European Union -

“Germany’s Border Controls Spark Backlash: Europe’s Unity at Risk”

Germany’s recent decision to extend temporary border controls across all its land borders has sparked a wave of criticism from its neighbours. The move, which is part of Germany’s response to irregular migration, has been labelled “unacceptable” by Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk and has also been criticised by officials in other countries. The decision highlights growing tensions over migration policies and border management in Europe, as countries grapple with how to handle rising numbers of refugees and migrants. Background to Germany’s decision Germany’s interior minister, Nancy Fieser, announced that from next Monday, border controls will be extended to cover all land borders, including those with France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Denmark. Previously, such controls applied to select borders. According to Fieser, the aim is to provide protection against “serious threats posed by Islamist terrorism and serious crime”. Under the new rules, German police will be tasked with checking whether a refugee has already applied for protection in another European Union (EU) country. If they have done so, the process of deporting them will be swiftly initiated.

However, neighbouring countries have not liked the move. Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk condemned the decision, saying it was taken because of Germany’s internal political conflicts, rather than any genuine border security concern. The criticism reflects wider discontent among European countries, which are concerned about the potential impacts of Germany’s actions on their border policies and migration management.

European neighbours react
Germany’s decision has sparked reactions across the region. Poland, which has been dealing with a surge in illegal crossings on its border with Belarus since 2021, is particularly affected. Tusk has emphasized that Poland’s border policy is focused on countering the “hybrid war” being waged by Belarus and Russia rather than imposing more stringent controls on its borders with other EU countries such as Germany.

Austria has also taken a position on the issue. Austrian Interior Minister Gerhard Karner announced that Austria would not accept any migrants sent back by Germany. “There are no exemptions,” he said, reinforcing a firm stance that Austria will not bear the brunt of Germany’s border policy decisions. Austria, facing its own political pressures with far-right opinion polls ahead of upcoming elections, is unlikely to compromise on its border policies.

Impact on border communities
Communities along the borders are feeling the immediate impact of Germany’s decision. Joris Bengevoord, the mayor of a Dutch town near the German border, described the border checks as a “panic reaction.” He highlighted the delays experienced by residents during the Euro 2024 football championships, when Germany imposed temporary border controls. Such disruptions could become more frequent and affect cross-border trade, travel and daily life for people living in these areas.

Dutch transport groups such as TLN have criticised Germany for undermining the principles of the Schengen Agreement, which allows passport-free travel across much of Europe. They argue that these controls impede the free movement of goods and people, which is the cornerstone of the Schengen area.

Not everyone in the Netherlands is against Germany’s move, however. Some political figures, particularly on the right, see it as a necessary step. Geert Wilders, leader of the anti-immigration Freedom party, expressed his support for Germany’s decision and even suggested that the Netherlands should consider similar measures. Dilan Yesilgoz of the centre-right liberal VVD echoed this sentiment, saying the German plan sends a strong message about controls, even if it is largely symbolic.

Political context in Germany
The decision to increase border controls comes at a politically sensitive time for Germany. Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s three-party coalition government is facing increasing pressure following poor results in state elections in eastern Germany, where immigration has emerged as a key issue. In Thuringia, the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party recently came in first place, highlighting the changing political landscape and growing public concern over migration. Another election is due in Brandenburg in less than two weeks, which further increases the urgency for the government to address these concerns.

The conservative opposition in Germany, led by the CDU/CSU parties, has been strongly critical of the government’s handling of migration. CDU leader Friedrich Merz accused the government of being “hopelessly divided internally” and not taking effective measures to control migration. Opposition parties initially agreed to attend a government-hosted migration summit to discuss next steps, but later backed out of the government’s ‘

In a major ruling affecting one of the world’s biggest tech companies,

In a major ruling affecting one of the world’s biggest tech companies, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ordered Apple to pay back €13 billion (about £11 billion or $14 billion) in unpaid taxes to Ireland. The ruling is the culmination of a long legal battle between the EU, Apple and the Irish government over what the EU has described as illegal tax benefits granted to Apple by Ireland.

Background: A long battle over taxes

The case dates back to 2016 when the European Commission accused Ireland of granting Apple unfair tax benefits that amounted to illegal state aid. According to the commission, Ireland allowed Apple to pay significantly less tax than other businesses, leading to a situation where Apple paid almost no tax on its European profits. The commission ordered Ireland to recover €13 billion in unpaid taxes from Apple, but both Apple and the Irish government contested the ruling.

Ireland has consistently argued against the requirement for back taxes to be paid, stating that it has complied with all applicable tax laws and has not given Apple any special treatment. Apple, on its part, has said that it has always followed the law and paid all its outstanding taxes. Both Ireland and Apple appealed against the Commission’s decision, which led to years of legal battles.

Final decision by the European Court of Justice

The recent decision by the European Court of Justice is being considered as the final decision on this controversial issue. The court said, “The Court gives final judgment in this case and confirms the 2016 decision of the European Commission: Ireland provided unlawful assistance to Apple, which Ireland is required to recover.” This decision overturns a previous decision made in 2020 by the lower General Court of the ECJ, which sided with Apple and Ireland, quashing the Commission’s order.

However, the High Court found legal errors in that 2020 decision and decided to uphold the original decision taken by the European Commission. This means that Ireland will have to recover €13 billion from Apple, despite years of legal efforts to avoid doing so.

Apple’s response to the ruling

Responding to the court’s decision, Apple reiterated that the issue was never about how much tax it pays, but rather which country should receive the tax payment. “This case was never about how much tax we pay, but rather which government we have to pay it to,” an Apple representative said. “We have always paid all our taxes, no matter where we operate, and have never had any special deals.”

Apple emphasized its role as a major taxpayer globally and its contribution to economic growth and innovation in Europe and around the world. “Apple is proud to be an engine of growth and innovation in Europe and around the world, and to consistently be one of the world’s largest taxpayers,” the company said.

Apple also expressed disappointment at the latest ruling, pointing out that the lower General Court had earlier overruled the Commission’s decision. “We are disappointed by today’s decision as previously the General Court had reviewed the facts and clearly quashed the case,” the company said. Period in question: 1991 to 2014

The tax dispute centres around the period from 1991 to 2014, during which Apple had two subsidiaries in Ireland that were used to control most of its European sales and profits. The European Commission argued that the way in which profits generated by these subsidiaries were taxed in Ireland gave Apple an unfair advantage compared to other companies that were not given the same tax regime.

According to the Commission, this amounts to unlawful state aid under EU competition rules. The Commission’s stance was that Apple’s tax arrangement allowed it to avoid paying taxes due in Europe, thereby distorting competition.

Ireland’s stance and implications for Dublin

Ireland has long resisted the notion that it gave illegal state aid to Apple, arguing instead that it complied with all applicable national and international tax laws. Dublin has been reluctant to recover taxes from Apple, mainly due to concerns that doing so could affect its reputation as a pro-business environment that attracts multinationals to set up their European headquarters in the country.

However, following the latest ruling by Europe’s highest court, Ireland is left with no choice but to recover the money from Apple and get it to comply. The development could have significant financial implications for Dublin, as well as potentially impact its relationship with other large multinationals operating in Ireland.

Widening crackdown on big tech companies by European Commission

The ruling comes at a time when the European Commission is increasingly focusing on regulating big tech companies and ensuring fair competition in the market. In recent years, the Commission has imposed significant fines on other tech giants for breaches of EU competition laws.