Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Right to Transparency in the External Dimension of the EU Migration Policy: Past and Future Secrets

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Informalisation of the EU's External Action in the Field of Migration and Asylum

Part of the book series: Global Europe: Legal and Policy Issues of the EU’s External Action ((GELPIEEA,volume 1))

Abstract

Transparency is a democratic principle and a fundamental right in the European Union. The openness of public institutions is expected to foster the participation of citizens in decision-making and to increase the legitimacy of the administration. However, transparency is not always ensured in the external dimension of the EU migration policy. This sector is increasingly characterised by informal ‘deals’, including nonbinding instruments entered into by EU institutions and arrangements made by the Member States but implemented by the Union. These instruments and the preparatory documents related to them are frequently not published. Moreover, individuals may have difficulty obtaining access to unpublished documents related to migration deals, especially in light of the case law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Treaty on European Union (Consolidated Version), adopted 7 February 1992, entered into force 1 November 1993, OJ C 326, Articles 10 and 11 TEU.

  2. 2.

    Regulation 1049/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ L 145, pp. 43–48, preamble.

  3. 3.

    CJEU, Case T-252/19 Pech v. Council, Judgement, 21 April 2021, EU:T:2021:203, para 26; see also, inter alia, CJEU, Joined Cases C-39/05 P and C‑52/05 Sweden and Turco v. Council, Judgment, 1 July 2008 EU:C:2008:374, paras 45 and 59.

  4. 4.

    In addition, the institutions must maintain ‘an open, transparent and regular dialogue’ with representative associations and civil society (see footnote 1 above, Article 11(2) TEU).

  5. 5.

    Regulation 1049/2001/EC, above n 2, preamble.

  6. 6.

    On the EU’s external competences in the migration domain, see Garcia Andrade 2018.

  7. 7.

    See further below, Sect. 6.2.

  8. 8.

    Council of the European Union 2021a, p. 5.

  9. 9.

    Council of the European Union 2021b; European Commission 2017.

  10. 10.

    Council of the European Union 2016; Governments of Italy and Libya 2017; on the relationship between these instruments and the EU, see inter alia Neframi and Gatti 2020, pp. 257–258.

  11. 11.

    See, mutatis mutandis, CJEU, Case C-399/12 Federal Republic of Germany v Council of the European Union, Judgment, 7 October 2014, EU:C:2014:2258, para 63.

  12. 12.

    European Commission 2019a, p. 15; see also European Commission 2018b, p. 9.

  13. 13.

    Several studies focus on the nature of the instruments entered into by the Union, see for instance Ott 2020; Casolari 2018.

  14. 14.

    On the relationship between the right of access to documents and parliamentary activities, see Flavier 2018.

  15. 15.

    See inter alia CJEU, Joined cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P Kingdom of Sweden and Maurizio Turco v Council of the European Union, Judgment, 1 July 2008, ECLI:EU:C:2008:374, para 33; CJEU, Case T-252/19 Laurent Pech v Council of the European Union, Judgement, 21 April 2021, ECLI:EU:T:2021:203, para 27; CJEU, Case T-331/11 Leonard Besselink v Council of the European Union, Judgment, 12 September 2013, ECLI:EU:T:2013:419, para 28.

  16. 16.

    Regulation 1049/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ L 145, Article 3(a).

  17. 17.

    Ibid., Article 13(1). The rules of procedure of EU institutions require the publication in the Official Journal for several other documents, e.g., the first reading positions of the Council; see Rules of Procedure of the Council, OJ L 325, Article 17(1).

  18. 18.

    It is worth noting that ‘legislative documents’, for the purpose of Regulation 1049/2001, include documents relating to decision-making procedures that lead to the adoption of binding acts which are not qualified as ‘legislative’ under primary law (e.g. international agreements).

  19. 19.

    Regulation 1049/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ L 145, Articles 4, 9, 11 and 12.

  20. 20.

    Ibid., Article 12(1) and (3).

  21. 21.

    The seemingly missing arrangements relate to Guinea, Ethiopia, The Gambia, and Côte d’Ivoire; see European Commission 2018b, p. 9; European Commission 2019a, p. 15; see also Poli 2020, pp. 78–79.

  22. 22.

    Associazione per gli studi giuridici sull’immigrazione 2018.

  23. 23.

    Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio [Regional Administrative Court of Lazio], Salvatore Fachile v Ministero degli affari esteri e della cooperazione internazionale, ministero della difesa, Judgment, 16 November 2018, Case N. 05606/2018 REG.RIC.

  24. 24.

    Council of the European Union 2021b.

  25. 25.

    EEAS 2016.

  26. 26.

    See Council of the European Union 2021c.

  27. 27.

    Statewatch (2021) EU-Afghanistan informal deportation agreement—full text of the new ‘Joint Declaration’. https://www.statewatch.org/news/2021/february/eu-afghanistan-informal-deportation-agreement-full-text-of-the-new-joint-declaration/. Accessed 16 March 2021.

  28. 28.

    See Article 296(2) TFEU. See also, inter alia, CJEU, Case C-46/19 P Council v PKK, Judgment, 22 April 2021, ECLI:EU:C:2021:316, para 47; CJEU, Case C-687/15 Commission v Council (WRC-15), Judgment, 25 October 2017, ECLI:EU:C:2017:803, para 53; Molinari 2019.

  29. 29.

    See, inter alia, CJEU, Case C-244/17 European Commission v Council of the European Union, Judgment, 4 September 2018, ECLI:EU:C:2018:662, para 36.

  30. 30.

    CJEU, Case C-263/14 European Parliament v Council of the European Union, Judgment, 14 June 2016, ECLI:EU:C:2016:435, para 4; CJEU, Case C-658/11 European Parliament v Council of the European Union, Opinion of Advocate General Bot, 30 January 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:4, para 4.

  31. 31.

    CJEU, Case C-660/13 Council of the European Union v European Commission, Judgement, 28 July 2016, ECLI:EU:C:2016:616, para 40; Wessel 2021, p. 82; García Andrade 2018, p. 192; Warin and Zhekova 2017, p. 154.

  32. 32.

    Council of the European Union 2021b, para 7 (emphasis added).

  33. 33.

    It should be noted, at any rate, that the Court of Justice interprets the objectives of development cooperation in an extensive manner, see CJEU, Case C-377/12 European Commission v Council of the European Union, Judgment, 11 June 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:1903.

  34. 34.

    Council of the European Union 2021b, p. 2.

  35. 35.

    See further Gatti 2016, pp. 259–260.

  36. 36.

    See inter alia CJEU, Case C-612/18 P ClientEarth v European Commission, Judgment, 19 March 2020, ECLI:EU:C:2020:223, paras 36–37; CJEU, Case C-350/12 P Council of the European Union v Sophie in ’t Veld, Judgment, 4 May 2012, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2039, paras 65–67; CJEU, Case T-529/09 Sophie in ’t Veld v Council of the European Union, Judgement, 4 May 2012, ECLI:EU:T:2012:215, paras 57-59; CJEU, Case T-301/10 Sophie in ’t Veld v European Commission, Judgment, 19 March 2013, ECLI:EU:T:2013:135, para 125; see also Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ L 145, Articles 4, 9, 11, 12.

  37. 37.

    European Commission 2018a; see, for instance, Council of the European Union 2018.

  38. 38.

    The text of the agreement might also be annexed to the proposal for a Council decision authorising the signing of the agreement.

  39. 39.

    I.e. a document drawn up in the course of procedures for the adoption of an act that is legally binding for the Member States, see Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ L 145, Article 2 (4).

  40. 40.

    European Commission 2019a; see also Council Decision (EU) 2020/751 of 27 May 2020 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Belarus on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation, OJ L 181/1, pp. 1–2.

  41. 41.

    See CJEU, Case C-660/13 Council of the European Union v European Commission, Judgement, 28 July 2016, ECLI:EU:C:2016:616, para 39.

  42. 42.

    Assuming that these instruments require an assessment to be made of the Union’s interests, as in the context of migration deals. More ‘technical’ arrangements may be concluded through simpler procedures; ibid., paras 38–46.

  43. 43.

    See Council of the European Union 2020.

  44. 44.

    Council of the European Union 2021b.

  45. 45.

    Council of the European Union 2021c; see further Council of the European Union 2021d.

  46. 46.

    Council of the European Union 2021b, Part VIII.

  47. 47.

    See Regulation 1049/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ L 145, Article 7(1); the 15 days’ deadline imposed by this provision may be extended by a further 15 days in exceptional cases (see Article 7(3)).

  48. 48.

    See Council of the European Union 2021b.

  49. 49.

    See Frag den Staat (2021) Request on ‘Joint Declaration on Migration Cooperation between Afghanistan and the EU’ by Arne Semsrott and the corresponding Council response. https://fragdenstaat.de/anfrage/joint-declaration-on-migration-cooperation-between-afghanistan-and-the-eu/#nachricht-557085. Accessed 3 July 2021; see also Council of the European Union 2021b, p. 2.

  50. 50.

    CJEU, Case C-576/19 P Intercept Pharma Ltd and Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v European Medicines Agency, Judgment, 29 October 2020, ECLI:EU:C:2020:873, para 29; CJEU, Case C-362/08 P Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v European Commission, Judgment, 26 January 2010, ECLI:EU:C:2010:40, para 56.

  51. 51.

    Regulation 1049/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ L 145, Articles 2 and 3.

  52. 52.

    CJEU, Case C-266/05 P Jose Maria Sison v Council of the European Union, Judgment, 1 February 2007, ECLI:EU:C:2007:75, para 46; CJEU, Case T-307/16 CEE Bankwatch Network v European Commission, Judgement, 27 February 2018, ECLI:EU:T:2018:97, para 81.

  53. 53.

    Ibid., CEE Bankwatch Network v European Commission, para 78; CJEU, Case C-266/05 P Jose Maria Sison v Council of the European Union, Judgment, 1 February 2007, ECLI:EU:C:2007:75, para 36.

  54. 54.

    See above, footnote 49.

  55. 55.

    See inter alia Mendes 2020; Leino 2018.

  56. 56.

    See further Flavier 2018, p. 272.

  57. 57.

    CJEU, Joined Cases C‑514/11 P and C‑605/11 P Liga para a Protecção da Natureza (LPN) and Republic of Finland v European Commission, Judgment, 14 November 2013, ECLI:EU:C:2013:738, paras 93–94; CJEU, Case C-139/07 P European Commission v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH, Judgment, 29 June 2010, ECLI:EU:C:2010:376; CJEU, Case, C-514/07 P Kingdom of Sweden v Association de la presse internationale ASBL (API) and European Commission, Judgment, 21 September 2010, ECLI:EU:C:2010:541.

  58. 58.

    Wyatt 2020, p. 696; Molinari 2018, p. 970; Rossi 2017, p. 161.

  59. 59.

    CJEU, Case T-851/16 Access Info Europe v European Commission, Judgment, 7 February 2018, ECLI:EU:T:2018:69; CJEU, Case T-852/16 Access Info Europe v European Commission, Judgment, 7 February 2018, ECLI:EU:T:2018:71.

  60. 60.

    CJEU, Case T-192/16 NF v European Council, Court Order, 28 February 2017, ECLI:EU:T:2017:128; CJEU, Case T-193/16 NG v European Council, Court Order, 28 February 2017, ECLI:EU:T:2017:129; CJEU, Case T-257/16 NM v European Council, Court Order, 28 February 2017, ECLI:EU:T:2017:130; CJEU; Joined Cases C-208/17 P to C-210/17 P NF and Others v European Council, Court Order, ECLI:EU:C:2018:705.

  61. 61.

    Council of the European Union 2016.

  62. 62.

    See CJEU, Case T-192/16 NF v European Council, Court Order, 28 February 2017, ECLI:EU:T:2017:128.

  63. 63.

    See further Gatti and Ott 2019; De Vittor 2018, p. 218.

  64. 64.

    See Joined Cases C-208/17 P to C-210/17 P NF and Others v European Council, Court Order, ECLI:EU:C:2018:705, para 16.

  65. 65.

    See Appeal brought on 21 April 2017 by NF residing on the Island of Lesbos (Greece) against the Order of the General Court (First Chamber, extended composition) delivered (and served on the Appellant) on the 28th February 2017 in CJEU, Case T-192/16 NF v. European Council, Order of the Court, 28 February 2017, ECLI:EU:T:2017:128, para 8 (hereafter, NF appeal); this document is on file with the author.

  66. 66.

    Goldner Lang 2021.

  67. 67.

    CJEU, Case T-851/16 Access Info Europe v European Commission, Judgment, 7 February 2018, ECLI:EU:T:2018:69, para 6.

  68. 68.

    European Commission 2016a, 2016b.

  69. 69.

    Given the similarity between the × Commission, T-851/16, cit.) is referred to below.

  70. 70.

    European Commission 2016a, 2016b.

  71. 71.

    Ibid.

  72. 72.

    CJEU, Case T-851/16 Access Info Europe v European Commission, Judgment, 7 February 2018, ECLI:EU:T:2018:69, para 57.

  73. 73.

    CJEU, Case T-307/16 CEE Bankwatch Network v European Commission, Judgement, 27 February 2018, ECLI:EU:T:2018:97, para 80; CJEU, Case C-266/05 P Jose Maria Sison v Council of the European Union, Judgment, 1 February 2007, ECLI:EU:C:2007:75, para 80.

  74. 74.

    See, to that effect, CJEU, Case T-331/11 Leonard Besselink v Council of the European Union, Judgment, 12 September 2013, ECLI:EU:T:2013:419, para 60.

  75. 75.

    CJEU, Case C-350/12 P Council of the European Union v Sophie in ’t Veld, Judgment, 4 May 2012, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2039, para 66; CJEU, Case T-301/10 Sophie in ’t Veld v European Commission, Judgment, 19 March 2013, ECLI:EU:T:2013:135, para 41; see also, inter alia, CJEU, Case T-31/18 DEP Luisa Izuzquiza and Arne Semsrott v European Border and Coast Guard Agency, Court Order, 27 November 2019, ECLI:EU:T:2021:173, para 62.

  76. 76.

    CJEU, Case C-612/18 P ClientEarth v European Commission, Judgment, 19 March 2020, ECLI:EU:C:2020:223, para 39.

  77. 77.

    See above.

  78. 78.

    CJEU, Case T-851/16 Access Info Europe v European Commission, Judgment, 7 February 2018, ECLI:EU:T:2018:69, para 48.

  79. 79.

    Ibid., paras 43–44.

  80. 80.

    Ibid., para 85. The Commission invoked also the protection of court proceedings in this case; for the sake of brevity, this exception is not discussed here. See further, in this respect, Molinari 2018.

  81. 81.

    CJEU, Case T-851/16 Access Info Europe v European Commission, Judgment, 7 February 2018, ECLI:EU:T:2018:69, para 92; see also CJEU, Joined cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P Kingdom of Sweden and Maurizio Turco v Council of the European Union, Judgment, 1 July 2008, ECLI:EU:C:2008:374, paras 42–43.

  82. 82.

    CJEU, Case T-851/16 Access Info Europe v European Commission, Judgment, 7 February 2018, ECLI:EU:T:2018:69, para 94.

  83. 83.

    Ibid., para 103.

  84. 84.

    Ibid., paras 107–109 and 112.

  85. 85.

    CJEU, Joined cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P Kingdom of Sweden and Maurizio Turco v Council of the European Union, Judgment, 1 July 2008, ECLI:EU:C:2008:374, paras 67–68.

  86. 86.

    CJEU, Case T-851/16 Access Info Europe v European Commission, Judgment, 7 February 2018, ECLI:EU:T:2018:69, para 90.

  87. 87.

    CJEU, Case T‑529/09 Sophie in ’t Veld v Council of the European Union, Judgment, 4 May 2012, ECLI:EU:T:2012:215, para 89; CJEU, Case C-350/12 P Council of the European Union v Sophie in ’t Veld, Judgment, 3 July 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2039 paras 103–107.

  88. 88.

    CJEU, Case T-851/16 Access Info Europe v European Commission, Judgment, 7 February 2018, ECLI:EU:T:2018:69, para 92.

  89. 89.

    European Commission 2016a, p. 12.

  90. 90.

    CJEU, Case T‑529/09 Sophie in ’t Veld v Council of the European Union, Judgment, 4 May 2012, ECLI:EU:T:2012:215, para 92; See also, to that effect, CJEU, Case T-540/15 Emilio De Capitani v European Parliament, Judgment, 22 March 2018, ECLI:EU:T:2018:167, para 90.

  91. 91.

    CJEU, Case T-851/16 Access Info Europe v European Commission, Judgment, 7 February 2018, ECLI:EU:T:2018:69, para 110.

  92. 92.

    Ibid., para 111.

  93. 93.

    In the ERTA case, the Court of Justice held that the contested act had been adopted by the Council, since it ‘dealt with a matter falling within the power of the Community’; see CJEU, Case 22–70 Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Communities, Judgment, 31 March 1971, ECLI:EU:C:1971:32, para 52; later, in EDF, the Court found that the determination of the author of an international convention ‘depends on an interpretation of the Convention and on how in Community law powers are distributed between the Community and its Member States’; see CJEU, Case C-316/91 European Parliament v Council of the European Union, Judgment, 2 March 1994, ECLI:EU:C:1994:76; On EU competences and the EU-Turkey Statement of 18 March 2016, see García Andrade 2018, pp. 194–195.

  94. 94.

    On confidentiality and nonbinding international arrangements, see Aust 2000, pp. 35–37.

  95. 95.

    See, inter alia, CJEU, Case T-252/19 Laurent Pech v Council of the European Union, Judgment, 21 April 2021, ECLI:EU:T:2021:203, para. 59; CJEU, Joined cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P Kingdom of Sweden and Maurizio Turco v Council of the European Union, Judgment, 1 July 2008, ECLI:EU:C:2008:374, para 46.

References

  • Associazione per gli studi giuridici sull’immigrazione [Association for Legal Studies on Immigration] (2018) Nota tecnica in ordine al ricorso per conflitto di attribuzione tra poteri dello Stato presentato dinanzi alla Corte costituzionale dai deputati onorevoli Brignone, Civati, Maestri, Marcon [Technical note concerning the action for conflict of attribution between the powers of the State brought before the Constitutional Court by the following Members: Brignone, Civati, Maestri and Marcon]. https://www.asgi.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2018_2_27_ASGI_Libia_Italia_scheda-tecnica.pdf. Accessed 16 March 2021

  • Aust A (2000) Modern Treaty Law and Practice. CUP, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Casolari F (2018) La crisi siriana, l’esodo dei rifugiati e la Dichiarazione UE-Turchia [The Syrian crisis, the exodus of refugees and the EU-Turkey Declaration]. In: Ronzitti N, Sciso E (eds) I conflitti in Siria e Libia: possibili equilibri e le sfide al diritto internazionale [The conflicts in Syria and Libya: possible balances and challenges to international law]. Giappichelli, Turin, pp 219–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union (2016) EU-Turkey Statement. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/03/18/eu-turkey-statement/. Accessed 16 March 2021

  • Council of the European Union (2017) Operating Procedures for the Identification and Return of Persons without an Authorisation to Stay, C(2017) 6137 final

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union (2018) Negotiating directives for a Free Trade Agreement with Australia, Doc. 7663/18

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union (2020) Extension of the Joint Way Forward on Migration Issues between Afghanistan and the EU, Doc. 9233/20

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union (2021a) Informal Videoconference of Foreign Affairs Ministers and Home Affairs Ministers: Joint issues paper on the External Dimension of the EU’s Migration Policy under the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, 5 March 2021, Council doc. 6470/21

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union (2021b) Joint Declaration on Migration Cooperation, Doc. 5223/21

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union (2021c) Joint Declaration on Migration Cooperation between Afghanistan and the EU—Authorisation of signing/Approval, Doc. CM 1559/21

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union (2021d) Joint Declaration on Migration Cooperation between Afghanistan and the EU—authorization of signing/approval—Decision to use the written procedure, Doc. 5287/21

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vittor F (2018) Responsabilità degli Stati e dell’Unione europea nella conclusione e nell'esecuzione di “accordi” per il controllo extraterritoriale della migrazione [Responsibilities of States and the European Union in concluding and implementing ‘agreements’ for the extraterritorial control of migration]. In: Nesi G (ed) Migrazioni e diritto internazionale: verso il superamento dell’emergenza? [Migration and international law: towards overcoming the emergency?]. Editoriale scientifica, Naples

    Google Scholar 

  • EEAS (2016) Joint Way Forward on migration issues between Afghanistan and the EU. https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/11107/joint-way-forward-migration-issues-between-afghanistan-and-eu_en. Accessed 3 July 2021

  • European Commission (2016a) Decision of the Secretary General on behalf of the Commission pursuant to Article 4 of the Implementing Rules to Regulation (EC) No. 1049/2001, C(2016) 6029 final

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2016b) Decision of the Secretary General on behalf of the Commission pursuant to Article 4 of the Implementing Rules to Regulation (EC) No. 1049/2001, C(2016) 6030 final

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2017) Commission Decision on the signature of the EU-Bangladesh Standard Operating Procedures for the Identification and Return of Persons without an Authorisation to Stay, C(2017) 6137 final

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2018a) Transparency Policy in DG TRADE. https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2018/november/tradoc_157486.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2021

  • European Commission (2018b) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council: Managing migration in all its aspects—progress under the European agenda on migration, COM(2018) 798 final

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2019a) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council: Progress report on the Implementation of the European Agenda on Migration, COM(2019) 481 final

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2019b) Proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Belarus on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation, COM (2019) 401 final

    Google Scholar 

  • Flavier H (2018) Réflexions sur la Démocratisation des Relations Extérieures à l’Aune du Contentieux de l’Accès aux Documents [Reflections on the Democratisation of External Relations in the light of the Access to Documents Litigation]. In: Neframi E, Gatti M (eds) Constitutional Issue of EU External Relations Law. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 257–285

    Google Scholar 

  • García Andrade P (2018) EU external competences in the field of migration: How to act externally when thinking internally. Common Market Law Review 55:157–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Gatti M (2016) European External Action Service: Promoting Coherence Through Autonomy and Coordination. Brill, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Gatti M, Ott A (2019) The EU-Turkey statement: legal nature and compatibility with EU institutional law. In: Carrera S et al (eds) Constitutionalising the External Dimensions of EU Migration Policies in Times of Crisis. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 175–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldner Lang I (2021) Towards ‘Judicial Passivism’ in EU Migration and Asylum Law? In: Ćapeta T et al (eds) The Changing European Union: A Critical View on the Role of Law and Courts. Hart Publishing, Oxford, available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3597017

  • Governments of Italy and Libya (2017) Memorandum d’intesa sulla cooperazione nel campo dello sviluppo, del contrasto all’immigrazione illegale, al traffico di esseri umani, al contrabbando e sul rafforzamento della sicurezza delle frontiere tra lo Stato della Libia e la Repubblica Italiana [Memorandum of Understanding on cooperation in the field of development, countering illegal immigration, trafficking in human beings, smuggling and strengthening border security between the State of Libya and the Republic of Italy]. http://www.governo.it/sites/governo.it/files/Libia.pdf. Accessed 3 March 2021

  • Leino P (2018) The Principle of Transparency in EU External Relations Law. In: Cremona M (ed) Structural Principles in EU External Relations Law. OUP, Oxford, pp 201–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendes J (2020) The Principle of Transparency and Access to Documents in the EU: for what, for whom and of what? Law Working Paper Series 2020-004, University of Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Molinari C (2018) The General Court’s Judgments in the Cases Access Info Europe v. Commission (T-851/16 and T-852/16): A Transparency Paradox? European Papers 3:961–972

    Google Scholar 

  • Molinari C (2019) The EU and its Perilous Journey through the Migration Crisis: Informalisation of the EU Return Policy and Rule of Law Concerns. European Law Review 44:824–840

    Google Scholar 

  • Neframi E, Gatti M (2020) Externalisation de la politique migratoire et identité de l'Union européenne [Externalisation of migration policy and the identity of the European Union]. In: Benlolo M (ed) L'Union européenne et les migrations [The European Union and Migration]. Bruylant, Brussels, pp 245–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Ott A (2020) Informalization of EU Bilateral Instruments: Categorization, Contestation, and Challenges. Yearbook of European Law: 1–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Poli S (2020) The Integration of Migration Concerns into EU External Policies: Instruments, Techniques and Legal Problems. European Papers 5:71–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi L (2017) Public Access to Documents in the EU. Bloomsbury, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Warin C, Zhekova Z (2017) The Joint Way Forward on Migration Issues Between Afghanistan and the EU: EU External Policy and the Recourse to Non-Binding Law. Cambridge International Law Journal 6:143–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessel R (2021) Normative transformations in EU external relations: the phenomenon of ‘soft’ international agreements. West European Politics 44:72–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyatt D (2020) The Anaemic Existence of the Overriding Public Interest in Disclosure in the EU’s Access to Documents Regime. German Law Journal 21:686–701

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Mauro Gatti

Authors
  1. Mauro Gatti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mauro Gatti .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. T.M.C. Asser Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Eva Kassoti

  2. T.M.C. Asser Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Narin Idriz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gatti, M. (2022). The Right to Transparency in the External Dimension of the EU Migration Policy: Past and Future Secrets. In: Kassoti, E., Idriz, N. (eds) The Informalisation of the EU's External Action in the Field of Migration and Asylum. Global Europe: Legal and Policy Issues of the EU’s External Action, vol 1. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-487-7_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-487-7_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-486-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-487-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation