Articles for author: Carl Baudenbacher

Judicial Independence and the EU-Switzerland Framework Treaty

The European Union is about to finalise a package of sectoral treaties with Switzerland. Its goal is to institutionalise five existing treaties and to conclude three new ones. At the core of these agreements lies the dispute settlement mechanism, modelled after the EU’s agreements with the post-Soviet states of Armenia, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. This mechanism would grant the European Commission the unilateral right to bring Switzerland before an ‘arbitration tribunal’.

28. Februar 2025

,

Bricolage, Bullshit, and Bustle

On 15 December 2023, the Swiss Federal Council (Government) announced that it intended to start formal negotiations with the EU on the conclusion of a Framework Agreement (FA) 2.0. Five existing and two new treaties between the EU and Switzerland are to be subject to dynamic alignment and institutionalised, i.e. provided with a monitoring and judicial mechanism. The project, which is practically fixed in the decisive questions by a “Common Understanding” (“CU”) between the two parties, is based on a triple B approach: in substance, it consists of unsuccessful bricolage, the foundations were laid by bullshit, and because elections and a change of the Commission are imminent in the EU, bustle is supposedly of the essence. The CU summarizes what the Parties have informally agreed on.

6. Februar 2024

, , , ,

Back to Start?

The UK won a major victory with the EU in the Draft EU-UK Christmas EveTrade Agreement: It got the EU to renunciate the so-called Ukraine mechanism which, in effect, would have made the Commission the UK’s watchdog. This has caused some “Brexit envy” in Switzerland as this mechanism is part of the Draft EU-Switzerland Institutional Agreement. With a “bullshit” campaign, former Foreign Minister Didier Burkhalter, however, has led Switzerland into a cul-de-sac, making it likely that the negotiations will have to go back to start.

30. Dezember 2020

, , ,

Loyalty vs. Sovereignty

The German Constitutional Court’s Weiss ruling has led to a major debate as to whether a national supreme court may disregard ECJ case law, asserting that the ECJ had acted ultra vires. Similar debates have existed for quite some time in the EFTA pillar of the EEA, consisting of Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. A relatively small but powerful group of lawyers in the Norwegian administration (led by the Government Attorney), orthodox dualist professors and judges loyal to the government has used Norway’s dominant position to attempt to redefine EEA law. One of the most effective strategies is the suppression of the notion of loyalty or good faith and its replacement by a strategy of creating “room for manoeuvre” (“RFM”) for Norway.

25. Juni 2020

, ,

“Room for Manoeuvre” is the Real Reason for Norway’s EEA Scandal

Hans Petter Graver's explanation of the reasons for the EEA scandal that is currently shaking Norway is not convincing. The total failure of politics, administration, and courts cannot be explained by alleged “conflicts of law” problems, an “extraordinary situation” allegedly created by Norway’s EEA accession, or by a “legal overload” which occurred 25 years ago when EU single market law had to be taken over. Every European country that has joined the EEA on the EFTA side or the EU had to overcome these challenges.

21. November 2019

, ,