Die jüngeren Urteile des EuGHs zur Vorratsdatenspeicherung sind nicht als „kopernikanische Wende“ zu verstehen, in der der EuGH sein Selbstverständnis als Grundrechtsgericht aufgegeben hätte. Sie sind keine autoritär motivierte Abkehr von einer vormals grundrechtsfreundlichen Rechtsprechung. Vielmehr fügen sich die Urteile ein in die komplexe Entwicklung des ursprünglich national geprägten Sicherheitsverfassungsrechts. Diese Einordnung bedarf eines genaueren Blickes.
The recent judgements of the CJEU on data retention should not be regarded as an authoritarian move towards a less fundamental rights-sensible position of the Court. Rather, the case law adapts the ever more complex development of the constitutional security law, which was originally dominated by the Member States. As a European court, the CJEU cannot simply ban certain police measures but must respect the complexity and heterogeneity of national law enforcement agencies.
The arrest warrants by the ICC for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity are a red card for the Israeli legal system indicating grave doubts whether the Israeli legal system fulfills the complementarity requirement. Paradoxically, an indictment on the Israeli justice system arrives after the Israeli Supreme Court has recently fortified its position. Yet, the more the Court expanded its reach into the political arena, the less it could fulfill its core role of defending basic human rights.
The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill sparked remarkable protest in Parliament itself where Māori lawmakers used haka, a traditional Māori dance form, demonstrating strength and unity (the video went viral). It was also a key focus of what was likely the largest political protest ever seen at New Zealand’s Parliament, with 40,000-50,000 people descending on Parliament grounds and the surrounding streets on 19 November 2024. The Bill is so controversial because it would mean a change to the way in which rights and obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi are recognised in New Zealand law.
Wer von der wachsenden Armut in Deutschland betroffen ist, dem droht im Falle eines Strafverfahrens eine Ungleichbehandlung. Das Regelbeispiel der Gewerbsmäßigkeit als besonders schwerer Fall einer Straftat führt dazu, dass ein zentrales Versprechen des Rechtsstaats gebrochen wird. Es gibt keine Gleichheit vor dem Gesetz, wenn Armut straferhöhend wirkt.
Mass data retention is on the rise. In the current heyday of security packages in Germany, we are now witnessing a “super grand coalition” in favor of mandatory IP address retention. Some are calling for greater protection for victims through data retention. Yet, what one often overlooks is the following: The investigative capacities of law enforcement authorities have never been better, and the digital data pools that can be analyzed have never been larger. Hence, victims must be protected without mass surveillance.
Mass data retention is all about proportionality. The threat level determines the proportionality of the means – both of which are subject to the perpetual flux of time. Data retention is intended to protect victims of digital crimes. To protect freedom online, our security services urgently need to be able to access stored IP addresses. The alarming developments in our security situation are calling many certainties from the past into question. This also involves a re-evaluation of traffic data retention.
Ten years after its groundbreaking judgment declaring the Data Retention Directive incompatible with the EU Charter, the Full Court significantly eased its previously strict requirements. On 30 April 2024, it issued La Quadrature Du Net II and, for the first time, declared the general and indiscriminate retention of IP addresses permissible for the purpose of fighting general crime. Given the CJEU’s fundamental change of heart, we have gathered a range of scholars to contextualize the judgment and situate it within the broader debate on mass data retention, online surveillance, and anonymity.
Am 19. Dezember 2022 reichte die Europäische Kommission in der Rechtssache C-769/22 eine Vertragsverletzungsklage ein, in der sie im zweiten Klagegrund eine eigenständige Verletzung von Art. 2 EUV geltend machte. Dies löste eine breite Diskussion darüber aus, ob der EuGH seine Wertejudikatur in Zukunft so weiterentwickeln könnte, dass Art. 2 EUV auch als eigenständige Rechtsgrundlage herangezogen werden kann – ohne eine Verbindung zu spezifischen Bestimmungen des Unionsrechts.
“This is a frontal and deep attack against the … European society.” With this remarkable statement the Commission has started the “largest human rights battle in EU history”: the infringement proceedings against the Hungarian anti-LGBTIQ* law. The Commission claims that this law breaches the internal market, the Charter rights and the Union’s common values enshrined in Article 2 TEU. The “mega hearing”, which took place on 19 November 2024, is now facing its ultimate test: can the Member States’ compliance with Article 2 TEU be reviewed before the Court of Justice?
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters