The Supreme Court considers that the regularization of migrants could collide with the European norm

The Spanish Supreme Court has raised concerns about the potential conflict between Spain’s extraordinary regularization of migrants and European Union law. In two rulings issued on June 24, the court indicated that it might refer the issue to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to determine whether the measure violates EU directives. This follows a series of legal challenges brought by regional governments governed by the Popular Party (PP), including the Community of Valencia and Aragon, who argue that the regularization process could clash with EU regulations.

The court gave five days for both the government and the affected regions to provide their views on whether the CJEU should interpret the legality of the measure. The decision comes after the Supreme Court previously rejected a similar request from the Community of Madrid, which had argued that the regularization would strain public services such as healthcare, education, and housing. The court found insufficient evidence to support this claim and therefore did not halt the process.

The regularization decree, enacted on April 14, allows hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status. As of now, over 1.2 million applications have been submitted, far exceeding initial estimates of up to 500,000. The Spanish Unified Police Union (SUP) has noted that these numbers significantly surpass expectations set by the government. The measure has sparked significant debate, with some arguing that it represents a humanitarian effort, while others raise concerns about its compliance with EU laws.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court outlined six possible areas where the Spanish regulation might conflict with EU law. One major point of contention is the early application of the Migration and Asylum Pact, which was not yet enforceable when the decree was passed but became active on June 12. The court suggests that the premature implementation of EU rules could affect the validity of national legislation. Another concern is the treatment of individuals seeking international protection, where EU law grants them temporary stay rights rather than residency permits, whereas the Spanish decree effectively provides full residency.

Additionally, the court highlighted issues related to the Return Directive, which requires decisions on return for all irregular migrants, except under specific exceptions. The Spanish regulation appears to create a generalized pathway for regularization that bypasses these exceptions. Furthermore, the court pointed out that the large number of people being regularized without prior notification to the European Commission or coordination with other member states could violate the principle of loyal cooperation outlined in Article 4.3 of the Treaty on European Union.

The court also emphasized that the regularization grants beneficiaries free movement within the Schengen area for 90 days, raising questions about whether this aligns with the Schengen Borders Code, especially given the lack of prior coordination with other EU countries. These points underscore the complexity of the legal landscape surrounding the regularization process.

While the Supreme Court initially denied a request to suspend the regularization process in May, citing insufficient evidence of service overload, the current rulings suggest a more cautious approach. The court's willingness to explore the legal implications with the CJEU indicates a growing awareness of the broader implications of the policy beyond domestic considerations. As the situation develops, the outcome of this legal inquiry will likely shape the future of migration policies in Spain and potentially influence broader EU discussions on immigration reform.