According to the author, the protocols have exactly the same legislative force as the founding Treaties. 39 – Case C-469/03 Miraglia [2005] ECR I-2009. 40 – Weber, in von den Groeben/Schwarze, Article 311, paragraph 2. 41 – Lenaerts, Koen, Van Nuffel Piet, Bray Robert, Constitutional Law of the European Union, 2nd edition, London, 2005, p. 710; Blumann, Claude, Dubois, Louis, Droit institutionnel de l'Union européenne, 2nd edition, Paris 2005, p. 394. 42 – Weber, in von den Groeben/Schwarze, Article 311, paragraph 3; Michel, Actes annexés au traité, paragraph 42. In its judgment in Case C-58/94 Netherlands v Council [1996] ECR I-2169, in which the Kingdom of the Netherlands sought, inter alia, annulment of Council Decision 93/731/EC of 20 December 1993 on public access to Council documents (OJ 1993 L 340, p. 43), the Court referred to Declaration 17 on the right of access to information, annexed to the final act of the meeting of Heads of State or of Government which adopted the EU Treaty. 43 – Michel, Actes annexés au traité, paragraph 37. 44 – Thym, Ungleichzeitigkeit und europäisches Verfassungsrecht, p. 222, refers to another opinion expressed by legal commentators, to the effect that, if a legislative act in the area of closer cooperation is not binding on a Member State, the latter may challenge it only where it has exceeded the legislative scope of closer cooperation, in that the secondary-law measure was adopted ultra vires, or the rights, obligations or competences of the Member States not participating in the closer cooperation were infringed. That view cannot be upheld, in that it is contrary to the clear terms of Article 230 EC. 45 – Thym, Ungleichzeitigkeit und europäisches Verfassungsrecht, p. 103; Gautier, Accords de Schengen, paragraph 39. Those authors emphasise that the Kingdom of Denmark does not accept the fact that the entire Schengen acquis has become part of Community law, having regard to the characteristics of that law. Consequently, it does not approve of the supra-national approach regarding the first pillar and prefers the intergovernmental approach adopted regarding the third pillar. 46 – Jacqué, Droit institutionnel de l’Union européenne, p. 163. 47 – Gautier, Accords de Schengen, paragraph 36. 48 – Gautier, Accords de Schengen, paragraph 36. In other words, the 10 new Member States which acceded in 2004 are to cooperate in the Schengen acquis as from the date of accession, since that acquis is part of the acquis communautaire which they had to accept. See, similarly, Article 3(1) of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded. 49 – That is laid down in Article 3(2), first subparagraph, of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded. 50 – Mariani, Thierry, Rapport d'information déposé par la Délégation de l'Assemblée nationale pour l'Union européenne, sur la politique européenne des visas (documents E 2811, E 3023, E 3159 and E 3208), Paris 2007, p. 20. 51 – Van Simaeys, Benoit, Carlier, Jean-Yves, Le nouvel espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice, p. 258. The Nordic Passport Union is a federation of the Nordic countries in which citizens may cross common frontiers without passports. 52 – Gautier, Accords de Schengen, paragraph 31, where reference is also made to the Protocol on the application of certain aspects of Article 14 of the Treaty establishing the European Community to the United Kingdom and Ireland, which provides that the United Kingdom and Ireland may maintain checks on persons crossing their borders. 53 – Gautier, Accords de Schengen, paragraphs 30 and 32. 54 – Article 1 of the Title IV Protocol. 55 – Article 2 of the Title IV Protocol. Under the Treaty of Amsterdam, the position of the United Kingdom is such that it not only does not cooperate in the Schengen acquis but also has a right of opt-out regarding the entire area of freedom, security and justice (Thym, Ungleichzeitigkeit und europäisches Verfassungsrecht, p. 90). 56 – Thym, Ungleichzeitigkeit und europäisches Verfassungsrecht, p. 82, makes it clear that the content of the Schengen acquis is not limited merely to the management of internal borders and common regulation of external borders, but also extends to compensatory measures in the areas of police cooperation, visa policy, exchange of information within the SIS and the Sirene network, which contain data concerning the citizens of third countries. Other writers emphasise that, in certain sectors, the compensatory measures represent a wider-ranging phenomenon, that they affect the Union in its entirety and that they do not therefore relate only to the Schengen acquis (Gautier, Accords de Schengen, paragraph 84, which in that regard refers in particular to the fight against illegal immigration of third-country nationals into the Member States). 57 – Gautier, Accords de Schengen, paragraph 32. 58 – Article 1 of Decision 2000/365 lists the provisions of the Schengen acquis which apply to the United Kingdom. See also Council Decision 2004/926/EC of 22 December 2004 on the putting into effect of parts of the Schengen acquis by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 2004 L 395, p. 70). 59 – Thym, Ungleichzeitigkeit und europäisches Verfassungsrecht, p. 96. 60 – Thym, Ungleichzeitigkeit und europäisches Verfassungsrecht, p. 96. The author states that because of the special nature of the Schengen Protocol, as is apparent from Article 7 of the Title IV Protocol, the prohibition of obstructionism, which applies as a rule to the other sectors of legal cooperation in the area of freedom, security and justice, does not apply to the Schengen acquis. 61 – Thym, Ungleichzeitigkeit und europäisches Verfassungsrecht, p. 97. The author also refers to the approach of seeking to extend the requirement of consensus of the Schengen States, referred to in Article 4 of the Schengen Protocol, to Article 5 of that protocol. That would, ultimately, result in Articles 4 and 5 each having their own scope, in accordance with the independence thesis. 62 – Thym, Ungleichzeitigkeit und europäisches Verfassungsrecht, p. 98. 63 – Schauer, Martin, Schengen – Maastricht – Amsterdam, Auf dem Weg zu einer flexiblen Union, Vienna 2000, p. 215. The author relies on the assumption that Article 5 constitutes a lex specialis as regards Article 4 of the Schengen Protocol. 64 – Dougan Michael, Union Competences, in Arnull Anthony, Dashwood Alan, Dougan Michael, Ross Malcolm, Spaventa Eleanor, Wyatt Derrick, Wyatt and Dashwood's European Union Law, 5th edition, London, 2006, p. 115. The author deals with the United Kingdom’s approach to the Schengen acquis as part of the new organisational principle of flexibility of the Union. In the Schengen Protocol, he perceives a phenomenon of ‘primary flexibility’, being flexibility governed by the founding Treaties. 65 – Thym, Ungleichzeitigkeit und europäisches Verfassungsrecht, p. 98. 66 – As regards the principle of effet utile in the interpretation of international treaties, legal writers maintain that that principle is closely linked with the teleological interpretation of international treaties (Stein Torsten, von Buttlar Christian, Völkerrecht, 11th edition, (completely recast), Cologne, 2005, p. 28). 67 – Thym, Ungleichzeitigkeit und europäisches Verfassungsrecht, p. 98. The author emphasises that a unilateral declaration of intent, based on the discretionary decision to cooperate, as referred to in Article 5 of the Schengen Protocol, will thus not be of great significance regarding the development of measures or areas which are not capable of autonomous application. 68 – The text regarding the legal basis of Decision 2000/365 is as follows: ‘[h]aving regard to Article 4 of the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Schengen Protocol’), …’. 69 – Oppermann, Thomas, Europarecht, München, 2005, p. 504. 70 – In 2006 there was adopted Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen borders code) (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 1). Recital 27 in the preamble to that regulation states clearly that ‘[t]his regulation constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis. The United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in its option and is not bound by it or subject to its application.’ Under Article 1 thereof, that regulation deals with two aspects on an equal basis, namely, first, the principle of the absence of border control of persons crossing internal borders between the Member States of the European Union and, second, rules governing border control of persons crossing the external borders of the Member States of the European Union. 71 – Graßhof, Malte, Melderecht, Reisepassrecht, Namensrecht, Staatsangehörigkeits- und Einbürgerungsrecht, v Bergmann, Jan and Kenntner, Markus (editors), Deutsches Verwaltungsrecht unter europäischem Einfluss, Stuttgart, 2002, pp 301, 307 and 310, maintains that passports and travel documents are control mechanisms for checking the identity and nationality of persons. 72 – Graßhof, Melderecht, Reisepassrecht, Namensrecht, Staatsangehörigkeits- und Einbürgerungsrecht, p. 309. 73 – Oppermann, Europarecht, str. 505; Harms, Karsten, Ausländerrecht, v Bergmann, Kenntner, Deutsches Verwaltungsrecht unter europäischem Einfluss, p. 166, draws attention to Article 61(a) EC, which provides that within a period of five years after the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Council .was to adopt measures aimed at ensuring the free movement of persons … in conjunction with directly related flanking measures with respect to external border controls, asylum and immigration. 74 – In order to establish to which part of the legal order Regulation No 2252/2004 belongs, the example may be cited of Article 1A Council Decision 1999/437/EEC of 17 May 1999 on certain arrangements for the application of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the association of those two States with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (OJ 1999 L 176, p. 31). That article provides that provisions concerning ‘[t]he crossing by persons of the external borders of those States which have decided to abolish checks at their internal borders, including the rules and arrangements with which those States must comply when carrying out checks on persons at external borders, surveillance of border areas and cooperation with the services responsible for border control’ form part of the Schengen acquis. 75 – Similarly, the second recital in the preamble to Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland’s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (OJ 2002 L 64, p. 20) states that ‘[t]he Schengen acquis was conceived and functions as a coherent ensemble to be fully accepted and applied by all States supporting the principle of the abolition of checks on persons at their common borders’. 76 – Kolb Robert, La maxime, qui habet commoda, ferre debet onera et contra’ (celui qui jouit des avantages doit supporter aussi les charges et vice versa) en droit international public, Revue Belge de Droit International, 2004, p. 12(23). 77 – Case 39/72 Commission v Italy [1973] ECR 101, paragraphs 21 and 24. 78 – De Kerchove d'Ousselghem, Gilles, Un espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice aux dimensions incertaines. Quelques réflexions sur le recours aux coopérations renforcées en matière de justice et d'affaires intérieures, in Lejeune, Yves (ed.): Le traité d’Amsterdam, Espoirs et déceptions, Brussels, 1999, p. 290. The author emphasises that the desire for greater consistency (cohérence) in Schengen cooperation was the primary reason for integration of the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union 79 – OJ 2002 L 161, p. 11. 80 – Certain legal writers contend that acts modifying the existing Schengen acquis without doubt represent a part of the development of that acquis. On the other hand, in the case of measures not modifying the existing Schengen acquis, the situation may be different (Bracke, Niels, Flexibility, Justice Cooperation and the Treaty of Amsterdam, in Marinho, Clotilde, Asylum, Immigration and Schengen Post-Amsterdam, Maastricht, 2001, p. 65). 81 – Case C-269/97 Commission v Council [2000] ECR I-2257, p. 43; Case C-36/98 Spain v Council [2001] ECR I-779, paragraph 58, and Joined Cases C-453/03, C-11/04, C-12/04 and C-194/04 ABNA [2005] ECR I-10423, paragraph 54. 82 – ABNA, cited in footnote 79, paragraph 68. 83 – ABNA, cited in footnote 79, paragraph 69. 84 – That presumption is based on the sentence ‘The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall be deemed irrevocably to have notified the President of the Council under Article 5 of the Schengen Protocol that it wishes to take part in all proposals and initiatives which build upon the Schengen acquis referred to in Article 1’. 85 – It should be noted that the recital referred to also indicates that Article 3 of the Title IV Protocol was applied, being a measure based on Title IV EC. 86 – Thym, Ungleichzeitigkeit und europäisches Verfassungsrecht, p. 98, states that, for similar legal acts, in the light of the wording of the recitals relating to Norway and Iceland, it is clear that what is involved is a development of the Schengen acquis. Therefore, the reason for which they refer to the protocol on Title IV is not clear. 87 – Thym, Ungleichzeitigkeit und europäisches Verfassungsrecht, p. 98. 88 – Article 8 of Decision 2002/463 lists the following types of action: training actions, staff exchange, action promoting the use of computerised handling of files and procedures, including use of the most up-to-date techniques for electronic data exchange, evaluation of the impact of common rules and procedures based on Articles 62 and 63 of the Treaty, actions intended to promote the development of best practices with a view to improving working methods and equipment, simplifying procedures and shortening deadlines, operational activities which might include the setting up of common operative centres and of teams composed of joint staff, studies, research, conferences and seminars, mechanisms for consulting and associating the relevant national and international governmental and non-governmental organisations, Member States’ activities in third countries, in particular fact-finding missions in countries of origin and transit, and the fight against document fraud. 89 – Council Regulation (EC) No 334/2002 of 18 February 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 1683/95 laying down a uniform format for visas (OJ 2002 L 53, p. 7). 90 – Council Regulation (EC) No 1683/95 of 29 May 1995 laying down a uniform format for visas (OJ 1005 L 164, p. 1). 91 – Case C-414/04 Parliament v Council [2006] ECR I-0000, paragraph 37. That judgment declared void Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 1). 92 – The Council observed in its rejoinder in Case C-137/05 that an identity check [on EU Nationals] at the crossing of an external border is carried out on the basis of the presentation of travel documents, with the result that the checking of nationals of Ireland and the United Kingdom is identical to the checking carried out in respect of nationals of other Member States, although the Irish and British documents do not have the same security features. 93 – This article governs the ‘Right to respect for private and family life’ and provides: ‘1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.’ 94 – Article 8(1) of the Charter provides ‘Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.’ 95 – Roßnagel, Alexander, Hornung, Gerrit, Reisepässe mit elektronischem Gesichtsbild und Fingerabdruck: die EG-Verordnung 2252/2004 über Normen für Sicherheitsmerkmale und biometrische Daten in von den Mitgliedstaaten ausgestellten Pässen und Reisedokumenten, Die öffentliche Verwaltung, 58 (2005), p. 983 (896 e 897). Here I would draw attention to the fact that legal writing, referring to the case-law of the European Court Human Rights in Leander v. Sweden (Series A, n. 116, paragraph 48), considers memorisation and communication of personal data to amount to interference with the right to respect for private life within the meaning of Article 8(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Sudre, Frédéric, Droit européen et international des droits de l’homme, 8th ed., as amended and supplemented, Paris, 2006, p. 439).