The relation between the immigration policies and state sovereignty in the European Union (EU) is both a most topical and controversial issue. The dissertation is conceived as a disciplinary interpretative study based on the concept of four types of sovereignty by S. Krasner. This approach allows to interpret the seeming contradiction between a state perceived as a sole actor in the area of immigration policy and the communitarization of the immigration policy at the EU level. By using the analysis of discourse as well as of practice, this thesis acknowledges shifts of power to the EU, but stresses that these shifts represent strengthening of other factors of power and control at the same time. Thus, in certain, particularly security, aspects, European harmonization of immigration policy can reinforce state sovereignty. It applies to the external as well as internal dimensions of the EU immigration policy that a part of the policy remains to be decided at the national level. Nevertheless, also the communitarized area offers the member states a significant room for discretion. Thus, there is still considerable tension between the idea of solidarity between member states on one hand and their national interests on the other and the common European immigration policy remains to be achieved in future.

This master thesis deals with the issue of development of the EU immigration policy and expansion of the rights of third-country nationals who have been legally residing in the territory of the Union throughout this development. The aim of this thesis is to outline the crucial milestones in the form of primary and secondary legislation that led to the broadening of the scope of rights of third-country nationals in the Union, while examining their legal status in the Union in general and in the Member States in particular. The first part of this master thesis introduces the historical background, outlines the development in context of the European Union and provides the categorisation of legal third-country nationals residing in the territory of the EU, whereas the second part of the thesis deals with transposition of European legislation into national legislation of the selected Member States - Germany and the Czech Republic - while drawing a line of compliance and emphasising local requirements that were introduced in addition to (but not exceeding the scope of limitation provided by) EU legislation. In order to be able to determine the quality and ease of fit between the EU and the receiving Member States the descriptive content analysis is employed. In the second part of this thesis it is case...

L'Algérie et la Chine figurent toutes deux sur la liste, commune aux États membres de l'Union européenne (UE), des nationalités soumises à l'obligation de visa Schengen pour voyager à destination d'un ou plusieurs pays européens. En Chine, plus de 95% des visas demandés sont délivrés par les consulats des pays Schengen, mais en Algérie, près d'un dossier sur deux est refusé. Partant d'un tel écart, la thèse interroge le visa Schengen comme l'instrument d'une mobilité à deux vitesses. Ce faisant, elle propose de questionner la production, la légitimation et l'éventuelle contestation de la répartition inégale de la liberté à se déplacer. D'un point de vue théorique, la thèse s'appuie sur l'approche de l'instrumentation, qui conduit à décomposer l'analyse du visa Schengen en quatre niveaux (communautaire, politico-diplomatique, bureaucratique, public). D'un point de vue méthodologique, cette recherche articule deux enquêtes de terrain auprès des consulats français d'Alger et Beijing, et une série d'entretiens menés avec les décideur∙ses français∙es et européen∙nes entre Bruxelles, Paris et Nantes. Tout d'abord, la thèse souligne que le visa Schengen comprend, dès sa négociation par les acteurs européens, des conceptions antagonistes de la mobilité, orientées vers la lutte contre l'immigration irrégulière, mais aussi vers des considérations économiques ou encore d'ordre diplomatique. Ensuite, les fonctions de régulation du visa Schengen sont redéfinies au cas par cas. Dans le cas de l'Algérie, la rareté du visa se comprend à la lumière de la relation postcoloniale avec la France, qui adopte dans ce pays tiers une « politique du robinet des visas », où le verrouillage de l'accès à la mobilité coexiste avec des facilitations soit exceptionnelles, soit réservées aux élites. En Chine, on assiste à l'inverse à une mise à l'agenda du visa au service de l'attractivité touristique. À Beijing, les consulats européens se disputent les parts du marché global des demandeur∙ses de visa chinois∙es, cadré∙es comme touristes dépensier∙es dont il faut faciliter la mobilité. Cette politique du chiffre crée alors une dissonance chez les agent∙es visa, socialisé∙es à l'impératif de lutte contre le « risque migratoire ». Enfin, la thèse met en évidence, à travers l'immersion ethnographique dans chaque terrain, que les bureaucrates et les demandeur∙ses de visa détiennent un pouvoir discrétionnaire, leur permettant de renégocier, selon des dispositions organisationnelles et individuelles, la distribution de la mobilité. À la lumière de ces différents résultats, la thèse permet d’établir que la régulation de la mobilité à plusieurs vitesses par le régime de visa Schengen se joue à plusieurs échelons : entre pays exemptés et ceux obligés ; entre pays de la liste négative ciblés par des logiques différentes, et entre ressortissant∙es d'une même nationalité. Cet instrument donne donc à voir une production complexe des inégalités de mobilité globales et infranationales, créant des lignes de démarcation entre désirables et indésirables. / Algeria and China both feature on the European Union's (EU) list of third country nationals that are subjected to Schengen visa requirements for short-term travel to one or more European countries. In China, over 95% of visa applications are accepted, while in Algeria, almost one out of two visa applications are refused. To understand this discrepancy, the thesis examines the Schengen visa as the instrument of a two-tier mobility. Hence, this research, analyses the production, legitimation, and possible contestation of the unequal distribution of mobility. The theoretical framework of the dissertation relies on the approach of instrumentation, which leads to investigate four levels of analysis of Schengen visa policy (EU policymaking; bilateral migration diplomacy; implementation by bureaucrats and appropriation by applicants). The methodological approach rests on multisite fieldwork, including ethnographic observation of Schengen visa policy implementation by French consulates in Algiers and Beijing, and a series of interviews conducted with French and European decision-makers in Brussels, Paris, and Nantes. Firstly, the thesis highlights that, from the EU policy-making process onwards, the Schengen visa embodies antagonistic conceptions of the regulation of mobility: it seeks to curb irregular immigration, but also to promote economic growth and foster diplomatic relationships. As a result, the Schengen visa policy is a regime of compromise, entailing a contingent and random distribution of mobility. Then, the instrument and its functions are redefined on a case-by-case basis. In the case of Algeria, French consulates implement a restrictive visa policy. The Schengen visa primarily serves an immigration-reducing function from the former colony. The "locking policy" coexists with exceptional facilitations for elites only, which make the visa a rarity. By contrast, the case of China reveals the agenda-setting of a policy focused on tourism attractiveness. In Beijing, European consulates compete for the global market share of Chinese visa applicants, framed as “big-spender”-type tourists whose mobility must be facilitated. This run for attractiveness engenders a dissonance among consular agents, since they are conditioned to the fight against "migratory risk". Eventually, ethnographic immersion enables to emphasize that in both cases, bureaucrats and applicants all hold a discretionary power. It allows them to proceed to organisational and individual arrangements, which renegotiate the distribution of access to mobility. Overall, the thesis demonstrates that the regulation of multi-speed mobility by the Schengen visa regime is played out at several levels: between exempt and obliged countries; between countries on the negative list targeted by different logics, and between nationals of the same third country. In brief, his research reveals how one single instrument can assume very antagonistic regulatory functions. Schengen visa policies thus structure an unequal mobility regime, creating global and social demarcation between desirable and undesirable foreigners.

L’entraide pénale se définit comme ce besoin des Etats de s’associer pour permettre la réalisation d’un objectif commun, celui de lutter plus efficacement contre le crime. A l’échelle européenne, les Etats ne vont pas se limiter à l’utilisation des mécanismes internationaux existants. Ils s’engagent dans un processus de coopération approfondi, provoquant une régionalisation de l’ensemble des normes favorisant la lutte contre la criminalité, plus spécialement la criminalité organisée. Cette évolution vers un système partenarial répond à une nécessité illustrée par le rapport déséquilibré entre la criminalité transnationale et l’ « entraide pénale classique ». Pour répondre à l’accroissement de cette criminalité et aux insuffisances des outils européens classiques, les Etats européens instaurent un socle de règles communes, protectrices des droits fondamentaux, ainsi que divers principes juridiques dont l’harmonisation et la reconnaissance mutuelle. Progressivement, la coopération pénale en Europe ne se fonde plus sur une logique d’entraide entre les Etats mais sur un objectif d’intégration pénale développé au sein de plusieurs organisations. Parmi elles, il convient de distinguer plus particulièrement le Conseil de l’Europe, la Communauté européenne devenue l’Union européenne, le Benelux et le Conseil nordique. Concomitamment, cette entraide pénale européenne apparaît désormais comme une réalité complexe due à une multiplication des espaces pénaux. L’espace pénal formé par le Conseil de l’Europe et la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (C.E.D.H.) se distingue plus particulièrement de l’espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice de l’Union européenne (E.L.S.J.) identifié par ses multiples agences (Europol, Eurojust, Frontex, etc.). Comment s’opèrent aujourd’hui les mouvements de coopération et d’intégration pénales entre les Etats européens ? N’est-il pas envisageable de repenser l’architecture pénale européenne ? La réponse à cette question passe par la redéfinition des espaces pénaux européens sous le concept d’ « Europe pénale » et la proposition de nécessaires modifications organisationnelles. / Judicial cooperation in criminal matters may be defined as the need for individual States to work together to achieve a common goal in fighting crime more efficiently. On a European scale, States will not stop at the use of international mechanisms. They are committed to a deeper cooperation process which leads to the regionalization of norms and thus favors the fight against crime, and more particularly organized crime. Such a move towards a system of partnership is necessary, as may be seen in the relationship between transnational crime and “traditional cooperation in criminal matters”. To meet this need, European States must introduce a set of common rules, protective of fundamental rights, along with different legal principles, such as harmonization and mutual recognition. Progressively, cooperation in criminal matters in Europe is no longer based on the logic of mutual assistance between States, but aims at several organizations developing a policy of integration. Organizations of note, amongst the many committed to this process, are the Council of Europe, the former European Community, now European Union, the Benelux countries and the Nordic Council. Moreover, European mutual assistance in criminal matters seems to take on a complex reality from now on, due to the multiplication of criminal areas. The area formed by the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is distinct from the European area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ) identified by its many agencies (Europol, Eurojust, Frontex, etc.). Taken as a whole, this is a question of being interested in a process which leads to integration in criminal matters between European States. It might be useful to take this opportunity to suggest a re-definition of the European areas in criminal matters under the heading “Criminal Europe”. The necessary organizational modifications may thus be put forward.

La recevabilité de la preuve est sans doute l’une des questions les plusimportantes de l’espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice de l’Union européenne,mais aussi une des plus complexes. Les difficultés relatives à l’utilisation d’unepreuve recueillie dans un État membre, devant les juridictions répressives d’un autreÉtat membre, semblent cependant avoir été sous-estimées par le législateureuropéen. En effet, l’amélioration de l’efficacité de la répression transnationale a étéune des priorités de la politique criminelle de l’Union ces quinze dernières années. Àce titre, le renforcement des mécanismes de coopération judiciaire, y compris ceuxvisant à l’obtention de la preuve transnationale, a été privilégié. Grâce au principe dereconnaissance mutuelle des décisions judiciaires en matière pénale, fondé sur laconfiance réciproque que les États membres se portent, les divergences etéventuelles incompatibilités entre les systèmes nationaux ont été tenues en échec,permettant ainsi la libre circulation des preuves dans l’espace pénal européen.Cependant, cette justification théorique n’est pas suffisante pour assurer larecevabilité mutuelle des preuves, la bonne administration de la preuve pénaledemeurant une question nationale, souverainement appréciée par le juge national.De plus, tant l’étude comparative des régimes probatoires nationaux que laprésentation des instruments de coopération judiciaire montrent des déficiencesprofondes, appelant ainsi à une protection accrue et harmonisée des droitsfondamentaux dans les procédures répressives au niveau européen, dans le butd’assurer la recevabilité mutuelle des preuves pénales dans l’espace pénaleuropéen. / Admissibility of evidence is one of the most crucial and complicatedissues in the European Union’s area of freedom, security and justice. However, thedifficulties regarding the use of evidence gathered in one Member State inproceedings in another Member State through the mechanisms of judicialcooperation seems to have been underestimated by the European Union legislator,and this despite the success of criminal proceedings with a cross-border characterbeing considered a priority for the last fifteen years. Indeed, the EU’s criminal policyhas been striving for the strengthening of the efficiency of judicial cooperationbetween judicial authorities. This requires the improvement of the instrumentsdedicated to obtaining criminal evidence. Thanks to the principle of mutualrecognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters, based on mutual trust betweenMember States, the differences between and potential incompatibilities of nationalsystems should not be an obstacle to the free circulation of evidence in the EUcriminal justice area.However, this theoretical justification is not sufficient to ensure mutual admissibility ofevidence, as the good administration of evidence remains a national issue, with awide margin of appreciation accorded to the national judge. Furthermore, both thestudy of national procedural norms and the study of the European Union legalframework show deficiencies, requiring a coherent concept for the protection offundamental rights in criminal proceedings at the EU-level. A better and harmonisedprotection of procedural guarantees is the path to ensure the mutual admissibility ofevidence, overcoming national differences.

This thesis deals with a description and analysis of the EU law and policy on Schengen visas. The EU visa policy is analysed in its historical development and its place in the framework of Schengen acquis. Separately, important visa policy measures are analysed including the typology of visas, exceptions from visa obligation, visa reciprocity, visa facilitation and processes of visa liberalisation. Different phases of the visa procedure are studied with focus on the questions whether there is a right to be issued a Schengen visa when the conditions are met and the right of appeal. The relevant legislation subject to analysis is above all the Visa Code, the regulation on visa lists and the relevant jurisprudence of the Court of Justice. By way of illustration, the implementation in the Czech legal order is used and jurisprudence of the Czech higher courts is quoted to show to what extent the EU visa procedure and visa refusal matches the requirements of the administrative law theory on the administrative procedure and decision in general. The relevant rules are assessed as to the extent they match with principles of legitimacy, influence of legal certainty, effectiveness and proportionality. The core of the work is a hypothesis that current EU visa rules do not establish a right to a visa when the...

My thesis is based on description of asylum policy of Czech Republic after year 1989, as well as the fact about influence of entering Czech Republic in EU, according to asylum policy and the number of immigrants. There is a description of immigration after year 1989. There is also a description of the number of immigrants and the common view of these questions. This situation is compared with the situation in similar Belgium. The main purpose of my thesis is to make description in the domain of immigration in both countries and further comparation in the domain of asylum policy, the number of immigrants and their nationality origin. My thesis also includes common asylum and migration policy of EU. According to a fact that immigration to Belgium started earlier and that Belgium is called the "Land of asylum", this country was always very attractive destination with many new opportunities and better standards of life. There was also a big immigration influence to local culture. There is a big difference between Belgium and Czech Republic, because Czech Republic has not had yet open approach to other nationalities. The immigration to Czech Republic started much later and there is no important influence to czech culture. The nationalities of incoming immigrants to both countries are also different.