On September 24 2019, the ECJ delivered its judgment in Google vs CNIL (C-517/17) which was expected to clarify the territorial scope of the ‘right to be forgotten’. In fact, the ECJ’s decision is disappointing in several respects. The Court does not only open the door to fragmentation in European data protection law but also fails to further develop the protection of individual rights in the digital age.
While the attention of many constitutional law scholars has been on the UK Government’s decision to prorogue Parliament and first judicial responses, the Polish Sejm’s plenary sitting has been unexpectedly suspended and postponed until after the general elections of 13 October 2019. The decision has a precedential nature. For the first time since the Polish Constitution entered into force, the ‘old’ Sejm is sitting while the ‘new’ Sejm will be waiting for an opening. Although this decision is formally compliant with the Polish Constitution, it is nonetheless undemocratic and raises some serious questions about the motivation behind this move.
On September 8, numerous Russian regions voted in the framework of a so-called “single voting day”. Most significantly, Moscow voted for the members of City Council (“Duma”), and Russia’s second-largest city Saint Petersburg was to elect its governor. It would be a mistake, however, to draw any conclusions on the sentiments of the Russian people from the results as the voting process was skewed at every stage of the so-called “election”.
One of the frequent equivocal “courtesy” titles that has been awarded to Boris Johnson these days is that of plunger or reckless gambler. Boris Johnson may be many things — his language coarse, his behavior ruthless — but if you analyze his behavior in the current Brexit affair from a decision theoretic angle there is a rational interpretation for his seemingly irrational approach.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson has asked the European Council President in a letter for reciprocal ‘binding legal guarantees’ not to put in place infrastructure, checks, or controls at the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. The significance of this has been amplified by the European Parliament’s resolution that it will not consent to any Withdrawal Agreement without an Irish Backstop, in direct contravention to the UK’s position. This post will argue that the EU legal order places constraints on this option. Ireland would be in breach of EU law if it followed this course, and the EU institutions have no discretion to suspend these legal obligations.
Whether or not Netanyahu’s era of prime minister of Israel is coming to an end, his campaign announcement that Israel will unilaterally annex at least parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories should not be dismissed. First, because this possibility has long ceased to be a political taboo in Israel. Second, and more importantly, because in many ways, a sub-official process of partial annexation is already taking place in Israel, to a large extent, under the radar of the international community.
A criminal proceeding has been suspended by a Hungarian justice of the Pest Central District Court to ask the European Court of Justice preliminary questions, inter alia, about his own judicial independence. Now, Hungary’s Supreme Court has stepped in and ruled that the reference was illegal, essentially arguing that preliminary references are not the fora to discuss such claims. In fact, however, this preliminary reference reveals that all other means to effectively challenge the rule of law backsliding in Hungary have failed.
Until a decade ago or even less, Italian politics appeared a matter of its own political idiosyncrasies and was dismissed as a peculiar case which is cause more for an amused smile but serious political analysis. This is not the case anymore. The sad truth is that parliamentary regimes based on a functioning majority in Parliament do not seem to be able to deliver sufficiently stable and effective governments these days.
The UK Supreme Court is about to decide the fate of the UK Government’s decision to prorogue Parliament. Two are the main issues: First, justiciability – whether the Government’s decision can be subject to judicial scrutiny or whether it lies beyond the Judiciary’s remit. Second, if judicial review is available, whether the Government’s decision is lawful. Although the two issues prima facie appear to be distinct, in this case they are intertwined. I believe that the issue of prorogation in this case is justiciable and that the Government’s decision to prorogue falls within the legal boundaries of the Constitution.
Over the past years, Facebook as well as other online platforms faced constant criticism and pressure from civil society, lawmakers, and governments regarding their role in content moderation. As a response, Facebook for the last two years sought a way to handle the decision-making process in a more transparent, accountable, and fair way, while at the same time diverting responsibility from itself and its CEO and sole controller, Mark Zuckerberg. Now, it finally rolls out its plan for an independent Oversight Board, also referred by some, including Mark Zuckerberg, as a “Supreme Court”. Major questions arise as to its mandate, the establishment of global free speech standards and the reactions of national courts.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters