Last week, the European Court of Justice upheld the European Parliament’s challenge against Frontex rules on the interception of boats at sea, declaring them null and void.
It is a lesson in how we can work effectively in the European forum- Simon Busuttil
The legal challenge was made by Parliament in 2010 on my request.
This judgment is very good news for Malta, which opposed the rules to such an extent that, when they were adopted in 2010, it ad unilaterally withdrawn its participation from Frontex, which is ironic given that we are one of the countries that need most help to secure our maritime borders.
Malta objected to the rules claiming that they would increase, rather than decrease, the disproportionate burden on the island. It argued that, according to new rules, migrants rescued closer to other countries, such as nearer the Italian island of Lampedusa, would still have had to be brought to Malta rather than to the closest port, which is the most logical and safe thing to do.
Despite these objections, the rules were adopted by the Council of Ministers by a great majority of countries. However, in so doing, the Council opted to use a legal instrument that bypassed the need to come to the European Parliament. It is an instrument similar to the legal notices in Malta, which are decrees issued by a minister. This means that the European Parliament was not involved in drawing up the rules, still less in changing them.
I greatly resented the way in which the European Parliament was denied the opportunity to help shape these important rules. I believe that, if the European Parliament was involved in shaping them, the rules would have been different and acceptable to Malta.
This is why, in March 2010, I moved a motion through the Civil Liberties Committee of the European Parliament to have these rules voted down by Parliament. Ours was just an opportunity to say yes or no. And because we were seeking to strike down rules that were already adopted by Council, the bar for doing so was raised from a normal majority of MEPs present to an absolute majority in Parliament, that is, half of all the members plus one. But it was better than nothing and I took that chance.
My motion to reject them was supported by a large majority in plenary - 336 votes in favour and 253 votes against. However, this majority fell just 33 votes shy of the required absolute majority of 369 votes that was necessary to reject them. As a result, the rules were not struck down.
On this occasion, the European Socialists were the only political group to oppose my motion to have them rejected. And, although Labour MEPs voted with us, they failed to persuade their own colleagues when all we needed were another 33 votes.
When push came to shove, Labour made absolutely no difference.
But rather than resigning myself to this lost opportunity, I pursued my challenge. I argued in my committee that, even if they were not rejected in the Chamber, the rules should still be challenged in the European Court because they were adopted using the wrong procedure in a manner that excluded Parliament from the decision-making process.
This argument was backed by the Parliament’s Legal Service and off we went to Court back in summer 2010.
Two years down the line, last week, the European Court upheld the European Parliament’s legal challenge and annulled the Frontex rules, allowing their legal effect merely until they are replaced.
I consider this judgment to be important not just because the European Parliament’s decision-making powers have been asserted but also because the rules drawn up by Council had ignored Malta’s justified objections. The rules will now have to be redrawn and the European Parliament will be a full party in this process. I am sure that the European Parliament’s input will help make fairer rules.
But this judgment is important for another reason too.
It is a lesson in how we can work effectively in the European forum. It shows us that, even though we are a small member state, we can still fight for our interests and we can still succeed if we do it the right way. Not by threats, antagonism or vetoes, as the Labour Party constantly suggests, but through sheer determination, reasonable arguments and the art of convincing others that you are right.
As one friend who wrote to me put it, we showed that we are able to play by the rules. And win.
simon.busuttil@europarl.europa.eu
Simon Busuttil is a Nationalist member of the European Parliament.