The ‘spirit of the Schengen rules’, the humanitarian visa, and contested asylum governance in Europe – The Swiss case

ABSTRACT

The paper examines why Switzerland along with several other European countries introduced a Schengen visa to substitute for individual applications for asylum at the country’s embassy as a pathway to protect Syrian refugees. The case study highlights the inherent interest asymmetries in a tenuous arrangement of multi-layered governance, revealing a conflict over the interpretation of Schengen law in a collective governance environment – a conflict that was recently resolved by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Drawing on multi-layered governance, the paper discusses why the Swiss divergence from the ‘spirit’, but not the ‘letter’ of the Schengen code (a metaphor used by the EU Commission), could be considered as an example of ‘de-coupling’ from the negotiated, intergovernmental order. Whereas de jure the unity of the Schengen visa code is maintained, the amount of discretion which Switzerland and other Schengen countries have used to interpret the regulatory purpose behind the Schengen humanitarian visa went too far for the CJEU and the EU Commission. The case study illustrates how the interpretation of rules matters in a multi-layered framework of governance, possibly giving the ability to react to changing circumstances, but also bearing the potential for conflict.

KEYWORDS:

• Schengen agreement
• Dublin system
• Switzerland
• asylum
• EU
• governance

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the anonymous referees, Romana Careja, Micheline van Riemsdijk, the participants of the authors’ workshop for this special issue, and the attendants of the NCCR on the move Spring Retreat 2017 for their comments and feedback.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

Philip Hanke http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3405-7438

Notes

1 Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas.

2 Federal Council 1997, Answer to Interpellation 97.1172.

3 Regulation (EU) No 604/2013. 2013. Vol. OJ L 180, 29.6.2013.

4 Federal Council 2004, Statement on the Authorisation of the Bilateral Agreement II.

5 Agreement between the European Union, the European Community, and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation’s Association with the Implementation, Application and Development of the Schengen Acquis. OJ L 53, 27.2.2008.

6 The agreement can be terminated by Switzerland or by unanimous decision of the Council.

7 See also Judgement of the Swiss Federal Administrative Court C 4524/2012 2014 from 11.03.2014 par. 4.1.2.

8 Ibid.

9 The SAA provides a time limit of two years to implement a Schengen development. Switzerland, however, is not obliged to adopt the legislation. If such an act is not implemented, then the Mixed Committee shall decide whether further cooperation is still possible. Otherwise, the SAA shall be considered terminated.

10 Federal Council 2008, Verordnung über die Einreise und die Visumerteilung.

11 Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the Rules Governing the Movement of Persons across Borders.

12 C (2010) 1620 final.

13 Visahandbuch I mit SEM Ergänzungen, SEM 2011, https://www.sem.admin.ch/dam/data/sem/rechtsgrundlagen/weisungen/visa/bfm/vhb1-version-bfm-d.pdf.

14 Visa Statistics are available at: https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/visa-policy_en#stats.

15 Botschaft zur Änderung des Asylgesetzes vom 26. Mai 2010; BBl 2010 4455; p. 4468.

16 See Judgement of the Swiss Federal Administrative Court D-5615/2014, from 22.01.2015.

17 Visumantrag aus Humanitären Gründen. Vol. 322.126. https://www.sem.admin.ch/dam/data/sem/rechtsgrundlagen/weisungen/auslaender/einreise-ch/20140225-weis-visum-humanitaer-d.pdf.

18 See Judgements of the Swiss Federal Administrative Court D-4783/2011 from 29.05.2013 par. 3.2; D-5298/2013 from 27.11. 2013 par. 4.2; D-2177/2014 from 5.06. 2014 par. 5.2; D-4257/2014 from 20.02.2015, par. 5.2.

19 For detailed statistics see: https://www.sem.admin.ch/sem/de/home/publiservice/statistik/asylstatistik/archiv.html.

20 Email exchange with the Swiss Cantonal Conference on Judicial and Migration Affairs.

21 ‘Erleichterte Erteilung von Besucher-Visa Für Syrische Familienangehörige’, SEM 2013.

22 The notion of “family” covered: (a) the nuclear family, (b) relatives in the ascending or descending line and their nuclear families, and (c) siblings of Syrian nationals residing in Switzerland who possess a residence permit or permanent residence permit or who have been naturalised.

23 Federal Act on Foreign Nationals of 16 December 2005 (FNA), SR 142.20.

24 Asylum Act of 26 June 1998, SR 142.31.

25 ‘Erläuterungen zur Weisung vom 4. September 2013’, SEM 2013; https://www.sem.admin.ch/dam/data/sem/rechtsgrundlagen/weisungen/auslaender/einreise-ch/20131104-erlaeut-weis-SYR-d.pdf.

26 ‘Weisung Aufhebung der Weisung vom 4. September 2013 über die erleichterte Erteilung von Besucher-Visa für syrische Familienangehörige’, SEM 2013.

27 More information on http://www.santegidio.org/pageID/11676/langID/en/Humanitarian-Corridors.htm.l.

28 See email exchange with the coordinator of the Italian humanitarian corridors project; May, December 2016. http://www.rfi.fr/europe/20170313-couloirs-humanitaires-aeriens-migrants-role-sant-egidio-italie.

29 Email exchange with representatives at Myria, the Belgian Federal Migration Centre; March 2017.

30 X and X v État belge. 2017 C638/16 PPU. EUCJ.

31 The Activity Report Syria 2016 in English can be found on the website: https://www.redcross.ch/de/organisation/fluechtlinge/internationaler-schutz-muss-verbessert-werden.

32 Statement sent by e-mail from EUROPE DIRECT Contact Centre on 10.12.2015; the same information had been published by NZZ am Sonntag on 7.6.2015.

33 Email exchanges with Members of the EU Parliament; March 2017.

34 Violeta Moreno-Lax, ‘Asylum Visas as an Obligation under EU Law: Case PPU C-638/16 X, X v État belge (Parts I and II)’, EU Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy, 16 February 2017, available at: http://eumigrationlawblog.eu/asylum-visas-as-an-obligation-under-eu-law-case-ppu-c-63816-x-x-v-etat-belge/

35 Art. 8 para. 1 SAA

36 Interviews with Swiss Red Cross officials; March 2016.

37 Jean-Yves Carlier and Luc Leboeuf, The X. and X. case: Humanitarian visas and the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights, towards a middle way? http://eumigrationlawblog.eu/the-x-and-x-case-humanitarian-visas-and-the-genuine-enjoyment-of-the-substance-of-rights-towards-a-middle-way/, 27 February 2017.

38 Judgement of the Swiss Federal Administrative Court F-2298/2016 from 19.062017.

Additional information

Funding

Research for this chapter was conducted under the National Centre for Competence in Research (NCCR) ‘on the move – The migration-mobility nexus’, funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation.