With the Lisbon Treaty, the migration policy of the European Union has finally completed its evolutionary process from a pure intergovernmental cooperation to a subject regulated by the Union’s shared competence and by the community method. The institutional balance, as set forth by the current Treaties in relation to the abovementioned policy, institutionalizes the role of the European Council as strategic guidance and, in relation to its internal dimension, the applicability of the ordinary legislative procedure, which implies equal functions for the Council and the European Parliament in the assessment and the approval of the Commission’s proposals. With reference to the external dimension of the migration policy, the single procedure for the conclusion of international agreements ensures a corresponding distribution of powers between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament. The Court of Justice of the European Union is granted with full jurisdiction over the compliance with such institutional balance. However, notwithstanding the formal decision-making relating to the migration policy being governed by the community method, the Treaties incorporate certain specific features indicating a reluctance of Member States to limit their sovereign powers in this field. Furthermore, starting from the so-called refugee crisis, the practical application has highlighted that the institutional balance established by the Treaties is often overtaken by the Member States’ will to retain the discussion and the solution of migration issues at the intergovernmental level. Actually, not only during the above-mentioned crisis but also afterwards, the European Council and the Council have assumed a leading role in the decision-making. At the same time, the refugee crisis has led to the implementation of various informal solutions by the European institutions and the Member States, thereby eluding the EU’s institutional framework and law. In light of the above, the present research has the purpose of verifying whether the interinstitutional dynamics effectively occurred in the recent management of migration matters (i.e. political or de facto institutional balance) have been compliant with the distribution of competences among the institutions defined by the Treaties in force (i.e. legal institutional balance). To this purpose, the research has involved the analysis and comparison between the political or de facto dimension and the legal dimension of the institutional balance relating to the European migration policy. In order to fully understand the current institutional dynamics and trends, the research has started from the origins and the evolution of the competence and institutional framework of the European Union with reference to migration matters, focusing in particular on the institutional structure set forth “on paper” by the Lisbon Treaty. Afterwards, the focus has shifted to the institutional practice effectively followed in the management of the most recent and significant migration waves, the refugee crisis (2015-2016) and the Ukrainian emergency (2022). In such context, the main acts adopted by the EU for the purpose of solving the emergency situations, as well as the underlying systemic deficiencies, have been analysed: particular attention has been dedicated to the actual interinstitutional relationships within the normative proceedings that led to these acts. The analysis has revealed that the de facto interinstitutional dynamics have restored certain intergovernmental and informal mechanisms which were supposed to be superseded by the full “communitarization” of the migration policy carried out by the Treaties currently in force. In conclusion, from a systematic point of view, the potential implications for the European system, arising from the breach of the legal institutional balance in migration matters, have been considered.
La politica migratoria dell’Unione europea ha visto, per effetto dell’entrata in vigore del Trattato di Lisbona, il formale compimento della sua evoluzione da forma di cooperazione intergovernativa a materia assoggettata alla competenza concorrente dell’Unione ed al metodo comunitario. L’equilibrio istituzionale definito dai Trattati vigenti per il settore sancisce l’istituzionalizzazione del ruolo di guida strategica del Consiglio europeo e, rispetto alla dimensione interna, della procedura legislativa ordinaria, con conseguente equiparazione di funzioni tra Consiglio e Parlamento europeo nella valutazione e nell’approvazione delle proposte normative della Commissione. Riguardo alla dimensione esterna della politica, la procedura unica di conclusione degli accordi internazionali garantisce una corrispondente ripartizione di competenze fra Commissione, Consiglio e Parlamento europeo. Alla Corte di giustizia si assegna il pieno sindacato sul rispetto dell’equilibrio istituzionale così delineato. Tuttavia, nonostante il formale assoggettamento al metodo comunitario del processo decisionale relativo alla politica migratoria, si evincono già dalla lettera dei Trattati alcune specificità, indicative della riluttanza degli Stati membri a limitare la loro sovranità in materia. Ancor di più la prassi applicativa, a partire dalla c.d. crisi dei rifugiati, ha evidenziato come l’equilibrio istituzionale risulti spesso vacillare a fronte della volontà degli Stati membri di trattenere non solo la discussione, ma anche la soluzione, delle questioni migratorie al livello delle istituzioni intergovernative. In effetti, non solo nel suddetto contesto emergenziale ma anche successivamente, Consiglio europeo e Consiglio hanno assunto un ruolo preponderante nei processi decisionali. Al contempo, la stessa crisi migratoria del 2015-2016 ha determinato la proliferazione di soluzioni informali adottate dalle istituzioni europee, oltre che dagli Stati membri, talora eludendo il quadro istituzionale e le normative dell’Unione. Alla luce di tali premesse, l’obiettivo della ricerca è stato di indagare se le dinamiche interistituzionali che hanno concretamente caratterizzato la recente gestione del fenomeno migratorio (equilibrio istituzionale di fatto o politico) si siano dimostrate conformi alla ripartizione delle competenze tra istituzioni definita dai Trattati vigenti (equilibrio istituzionale giuridico). Il lavoro si è dunque indirizzato all’analisi ed al confronto della dimensione politico-fattuale e della dimensione giuridica dell’equilibrio istituzionale relativo alla politica migratoria europea. Per comprendere le attuali dinamiche e tendenze, si sono ripercorse la nascita e l’evoluzione della competenza e dell’assetto istituzionale dell’Unione europea in materia migratoria, soffermandosi in particolare sull’architettura delineata “sulla carta” dal Trattato di Lisbona. In seguito, l’attenzione si è concentrata sulla prassi istituzionale che ha concretamente caratterizzato la gestione delle più recenti e significative ondate migratorie, la crisi dei rifugiati del 2015-2016 e l’emergenza ucraina del 2022. Si sono dunque analizzate le principali misure adottate dall’Unione europea ai fini della risoluzione delle situazioni emergenziali e delle carenze sistemiche ivi emerse,indirizzando il focus sul concreto svolgimento dei rapporti tra istituzioni nell’ambito dei relativi procedimenti di adozione. Siffatta analisi ha messo in luce come le dinamiche interistituzionali tendano a recuperare logiche intergovernative ed informali che si presumevano abbandonate alla luce della compiuta “comunitarizzazione” della politica migratoria realizzata dai Trattati vigenti. Infine, estendendo la riflessione a livello sistematico, si sono considerate le possibili implicazioni per l’ordinamento europeo del mancato rispetto dell’equilibrio istituzionale giuridico nella materia considerata.
L'equilibrio istituzionale nella politica migratoria dell'Unione europea
CIMADOR, Elisa
2023
Abstract
With the Lisbon Treaty, the migration policy of the European Union has finally completed its evolutionary process from a pure intergovernmental cooperation to a subject regulated by the Union’s shared competence and by the community method. The institutional balance, as set forth by the current Treaties in relation to the abovementioned policy, institutionalizes the role of the European Council as strategic guidance and, in relation to its internal dimension, the applicability of the ordinary legislative procedure, which implies equal functions for the Council and the European Parliament in the assessment and the approval of the Commission’s proposals. With reference to the external dimension of the migration policy, the single procedure for the conclusion of international agreements ensures a corresponding distribution of powers between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament. The Court of Justice of the European Union is granted with full jurisdiction over the compliance with such institutional balance. However, notwithstanding the formal decision-making relating to the migration policy being governed by the community method, the Treaties incorporate certain specific features indicating a reluctance of Member States to limit their sovereign powers in this field. Furthermore, starting from the so-called refugee crisis, the practical application has highlighted that the institutional balance established by the Treaties is often overtaken by the Member States’ will to retain the discussion and the solution of migration issues at the intergovernmental level. Actually, not only during the above-mentioned crisis but also afterwards, the European Council and the Council have assumed a leading role in the decision-making. At the same time, the refugee crisis has led to the implementation of various informal solutions by the European institutions and the Member States, thereby eluding the EU’s institutional framework and law. In light of the above, the present research has the purpose of verifying whether the interinstitutional dynamics effectively occurred in the recent management of migration matters (i.e. political or de facto institutional balance) have been compliant with the distribution of competences among the institutions defined by the Treaties in force (i.e. legal institutional balance). To this purpose, the research has involved the analysis and comparison between the political or de facto dimension and the legal dimension of the institutional balance relating to the European migration policy. In order to fully understand the current institutional dynamics and trends, the research has started from the origins and the evolution of the competence and institutional framework of the European Union with reference to migration matters, focusing in particular on the institutional structure set forth “on paper” by the Lisbon Treaty. Afterwards, the focus has shifted to the institutional practice effectively followed in the management of the most recent and significant migration waves, the refugee crisis (2015-2016) and the Ukrainian emergency (2022). In such context, the main acts adopted by the EU for the purpose of solving the emergency situations, as well as the underlying systemic deficiencies, have been analysed: particular attention has been dedicated to the actual interinstitutional relationships within the normative proceedings that led to these acts. The analysis has revealed that the de facto interinstitutional dynamics have restored certain intergovernmental and informal mechanisms which were supposed to be superseded by the full “communitarization” of the migration policy carried out by the Treaties currently in force. In conclusion, from a systematic point of view, the potential implications for the European system, arising from the breach of the legal institutional balance in migration matters, have been considered.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Cimador E_Tesi L'equilibrio istituzionale nella politica migratoria dell'UE_DEFINITIVA.pdf
accesso aperto
Descrizione: L'equilibrio istituzionale nella politica migratoria dell'Unione europea
Tipologia:
Tesi di dottorato
Dimensione
4.5 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
4.5 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.