Archive for the ‘European Union’ Category

Budget of the European Union – Wikipedia

This article is part of a series on thepolitics and government ofEuropean Union

The European Union has a budget to pay for policies carried out at European level (such as agriculture, assistance to poorer regions, trans-European networks, research, some overseas development aid) and for its administration, including a parliament, executive branch, and judiciary that are distinct from those of the member states. These arms administer the application of treaties, laws and agreements between the member states and their expenditure on common policies throughout the Union. According to the European Commission, 6% of expenditure is on administration, compared with 94% on policies.[1]

To pay for this, the EU had an agreed budget of 143billion for the year 2014, representing around 1% of the EU-28's gross national income (GNI).[2] Prior to 2014, the EU had a budget of 864.3billion for the period 20072013, representing 1.05% of the EU-27's GNI for the period.[3]

The EU budget is proposed annually by the European Commission. The proposed annual budget is then reviewed and negotiated by the Council of the European Union (which represents member states' governments) and the European Parliament (which represents EU citizens). In order for the budget to be finalised, consensus of all member states is required.[4]

The annual budget must remain within ceilings determined in advance by the Multiannual Financial Framework, laid down for a seven-year period by the Council (requiring the unanimous approval of every Member State) with the assent of the Parliament.[5]

The budget for a year is determined in advance, but final calculations of payments required from each member state are not completed until after the budget year is over and information about revenue and expenditure is available, and correction mechanisms have been applied.[citation needed]

The European Court of Auditors is the fifth institution of the European Union (EU). It was established in 1975 in Luxembourg to audit the accounts of EU institutions.

Despite its name, the court has no judicial functions. It is, rather, a professional external investigatory audit agency. The primary role of the court is to externally check if the budget of the European Union has been implemented correctly, in that EU funds have been spent legally and with sound management. In doing so, the court checks the paperwork of all persons handling any income or expenditure of the union and carries out spot checks. The court is bound to report any problems in the court's reports for the attention of other states and institutions, these reports include its general annual report as well as specific and special reports on certain bodies and issues.[6] The court's decision is the basis for the European Commission decisions, for example: when the court found problems in the management of EU funds in the regions of England, the commission suspended funds to those regions and prepared to fine those who did not come back up to acceptable standards.[7]

In this role the court has to remain independent yet remain in touch with the other institutions, for example a key role is the presentation of the court's annual report to the European Parliament. It is based on this report that the parliament makes its decision on whether or not to sign off the European Commission's handling of the budget for that year. The court, if satisfied, also sends assurances to the council and parliament that the taxpayers money is being properly used and the court must be consulted before the adoption of any legislation with financial implications but the opinion is never binding.[8]

The European Court of Auditors has signed off the European Union accounts every year since 2007, but has highlighted that they are materially affected by error and, while making it clear that the European Commission has more work to do, has highlighted that most of these errors take place at national level and concern decentralised programmes like agriculture and regional funding rather than money managed centrally in Brussels.[9][10]

Following a report by the European Court of Auditors that found that 4.8% of the EU budget in 2012 was affected by error, senior German MEP Inge Grle (CDU), a member of the European Parliaments budgetary control committee, claimed that "numerous questions arise concerning the willingness of the court, to significantly correct downward, the level of error rate after discussions with the audited authority, the EU Commission half of the errors in the structural funds sector were excluded from the estimate of the damage of the court, otherwise the numbers would be even worse".[11]

On 29 June 2011 the European Commission presented the Communication "A Budget for Europe 2020" to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.[12]

Due to the tough economic times, seven member states (Austria, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) argued during the 26 March 2012 General Affairs Council meeting that the EC's proposed overall amount for the seven-year EU budget plan should be reduced by 100 billion, or in the case of Sweden, by more than 100 billion.[13]

On 8 February 2013, European Union leaders agreed to cut the budget by 3.3%; the agreement on the proposed budget by the European Council has yet to be approved by the European Parliament, adopted unanimously by the Council of the European Union and ratified by the national parliaments of all member states; if adopted, it will be the first cut in its 56-year history.[14][15][16]

The Budget was finally approved by the European Parliament Tuesday 19 November 2013 by an overwhelming majority. MEPs voted 537 in favour, 126 against, and with 19 abstentions.[17]

Pie chart showing EU revenue sources (2014)[18]

VAT-based resources (12.26%)

GNI-based resources (68.73%)

Traditional own resources (11.4%)

Other (6.92%)

Surplus from 2013 (0.7%)

The EU obtains its revenue from four main sources:

Traditional own resources[21] are taxes raised on behalf of the EU as a whole, principally import duties on goods brought into the EU. These are collected by the state where import occurs and passed on to the EU. States are allowed to keep a proportion of the revenue to cover administration (20%[22]). The European Commission operates a system of inspectors to investigate the collection of these taxes in member states and ensure compliance with the rules. The effect of a state failing to collect these taxes is that other states will have to contribute more to the budget, so there is a potential conflict of interest on the part of the collecting authorities. Countries are liable to make good any loss of revenue due to their own administrative failure.[21]

VAT-based own resources[21] are taxes on EU citizens based on the proportion of VAT levied in each member country. VAT rates and exemptions vary in different countries, so a formula is used to create the 'harmonised tax base', upon which the EU charge is levied. The starting point for calculations is the total VAT raised in a country. This is then adjusted using a weighted average of VAT rates applying in that country, producing the intermediate tax base. Further adjustments are made where there is a derogation from the VAT directive allowing certain goods to be zero-rated. The tax base is capped, such that it may not be greater than 50% of a country's gross national income (GNI).

Member countries generally pay 0.3% of their harmonised tax base into the budget,[22] but this is varied for some countries. The rate for Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden is 0.15% in the 2014-2020 period,[22] while Austria also had a reduced rate in the 2007-2013 period.[23]

Countries are required to make an account of VAT revenues to the EU before July after the end of the budget year. The EU examines the submission for accuracy, including control visits by officials from the Directorate-General for Budget and Directorate-General for Taxation, and reports back to the country concerned.

The country may then respond to any issues raised in the report, and negotiations continue until both sides are satisfied, or the matter may be referred to the European Court of Justice for a final ruling. The Advisory committee on own resources, which has representatives from each member state, also receives and discusses the reports. In 2006, nine countries were inspected by controllers, including five new member states who were participating in the procedure for the first time. It is anticipated that 11 countries will be visited in 2007. The EU may be working on figures for three years at any one time.

GNI-based own resources[21] currently forms the largest contribution to EU funding. A simple multiplier is applied to the calculated GNI for the country concerned. This is the last recourse for raising funding for a budget year, so the actual figure is adjusted within predetermined limits to obtain the budget total required. Revenue is currently capped at 1.23% of gross national income in the European Union as a whole.[24]

The GNI for own resource purposes is calculated by national accountants according to European law governing the sources and methods to compile GNI and the transmission of GNI data and related methodological information to the Commission (Eurostat). Basic information must be provided by the countries concerned to Eurostat before 22 September in the year following the budget year concerned.

Eurostat carries out information visits to the National Statistical Institutes forming part of the European Statistical System. Based on assessment reports by Eurostat, the Directorate-General for Budget (DG BUDG) of the Commission may notify to the Permanent Representative of the Member State concerned required corrections and improvements in the form of reservations on the country's GNI data. Payments are made monthly by member states to the commission. Own resources payments are made monthly as they are collected, but monthly instalments of VAT- and GNI-based returns are based upon the budget estimates made for that year, subject to later correction.

Other revenue[21] accounted for 6.9% of EU revenue in 2014.[25] This includes tax and deductions from EU staff remuneration, interest on deposits or late payments, payments from non-EU countries for certain programmes, underspent funding from community programs and any other surplus from the previous budget.

The EU budget has a number of correction mechanisms designed to re-balance excessive contribution by certain member states:

The United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union has led the EU to reconsider its funding mechanisms, with the rebates likely to change.[26]

Approximately 94% of the EU budget funds programmes and projects both within member states and outside the EU.[27] Approximately 6% of the budget is used for administrative costs, and less than 3% is spent on EU civil servants' salaries.[28]

2006 EU expenditure in millions of euros (Total 106,576 million)

Regional support (30.4%)

Common Agricultural Policy (46.7%)

Internal policies (8.5%)

External actions (4.9%)

Administration (6.3%)

Compensations (1%)

Reserves (0.1%)

Pre-accession strategy (2.1%)

In the 2006 budget, the largest single expenditure item was due to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), with its direct aid, export refunds, storage and rural development and support and subsidies, which accounted for around 46.7% of the total budget. In 2014, CAP spending had decreased to 39%.[29]

Next in 2006 came the EU's structural funds, which are used to support specific regions in the EU, as part of EU's regional policy, which aims to reduce regional disparities in terms of income, wealth and opportunities. Europe's poorer regions receive most of the support, but all European regions are eligible for funding under the policy's various funds and programmes. In 2006 approximately 30.4% of the EU budget was used for such support. While the CAP spending is going down, the regional support is increasing, and is expected to reach almost 36% in 2013.[30]

Internal policies (training, youth, culture, audiovisual, media, information, energy, Euratom nuclear safeguards and environment, consumer protection, internal market, industry and Trans-European networks, research and technological development, other internal policies) took up around 8.5% in the 2006 budget.

External actions, i.e. EU's international activities outside the EU (development aid, peace keeping and security work, election observers etc.) accounted for 4.9% in 2006.

Finally, the pre-accession strategy, compensations and reserves brought up the rear of the budget, with approximately 2.1%, 1% and 0.1% respectively in 2006.

2014 EU expenditure in millions of euros (Total 142,496 million)

Growth (inc. infrastructure projects) (49.55%)

Natural resources (inc. CAP) (42.77%)

Security and citizenship (1.28%)

EU as a global partner (0.07%)

Administration (5.97%)

Compensations (0.02%)

Reserves (0%)

Special instruments (0.33%)

For the period 2014-2020, the EU budget is used for six main categories of expenditure:[31]

Net receipts or contributions vary over time, and there are various ways of calculating net contributions to the EU budget, depending, for instance, on whether countries' administrative expenditure is included. Also, one can use either absolute figures, the proportion of gross national income (GNI), or per capita amounts. Different countries may tend to favour different methods, to present their country in a more favourable light.[citation needed]

Go here to read the rest:
Budget of the European Union - Wikipedia

Enlargement of the European Union – Wikipedia

The European Union (EU) has expanded a number of times throughout its history by way of the accession of new member states to the Union. To join the EU, a state needs to fulfil economic and political conditions called the Copenhagen criteria (after the Copenhagen summit in June 1993), which require a stable democratic government that respects the rule of law, and its corresponding freedoms and institutions. According to the Maastricht Treaty, each current member state and the European Parliament must agree to any enlargement. The process of enlargement is sometimes referred to as European integration. This term is also used to refer to the intensification of co-operation between EU member states as national governments allow for the gradual harmonisation of national laws.

The EU's predecessor, the European Economic Community,[1] was founded with the Inner Six member states in 1958, when the Treaty of Rome came into force. Since then, the EU's membership has grown to twenty-eight, with the latest member state being Croatia, which joined in July 2013. The most recent territorial enlargement of the EU was the incorporation of Mayotte in 2014. The most notable territorial reductions of the EU, and its predecessors, were the exit of Algeria upon independence in 1962 and the exit of Greenland in 1985.

As of 2018, accession negotiations are under way with Serbia (since 2014), Montenegro (since 2012) and Turkey (since 2005). Serbia and Montenegro have been described by President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker as the front-runner candidates, and projected that they would join by 2025.[2][3] Negotiations with Turkey have also been ongoing at a slower pace, particularly since the 2016 Turkish coup d'tat attempt due to objections from the EU to the Turkish government's response.[4] Additionally, the United Kingdom is negotiating its withdrawal from the EU, following a referendum in which a majority voting in favour of leaving the EU.

According to the EU treaties, membership of the European Union is open to "any European State which respects the values referred to in Article 2 and is committed to promoting them" (TEU Article 49). Those Article 2 values are "respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities." This is based on the 1993 "Copenhagen criteria" agreed as it became clear many former Eastern Bloc countries would apply to join;

In December 1995, the Madrid European Council revised the membership criteria to include conditions for member country integration through the appropriate adjustment of its administrative structures: since it is important that European Community legislation be reflected in national legislation, it is critical that the revised national legislation be implemented effectively through appropriate administrative and judicial structures.

Finally, and technically outside the Copenhagen criteria, comes the further requirement that all prospective members must enact legislation to bring their laws into line with the body of European law built up over the history of the Union, known as the acquis communautaire.

Today the accession process follows a series of formal steps, from a pre-accession agreement to the ratification of the final accession treaty. These steps are primarily presided over by the European Commission (Enlargement Commissioner and DG Enlargement), but the actual negotiations are technically conducted between the Union's Member States and the candidate country.

Before a country applies for membership it typically signs an association agreement to help prepare the country for candidacy and eventual membership. Most countries do not meet the criteria to even begin negotiations before they apply, so they need many years to prepare for the process. An association agreement helps prepare for this first step.

In the case of the Western Balkans, a special process, the Stabilisation and Association Process exists to deal with the special circumstances there.

When a country formally applies for membership, the Council asks the Commission to prepare an opinion on the country's readiness to begin negotiations. The Council can then either accept or reject the Commission's opinion (The Council has only once rejected the Commission's opinion when the latter advised against opening negotiations with Greece).[6]

If the Council agrees to open negotiations the screening process then begins. The Commission and candidate country examine its laws and those of the EU and determine what differences exist. The Council then recommends opening negotiations on "chapters" of law that it feels there is sufficient common ground to have constructive negotiations. Negotiations are typically a matter of the candidate country convincing the EU that its laws and administrative capacity are sufficient to execute European law, which can be implemented as seen fit by the member states. Often this will involve time-lines before the Acquis Communautaire (European regulations, directives & standards) has to be fully implemented.

A chapter is said to be closed when both sides have agreed it has been implemented sufficiently, however it can still be re-opened if the Commission feels that the candidate has fallen out of compliance.

To assess progress achieved by countries in preparing for accession to the European Union, the European Commission submits regular reports (yearly) to the European Council. These serve as a basis for the Council to make decisions on negotiations or their extension to other candidates.

Once the negotiations are complete a treaty of accession will be signed, which must then be ratified by all of the member states of the Union, as well as the institutions of the Union, and the candidate country. Once this has been completed it will join the Union on the date specified in the treaty.

The entire process, from application for membership to membership has typically taken about a decade, although some countries, notably Sweden, Finland, and Austria have been faster, taking only a few years. The process from application for association agreement through accession has taken far longer, as much as several decades (Turkey for example first applied for association in the 1950s and has yet to conclude accession negotiations).

The following is an example of an accession process Estonia's path to membership from the 2004 enlargement. Ease of accession depends on the state: how integrated it is with the EU before hand, the state of its economy and public institutions, any outstanding political issues with the EU and (historically) how much law to date the EU has built up that the acceding state must adopt. This outline also includes integration steps taken by the accession country after it attains membership.

Enlargement has been one of the EU's most successful foreign policies,[9] yet has equally suffered from considerable opposition from the start. French President Charles de Gaulle opposed British membership[citation needed]. A later French President Franois Mitterrand opposed Greek, Spanish and Portuguese membership fearing that the former dictatorships were not ready and it would reduce the union to a free-trade area.[10]

The reasons for the first member states to apply, and for them to be accepted, were primarily economic while the second enlargement was more political. The southern Mediterranean countries had just emerged from dictatorships and wanted to secure their democratic systems through the EEC, while the EEC wanted to ensure the same thing and that their southern neighbours were stable and aligned to NATO.[11] These two principal forces, economic gain and political security, have been behind enlargements since. However, with the recent large enlargements in 2004, public opinion in Europe has turned against further expansion.[10]

It has also been acknowledged that enlargement has its limits; the EU cannot expand endlessly.[9] Former Commission President Romano Prodi favoured granting "everything but institutions" to the EU's neighbour states; allowing them to co-operate deeply while not adding strain on the EU's institutional framework.[9] This has in particular been pushed by France and Germany as a privileged partnership for Turkey, membership for which has faced considerable opposition on cultural and logistical grounds.[12][13]

The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was proposed by Robert Schuman in his declaration on 9 May 1950 and involved the pooling of the coal and steel industries of France and West Germany.[33] Half of the project states, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, had already achieved a great degree of integration amongst themselves with the organs of Benelux and earlier bilateral agreements. These five countries were joined by Italy and they all signed the Treaty of Paris on 23 July 1952. These six members, dubbed the 'inner six' (as opposed to the 'outer seven' who formed the European Free Trade Association who were suspicious of such plans for integration) went on to sign the Treaties of Rome establishing two further communities, together known as the European Communities when they merged their executives in 1967.

In 1962, Spain, ruled by the military dictator Francisco Franco, issued its first attempt to join the European Communities. Spanish Foreign Affairs minister Fernando Mara Castiella sent the request form to French Prime Minister Maurice Couve de Murville.[34] This request was rejected by all the member countries in 1964; Spain was not a democracy at the time, and thus unable to enter the EEC.[35]

The Community did see some loss of territory due to the decolonialisation occurring in their era. Algeria, which was an integral part of France, had a special relationship with the Community.[36] Algeria gained independence on 5 July 1962 and hence left the Community. There was no enlargement until the 1970s.

The United Kingdom, which had refused to join as a founding member, changed its policy following the Suez crisis and applied to be a member of the Communities. Other EEC members were also inclined to British membership on those grounds. French President Charles de Gaulle vetoed British membership.[11]

Once de Gaulle had left office, the door to enlargement was once again opened. The EEC economy had also slowed down and British membership was seen as a way to revitalise the community.[11] Only after a 12-hour talk between British Prime Minister Edward Heath and French President Georges Pompidou took place did Britain's third application succeed.[37] After Britain was accepted Prime Minister Edward Heath said:

"For my part, I have no doubt at all that the discussions which we have had will prove of real and lasting benefit, not only to Britain and France, but to Europe as a whole."[37]

As part of the deal for British entry, France agreed to allow the EEC its own monetary resources. However France made that concession only as Britain's small agriculture sector would ensure that Britain would be a net contributor to the Common Agricultural Policy dominated EEC budget.[11] Applying together with the UK, as on the previous occasions, were Denmark, Ireland, and Norway.[38] These countries were so economically linked to the UK that they considered it necessary to join the EEC if the UK did.[11] However the Norwegian government lost a national referendum on membership and hence did not accede with the others on 1 January 1973. Gibraltar joined the Community with the United Kingdom at this point, as can be seen in the long title of the UK European Communities Act 1972.

The next enlargement would occur for different reasons. The 1970s also saw Greece, Spain, and Portugal emerge from dictatorship. These countries desired to consolidate their new democratic systems by binding themselves into the EEC. Equally, the EEC was unsure about which way these countries were heading and wanted to ensure stability along its southern borders.[11] However Franois Mitterrand initially opposed their membership fearing they were not ready and it would water the community down to a free trade area.[10]

Greece joined the EU in 1981 followed by Spain and Portugal in 1986.

The year 1985, however, saw the first time a territory voted to leave the Community, when Greenland was granted home rule by Denmark and the territory used its new powers and voted to withdraw from the Community (See member state territories).

Morocco and Turkey applied for membership in 1987. Morocco's application was turned down as it was not considered European, while Turkey's application was considered eligible on the basis of the 1963 Ankara Association Agreement, but the opinion of the Commission on the possible candidate status was by then negative. Turkey received candidate status only in 1999 and began official membership negotiations in 2005, which are still in progress as of 2018.[39]

After the 1970s, Europe experienced a downturn which led to leaders launching of the Single European Act which set to create a single market by 1992. The effect of this was that EFTA states found it harder to export to the EEC and businesses (including large EFTA corporations such as Volvo) wished to relocate within the new single market making the downturn worse for EFTA. EFTA states began to discuss closer links with the EEC despite its domestic unpopularity.[40]

Austria, Finland and Sweden were neutral in the Cold War so membership of an organisation developing a common foreign and security policy would be incompatible with that. With the end of the Cold War in 1989, that obstacle was removed, and the desire to pursue membership grew stronger.[40] On 3 October 1990, the reunification of East and West Germany brought East Germany into the Community without increasing the number of member states.

The Community later became the European Union in 1993 by virtue of the Maastricht Treaty, and established standards for new entrants so their suitability could be judged. These Copenhagen criteria stated in 1993 that a country must be a democracy, operate a free market, and be willing to adopt the entire body of EU law already agreed upon. Also in 1993 the European Economic Area was established with the EFTA states except Switzerland. Most of the new EEA states pursued full EU membership as the EEA did not sufficiently satisfy the needs of their export based corporations. The EU has also preferred these states to integrate via the EEA rather than full membership as the EEC wished to pursue monetary integration and did not wish for another round of enlargement to occupy their attention. However, with the EEA's credibility dented following rejection by businesses and Switzerland, the EU agreed with full membership. This was more readily accepted with the prospect of poorer countries wishing to join; contributions from richer countries would help balance the EU budget.[40] On 1 January 1995 Austria, Finland, and Sweden acceded to the EU marking its fourth enlargement. The Norwegian government lost a second national referendum on membership.

European Union 1 Jan. 1995 30 April 2004

Joined the EU on 1 May 2004

Joined the EU on 1 Jan. 2007

Joined the EU on 1 July 2013

As with the Mediterranean countries in the 1980s, the countries in Central and Eastern Europe had emerged from dictatorships and wanted to consolidate their democracies. They also wanted to join the project of European integration and ensure they did not fall back into the Russian sphere of influence. The EU and NATO offered a guarantee of this, and the EU was also seen as vital to ensuring the economic success of those countries. However, the EU's desire to accept these countries' membership applications was less than rapid. The collapse of communism came quickly and was not anticipated. The EU struggled to deal with the sudden reunification of Germany with the addition of its poorer 17 million people and, while keeping its monetary union project on track, it was still at that early stage pointing the EFTA countries in the direction of the EEA rather than full membership.[41]

States in Central and Eastern Europe persisted and eventually the above-mentioned issues were cleared. The US also pressured the EU to offer membership as a temporary guarantee; it feared expanding NATO too rapidly for fear of frightening Russia. Although eventually trying to limit the number of members, and after encouragement from the US, the EU pursued talks with ten countries and a change of mind[clarification needed] by Cyprus and Malta helped to offset slightly the influx of large poorer member states from Central and Eastern Europe.[41]

In the end, eight Central and Eastern European countries (the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia), plus two Mediterranean countries (Malta and Cyprus) were able to join on 1 May 2004. This was the largest single enlargement in terms of people, and number of countries, though not in terms of GDP.[42] The less developed nature of these countries was of concern to some of the older member states. Some countries, such as the UK, immediately opened their job market to the accession states, whereas most others placed temporary restrictions on the rights of work of the citizens of these states to their countries. The movement westward of some of the labour force of the newly acceded countries that occurred in the aftermath of the enlargement initially spawned clichs among the public opinion and media of some western countries (such as the "Polish plumber"), despite the generally conceded benefit to the economies concerned.[43] The official EU media (the speeches of the European Commission) frequently referred to the enlargement to the CEE region as "an historical opportunity" and "morally imperative", which reflected the desire of the EU to admit these countries as members, even though they were less developed than the Western European countries.[44] Following this Romania and Bulgaria, though were deemed initially as not fully ready by the Commission to join in 2004, acceded nevertheless on 1 January 2007. These, like the countries joining in 2004, faced a series of restrictions as to their citizens not fully enjoying working rights on the territory of some of the older EU members. Bulgaria and Romania are not yet members of the Schengen area, however their citizens can travel visa-free to the other EU countries.

The socio-economic research on the attitudes towards the integration from both hosting and visiting countries has revealed divergent views.The analysis shows, there are a number of possible factors of the rationalization and understanding of the practices on what the enlargement has been and should be like. Attitudes of even skeptical citizens, do not discard the possibility on future sustainable enlargements. The years subsequent to the EU accession will lead to extensive dialogues between policy-makers, governments, and European citizens about the path for a constructive development.[45]

The 2003 European Council summit in Thessaloniki set integration of the Western Balkans as a priority of EU expansion. The EU's relations with the Western Balkans states were moved from the "External Relations" to the "Enlargement" policy segment in 2005. Those states which have not been recognised as candidate countries are considered "potential candidate countries".[46] The move to Enlargement directorate was a consequence of the advancement of the Stabilisation and Association process.

Croatia joined on 1 July 2013, following ratification of the 2011 Accession Treaty by all other EU countries. Albania and the several successor states of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia have all adopted EU integration as an aim of foreign policy.

Member states

Candidates negotiating membership

Candidates

Potential candidates which have submitted a membership application

Potential candidates which have not submitted a membership application

Article 49 of the Maastricht Treaty (as amended) says that any European state that respects the "principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law", may apply to join the Union. The Copenhagen European Council set out the conditions for EU membership in June 1993 in the so-called Copenhagen criteria (see Criteria and process above for details). The Western Balkan states had to sign Stabilisation and Association Agreements (SAAs) before applying for membership.

Turkey applied for membership in 1987. The Western Balkans have been prioritised for membership since emerging from war during the breakup of Yugoslavia. Albania, Macedonia,[23] Montenegro, Serbia, and Turkey are all recognized as official candidates, and the latter three are undergoing membership talks.[64] Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo*[65] are recognized as potential candidates for membership by the EU.[64] Bosnia has submitted an application for EU membership, while Bosnia and Kosovo have an SAA with the EU.

In July 2014, President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker announced that the EU has no plans to expand in the next five years.[66] Junker has described Serbia and Montenegro as front-runner candidates, and projected that they would join by 2025.[67][68]

Not all enlargement negotiations have ended with the accession of a new member state. Norway completed membership negotiations twice, in 1972 and 1994, but both times membership was rejected in a referendum. Switzerland applied for membership in May 1992 but subsequently froze its application,[69][70] and formally withdrew it in 2016.[71][72] Iceland lodged its application following an economic collapse in 2008, but froze accession negotiations in 2013. In 2017 however, Iceland's newly elected government announced that it may seek to begin talks with the EU on possible future membership once again.[73]

Originally posted here:
Enlargement of the European Union - Wikipedia

World Report 2018: European Union | Human Rights Watch

Xenophobic populists hostile to human rights shaped politics even when they failed to win at the ballot box, and European governments seemed determined to keep migrants away at all costs. Yet there were hints in the response to the crisis in Poland that European Union leaders were beginning to recognize that the blocs future depends on a willingness to stand up for human rights and the rule of law.

The EU and its member states intensified efforts to prevent arrivals and outsource responsibility for migration control to countries outside the EUs borders. In Libya, in particular, the EU pursued a strategy of containment in cooperation with Libyan authorities, despite overwhelming evidence of pervasive and routine brutality against asylum seekers and other migrants arbitrarily detained by those authorities, or otherwise deprived of their liberty. Libya has not signed the Refugee Convention, and does not have a functioning asylum system.

By mid-November 2017, just over 150,000 people reached Europe by sea, less than half the arrivals for the same period in 2016, with a significant decrease in arrivals on Greek islands and dip in boat departures from Libya. There was a large increase in boat migration in the western Mediterranean, from Morocco to Spain, though the overall numbers remained low. The Western Balkan route remained largely closed, aided by an abusive border regime in Hungary and migrant pushbacks by Croatia.

The Mediterranean remained deadly, with almost 3,000 dead or missing by mid-November 2017. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) performed roughly 40 percent of all rescues in the central Mediterranean in the first half of 2017, but by September several NGOs had suspended activities due to security concerns and increased interceptions, sometimes reckless and accompanied by abuse, by Libyan coast guard forces. Backed by EU institutions, Italy imposed on NGOs a code of conduct governing rescues following a campaign to delegitimize and even criminalize their efforts.

Despite calls for expanded safe and legal channels, including family reunification and humanitarian visas, EU institutions and member states moved forward only on resettlement of recognized refugees. The European Commission announced in September that member states had resettled 22,518 refugees over the past two years, and recommended a plan to resettle 50,000 refugees to Europe over the next two years. Member states were slow to respond to the earlier commission call for resettlement pledges.

Member states less affected by direct arrivals remained reluctant to share responsibility for asylum seekers. The two-year binding plan to relocate almost 100,000 asylum seekers out of Greece and Italy officially ended in September, with only 29,401 people actually transferred, less than one-third of the final target. Some countries continued to relocate, however, and over 2,000 more had been relocated by mid-November. In June, the European Commission initiated infringement proceedings against Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic for failure to comply with the plan. In September, the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) dismissed the case against the relocation plan brought by Hungary and Slovakia.

EU countries continued to return asylum seekers to Italy, and resumed returns to Greece, under the Dublin Regulation, which requires the first EU country of entry to take responsibility for asylum claims in most cases. In March, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Hungary was in violation of its human rights obligations for the way it detained asylum seekers and returned them to Serbia under the safe third country argument, and in April the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) called for a suspension of returns to Hungary under the Dublin rules. Germany officially suspended such returns in late August, and a number of other EU countries took a similar approach.

Little progress was made on reform of EU asylum laws. Problematic proposals would make it easier to summarily reject claims, send people to countries outside the EU based on the safe third country concept, and revoke refugee status. Meanwhile, asylum seekers continued to face widely varying recognition rates across the union.

Since 2014, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have filled a deadly gap in maritime rescue operations, patrolling in international waters close to the 12-nautical-mile line that marks Libyan territorial waters the area where over-crowded, unseaworthy boats are most likely to be in need.

Populist extremist parties exercised an outside influence over European politics during the year. While they came second rather than first in presidential elections in France and Austria and the parliamentary vote in the Netherlands, radical right populists entered the German parliament, and at time of writing were in talks to become part of the coalition government in Austria, following elections in October. Worse still, elements of their anti-immigration, anti-refugee and anti-Muslim policy agenda continue to be embraced by mainstream political parties in many EU countries.

Racist, xenophobic, and anti-Muslim sentiment and violence persisted across the EU. Muslims experienced widespread hostility and intolerance. Anti-Semitism, including hate crimes, remained a serious concern.

In its June annual report, the Council of Europes Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) noted that nationalistic populism and xenophobic hate speech had entered the political mainstream in the region. In an April report, the EU Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) noted that many hate crimes in the EU remain unreported and invisible, leaving victims without redress, and urged member states to improve access to justice for victims.

In an August assessment on strategies aimed at helping Roma, the European Commission found that as many as 80 percent of Roma are at risk of poverty across the EU, calling for further efforts to improve access to schooling and employment.

In August, the Council of Europes Commissioner for Human Rights Nils Muinieks identified the right to live in the community and deinstitutionalization; the right to legal capacity; and the right to an inclusive education as key challenges affecting persons with psychosocial and intellectual disabilities in Europe. In September, Muinieks called for an end to school segregation for children with disabilities, Roma children and refugee and migrant children.

A March decision by the CJEU backing private sector workplace bans on headscarves seriously undermined womens right to equality and non-discrimination. In July, the ECtHR upheld Belgium's ban on burqas and full-face Islamic veils.

In a June resolution, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly called for an end to impunity of sexual violence and harassment of women in public by prosecuting perpetrators. In June, the EU signed the Istanbul Convention on preventing and combatting violence against women. Eleven EU member statesincluding the United Kingdom, Greece, and Hungaryhave yet to ratify the convention.

In May, Council of Europe Secretary General Thorbjrn Jagland warned that attacks against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people are widespread in Europe, and highlighted the need for strong and effective anti-discrimination laws. In April, the ECtHR ruled that requiring transgender people to undergo sterilization in order to have their gender recognized violates human rights.

Attacks in Belgium, Finland, France, Greece, Spain, Sweden and the UK, together killed over 60 people and left hundreds injured. All the mass casualty incidents among these were claimed by the Islamic State (also known as ISIS). Some incidents were attributed to or claimed by far-right, left-wing and regional separatist armed organizations. During the year, attacks specifically targeting police officers or soldiers took place in France, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and the UK.

France, Germany, and the Netherlands passed laws permitting or enhancing existing powers of the executive, to order administrative controls restricting the movement and association of people considered a threat to national security.

In March, a new EU directive to combat terrorism, strengthening the existing EU framework, was approved by governments. The directive requires states to criminalize public provocation to commit a terrorist offence and various preparatory acts that fall short of direct participation in attacks. Human rights groups expressed concern about insufficient safeguards and vague terminology in the directive, and its impact on freedom of expression.

During the year, people in France and Spain were convicted of terrorism offences for posting comments online that were treated as glorification of or apology for terrorism, in some cases without evidence of any direct link to incitement to violence.

In June, the European Commission accelerated existing plans to combat radicalization and remove online terrorist content. An Anglo-French action plan published the same month included proposals to remove extremist material online, and to access encrypted content, raising concerns about freedom of expression and privacy.

Criminal investigations into alleged complicity by Polish and Lithuanian authorities remained stalled, and a judicial review of a 2016 decision by prosecutors to close the investigation into alleged UK complicity in renditions by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to Libya remained pending. A ECtHR case brought against Lithuania and Romania over their complicity in CIA torture and secret detention remained pending.

By August, 1,262 people claimed asylum in Croatia in 2017, including people returned to Croatia from other EU member states under EU asylum rules. Only 76 asylum seekers had been granted some form of protection in 2017 at time of writing. Croatia relocated 78 asylum seekers from Greece and Italy by late September.

During the year, Croatia forced back asylum seekers and migrants who entered the country from Serbia without examining their asylum claims. In July, the CJEU ruled that Croatia breached EU law by allowing asylum seekers and migrants to cross into Slovenia and Austria without first examining their asylum claims.

Asylum seekers and refugees continued to face social isolation and difficulties in accessing language classes, education, and employment. Unaccompanied migrant and asylum children continued to be placed in residential institutions for children without adequate arrangements for their protection and care. Out of 30 registered unaccompanied children, only one had been enrolled in school for the academic year of 2017/2018.

People with disabilities continued to be denied the right to legal capacity and to live in the community. Adult persons with disabilities continued to be placed in residential institutions without their consent.

Members of national minorities, in particular ethnic Serbs and Roma, continued to face discrimination, ethnic intolerance, and hate speech. Thousands of Roma remain stateless. Roma children are effectively segregated in schools.

The Croatian judiciary continued to make slow progress on war crimes accountability.

The number of stateless persons continued to decline in Estonia in 2017, although the naturalization rate is very slow. According to the Interior Ministry, in 2016, only 1,450 stateless people acquired citizenship by naturalization and as of January 2017, leaving 79,438 stateless persons residing in Estonia, compared to 82,561 in January 2016. Stateless persons, most of whom are ethnic Russians who lost their citizenship in 1991 after the collapse of the Soviet Union, continue to face significant barriers to social and economic integration. Not only do they lack full political and employment rights, they are also unable to pursue certain careers in national and local civil service, police, and customs.

While Estonia has made some strides in reducing child statelessness in recent years, the government has only partially addressed the problem. Children between 15 and 18 and those born outside Estonia to parents who are stateless residents of Estonia still cannot automatically obtain citizenship. In February 2017, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended that Estonia fast track the naturalization of children with undetermined citizenship between 15 and 18 years old.

In January 2017, Estonia became the first former Soviet republic to recognize same-sex marriages entered into abroad. In July 2017, Estonia held its first Pride Parade in 10 years. Despite these significant steps, the government has yet to implement the 2016 Cohabitation Act that would give people in same-sex civil partnerships the same rights as married couples, including in relation to property and adoption.

As of September 25, 2017, the government had relocated 141 asylum seekers under the EU relocation scheme.

France continues to rely on abusive counterterrorism powers introduced following November 2015 attacks.

The state of emergency that permitted the use of security powers without adequate safeguards was extended in December 2016 and July 2017. The state of emergency ended on November 1, when the new Law to Strengthen Internal Security and the Fight against Terrorism entered into force, following its adoption by parliament in October.

Despite widespread concern from rights bodies, both domestically and abroad, the law incorporates some of the powers utilized under the state of emergency. These include powers that have led to significant abuse, such as the power to order people considered a threat to national security to live in an assigned place of residency, and to carry out house searches without judicial authorization.

The French Ombudsman, the French National Consultative Commission of Human Rights (CNCDH) and a large coalition of NGOs criticized the law for granting the executive the power to restrict freedom of worship, assembly, free movement and the right to privacy, without adequate judicial safeguards.

A report by the French ombudsman in January confirmed earlier CNCDHs findings that young men from visible minorities are overrepresented in police checks, and are 20 times more likely to be stopped by the police than members of the majority population. The new security law expands police check powers at and around borders, including international train stations, raising concerns that the use of discriminatory identity checks could be expanded.

An April report by the CNCDH records a 44.7 percent decrease inanti-Semitic and anti-Muslim incidents in 2016 compared to 2015.

There were reportedly between 500 and 1,000 migrants, including up to 200 unaccompanied children, in the Calais area, as of October, despite the dismantling of the squalid, informal camp at the end of 2016. The French ombudsman and local organizations reported dire living conditions for migrants there, as well as police harassment and abuse against migrants and aid workers, concluding that they contributed to inhuman living conditions. The report of an investigation ordered by the interior minister, published in October, found that police had abused migrants in Calais.

Despite several court orders, local authorities in Calais continued to obstruct the work of aid groups and refused to provide water and sanitation. By the end of October, the central government had opened four new short-term shelters and provided running water, toilets, and showers.

By late September, France relocated 377 asylum seekers from Italy and 4,091 from Greece.

In an annual report in March 2017, the inspector of prisons found that women in prison face difficulties accessing psychiatric care.

In February, France became the first permanent member of the UN Security Council to endorse the Safe Schools Declaration.

Arrivals of asylum-seekers and migrants fell for the second year in a row. By the end of July, 105,000 new asylum-seekers had been registered. Authorities made decisions on over 408,000 asylum applications in the first half of the year, many pending from the previous year. By August, Germany had accepted 1,730 resettled refugees, of whom 1,700 were Syrian. By late September, Germany had relocated 3,641 asylum seekers from Italy and 4,838 from Greece.

In the first half of 2017, authorities recorded 143 attacks on asylum shelters and 642 attacks on refugees and asylum seekers outside their home.

Germanys federal parliament approved a series of surveillance measures during the year that raise concerns about the rights to privacy and freedom of expression. One measure, which would allow law enforcement agencies to install malware on mobile phones, tablets and computers to circumvent encryption, had not entered into force at time of writing. A second came partly into force in October, requiring social media companies to take down illegal content, a poorly defined term including hate speech, or face large fines. A third, which entered into force in July, permits law enforcement authorities at the border to examine data on the mobile phones of refugees and migrants, without a prior court order, a reasonable suspicion of a criminal offense, or consent.

An amendment to the Federal Criminal Police Act, in force since July, allows the pre-emptive electronic tagging and imposition of restrictions on the movement of people considered to pose a risk to national security (Gefhrder), but who had not yet committed any crime. An immigration power allowing similar restrictions on foreign nationals pending deportation came into effect the same month.

German authorities continued to investigate serious international crimes related to the conflict in Syria and Iraq. Trials for war crimes are underway or have been concluded against members of ISIS, former Jabhat al-Nusra members, and various armed groups opposed to the Syrian government.

In June, Federal Parliament approved the recognition of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, and the law came into force on October 1.

A December 2016 European Commission plan for Greece recommended tougher measures aimed at increasing the number of returns of asylum seekers to Turkey, including weakening protections for vulnerable groups, expanding detention, and curbing appeal rights. As a result, Greece increased detention capacity and forced people identified as vulnerable to remain on the Aegean islands until their asylum claim is heard.

Despite progress, access to asylum remained difficult and subject to delay while there were particular concerns with low refugee recognition rates on the islands.

The policy under the EU-Turkey deal of containing asylum seekers on the islands trapped thousands in overcrowded and abysmal conditions, while denying most access to adequate asylum procedures or refugee protection.

According to UNHCR data, there were more than 46,000 asylum seekers and migrants in mainland Greece, and 13,652 on the islands, as of October.

The Greek authorities failure to properly identify vulnerable asylum seekers for transfer to the mainland impeded their access to proper care and services.

The policies, conditions, uncertainty and the slow pace of decision-making contributed to deteriorating mental health for some asylum seekers and other migrants on the islands, while creating tensions that sometimes erupted into violence.

Greek police were criticized for excessive use of force against asylum seekers during a July protest at the hotspot on Lesbos, and ill-treatment of some of those who were detained following ensuing clashes. At time of writing, an inquiry was ongoing.

In September, the Council of State ruled that two Syrian asylum seekers could safely be removed to Turkey without their claims being heard, paving the way for large scale returns of Syrians under the EU deal. The wider impact of the ruling had yet to be felt on the islands at time of writing, and no asylum seekers had been returned under the conditions permitted in the ruling.

More than 1,390 migrants had been removed to Turkey by the end of October, after their claims were rejected on the merits or because they did not file an asylum claim or agreed to return voluntarily. In June, the Greek ombudsman launched an inquiry into allegations of pushbacks, including of Turkish nationals, at the Greek-Turkish land border.

Rabiha Hadji, a 33-year-old Kurdish mother of four children from Syria ...

Rabiha Hadji, a 33-year-old Kurdish mother of four children from Syria who was detained at the Moria hotspot on Lesbos in April, was refused asylum protection in Greece on the basis that Turkey is a safe third country for her and her family. My hope is dead since they brought me here, she said. We saw all the terrible miseries [in Syria] but me and my children havent seen a jail [until coming to Greece]. She was awaiting deportation to Turkey.

An estimated 3,150 unaccompanied migrant children entered Greece as of October 31. In July, the Greek ombudsman criticized the prolonged detentionof unaccompanied children at police stations and refugee camps while they await placement in the overburdened shelter system. At time of writing, an estimated 2,016 were waiting to be placed in a dedicated facility, including 107 who were detained.

Greece opened afternoon preparatory classes to integrate asylum-seeking and migrant children into public schools on the Greek mainland, but failed to cover hundreds of children on the islands. At time of writing, the education ministry was planning to extend classes to children on the islands, but plans excluded children older than 15 and those living in camps.

Far-right groups regularly attacked asylum seekers on the island of Chios. In April, two men were convicted for racially-aggravated crimes over the incidents.

In a landmark ruling in March, the ECtHR ordered Greece to pay some 600,000 in damages for failing to protect from forced labor 42 migrant strawberry pickers who were shot at by farm foremen in 2013 when they protested about unpaid wages.

In September, parliament adopted a new law on legal gender recognition, removing medical requirements to change a persons legal gender.

Hungary saw a decrease in asylum applications in 2017, with 3,035 asylum seekers registered in the first ten months of the year, compared to more than 26,000 during the same period in 2016, according to UNHCR. Most asylum seekers in 2017 came from Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.

A March law allows for automatic detention of all asylum seekers, including children over 14 years, in two transit zones at Hungarys border with Serbia for the entire duration of the asylum procedure. Coupled with recent restrictive amendments to the asylum law, which bar asylum seekers from meaningful access to the asylum procedure, authorities limited daily entry of asylum seekers to 20, leaving thousands stranded in Serbia in poor conditions.

In September, UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grande called on Hungary to improve access for people seeking asylum, and to dismantle the transit zones at the borders.

The construction of a second line of fencing on Hungarys border with Serbia in April, and violent and other pushbacks of asylum seekers at the border also contributed to the significant drop in arrivals.

By mid-November, there were 455 asylum seekers detained in the two transit zones, including 243 children, among them 19 unaccompanied children, according to UNHCR.

The government engaged in a campaign to discredit civil society organizations, particularly those funded by philanthropist George Soros, describing them as foreign paid traitors, to smear Soros himself.

In February, the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders raised concerns about the governments continued stigmatization of human rights defenders.

In April, the government passed a law forcing all civil society organizations receiving more than US$27,000 per annum in foreign funding to register with authorities as foreign funded, and to report that fact on all published materials. Failure to comply results in a fine and could ultimately mean deregistration. To date, over 200 organizations have declined to register, while 20 complied.

A group of 23 organizations, including prominent human rights organizations, filed a complaint to the constitutional court in August, challenging the law. The EU Commission started infringement proceedings against Hungary in April as a result of the law.

Also in April, parliament adopted a law targeting the Central European University in Budapest, introducing requirements that would make its operations in Hungary impossible, and undermine academic freedom. The law triggered protests in Budapest and drew significant international criticism, including from the US Department of State and the European Commission, which also initiated infringement proceedings against Hungary.

In May, the European Parliament adopted a resolution characterizing the human rights situation as one that risked breaching EU values and calling for action under article 7 of the EU treaty.

Many media outlets are under state control or owned by people with close ties to the government. In September, pro-government online publication 888.hu published a list with names of eight journalists, accusing them of pursuing a foreign agenda sponsored by Soros.

Roma continued to face discrimination in housing, education, and public health care. In May, the European Commission launched infringement proceedings against Hungary for on-going discrimination of Roma children in education.

The UN Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice highlighted domestic violence in Hungary in a report to the Human Rights Council in June, and urged authorities to ratify the Istanbul Convention and improve training for law enforcement officials.

In June, the appeals court in Budapest ordered the retrial of a Syrian man sentenced in November 2016 to 10 years in prison for terrorism, for throwing stones during 2015 clashes between Hungarian security forces and migrants and asylum seekers at the Serbian-Hungarian border.

Over 114,000 migrants and asylum seekers had reached Italy by sea by mid-November, according to UNHCR, significantly straining the countrys reception system. The government adopted harsher policies amid a toxic political debate over migration.

In the first seven months of the year, the number of new asylum applications almost doubled compared to 2016, while authorities granted some form of protection in 43 percent of cases. The majority received temporary humanitarian leave to remain in the country, including for abuses suffered as migrants in Libya.

In February, the government introduced measures to accelerate the asylum procedure, including by limiting appeals against negative decisions, and announced plans for new immigration detention centers around the country.

The central government faced problems finding accommodation for asylum seekers across Italy, with many communities refusing to host reception centers. Many reception centers lack care and support for sexual violence survivors, as well as survivors of other traumatic violence. Italys failure to provide long-term support to individuals granted international protection was on stark display in August, when police violently evicted hundreds of homeless Eritrean refugees from an occupied building in Rome.

Children made up 15 percent of new arrivals, with many traveling on their own. In March, parliament adopted a law to improve protections for unaccompanied children, including prioritizing their placement with foster families rather than institutions and ensuring every child is appointed a legal guardian.

A government proposal to make it easier for those born in Italy to obtain citizenship faced significant opposition and remained blocked in parliament at time of writing.

In July, parliament adopted a law finally making torture a crime, but with a definition and statute of limitations that do not meet international standards.

The Council of Europes Committee for Prevention of Torture published a report in September calling on authorities to address prison overcrowding and conditions, and improve investigations into alleged ill-treatment by law enforcement agents.

In July, the UN womens rights committee recommended stronger measures against gender-based violence, including improving identification and protection in asylum reception centers and adequate anti-trafficking mechanisms.

In 2017, Latvia made little progress in reducing its stateless population, which as of late 2016 was 242,736 persons, according to UNHCR. Stateless persons, most of whom are ethnic Russians, do not have full political rights and continue to experience social and economic discrimination. They are also unable to pursue certain careers in civil service, among other professions, and face restrictions on property rights.

In September, the parliament rejected amendments to Latvias citizenship law submitted by the countrys president earlier the same month, which would allow all children born in Latvia automatically to receive Latvian citizenship, unless their parents opt out or they already have another nationality. Under current legislation, non-citizens may register their children as Latvian citizens, but this process is not automatic.

The Latvian State Language Center continues to sanction individuals for failing to use Latvian in professional communications. During 2016, the center issued 160 warnings and fines, a sharp decrease from the previous year. For a second year, the mayor of Riga was among those fined.

In December 2016, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Nils Muinieks published recommendations following his visit to Latvia in September 2016, calling on the Latvian authorities to ensure greater protection for women, children, and LGBT people. Latvia has yet to ratify the Istanbul Convention, which it signed in 2016.

By late September, Latvia had accepted a total of 321 asylum seekers from Italy and Greece under the EU relocation plan.

Anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim rhetoric pervaded the election platforms of mainstream parties in the run-up to the general election in March. The incumbent prime minister published an open letter to voters telling immigrants who did not accept Dutch values to act normal or leave.

The time-limited and conditional support offered by the Dutch government to rejected asylum seekers continued to raise concern. In July, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights criticized a law making health, education and welfare assistance contingent on rejected asylum-seekers demonstrated willingness to return to their country of origin.

In 2017, the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (COA) reduced its shelter capacity from 48,700 to 31,000 places and closed 45 locations, claiming it reflected a decrease in asylum seeker numbers.

In March, new counterterrorism powers entered into force, allowing authorities to impose restrictions on people suspected of involvement in terrorism, including reporting obligations, geographic limits on movement, contact bans, prohibitions on leaving the country, and extending the power to strip Dutch nationals as young as 16 of their citizenship while abroad if suspected of joining a terrorist group. In August, the acting justice minister confirmed the first use of the power to strip Dutch nationality from a person convicted of a terrorism offense.

In July, parliament took the final step to adopt sweeping new surveillance legislation, despite widespread criticism that it violated the right to privacy. Domestic rights groups criticized as inadequate the body established by law to oversee the exercise of the broad powers given to the intelligence services to intercept communication.

See the original post here:
World Report 2018: European Union | Human Rights Watch

European Union – EU – investopedia.com

DEFINITION of 'European Union - EU'

The European Union (EU) is a group of 28 countries that operates as a cohesive economic and political block. Nineteen of the countries use the euro as their official currency. The EU grew out of a desire to form a single European political entity to end the centuries of warfare among European countries that culminated with World War II, which decimated much of the continent. The European Single Market was established by 12 countries in 1993 to ensure the so-called four freedoms: the movement of goods, services, people and money.

The EU had its beginning in the European Coal and Steel Community, which was founded in 1950 and had just six members: Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. It became the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957 under the Treaty of Rome, and subsequently became the European Community (EC). The early focus of the Community was a common agricultural policy as well as the elimination of customs barriers. The EC first expanded in 1973 when Denmark, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Greece and Spain joined. A directly elected European Parliament took office in 1979.

In 1986, the Single European Act solidified the principles of foreign policy cooperation and extended the powers of the community over the members. It also formalized the idea of a single European market. The Maastricht Treaty took effect on Nov. 1, 1993, and the EC was replaced by the EU. The Treaty provided for the creation of the euro, which is intended to be the single currency for the EU. It debuted on Jan. 1, 1999. Denmark and the United Kingdom negotiated "opt out" provisions that permitted them to retain their own currencies. Several newer members of the EU have not yet met the criteria for adopting the euro. In 2014, the GDP of the EU totaled $13.8 billion, which is larger than that of the United States.

The EU and the European Central Bank (ECB) have struggled since the global financial market collapse of 2008 to deal with very high sovereign debt and collapsing growth in Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain. Greece and Ireland received financial bailouts from the community in 2009, which were accompanied by fiscal austerity. Portugal followed in 2011, along with a second Greek bailout. Multiple rounds of interest rate cuts and economic stimulus failed to resolve the problem. Northern countries such as Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands increasingly resent the financial drain from the south. Repeated rumors that Greece would be forced to withdraw from the euro failed to materialize amid disagreement as to whether the move was legally possible as it was not covered in the Maastricht Treaty.

As the situation moved to stagnation from crisis, the government of the United Kingdom announced it would hold a referendum on June 23, 2016, on whether the country should remain in the EU. The UK has retained its own currency.

Originally posted here:
European Union - EU - investopedia.com

For E.U., Catalonia Pits Democratic Rights Against …

Where Brussels and many European capitals have remained silent, others have not. Belgiums prime minister, Charles Michel, who governs in coalition with Flemish separatists, as well as the head of the European Parliaments socialist parties, have both condemned the police action and called on Madrid to start a dialogue with the separatists.

Violence can never be the answer! Mr. Michel said on Twitter. His Slovenian counterpart, Miro Cerar, also said he was concerned and called for political dialogue, rule of law and peaceful solutions.

The European Parliament has also been solidly on the side of Spain. The Parliament is led by the European Peoples Party, the center-right bloc to which Mr. Rajoy, Mr. Juncker and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany all belong.

Antonio Tajani, the Parliaments conservative president, told a Catalan newspaper last week that to ignore Spains constitution was to undermine the legal basis for the whole European Union. Those are the rules, he said.

The Parliaments center-left group also supports respecting the Spanish Constitution.

Still, Mr. Rajoys inept handling of the referendum will have a lasting impact, even if both sides eventually calm down and turn to further talks about enhanced Catalan autonomy.

As Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform, said on Twitter, whatever the rights and wrongs, the Spanish government has lost the international PR battle through heavy-handed behavior.

Original post:
For E.U., Catalonia Pits Democratic Rights Against ...