Articles for category: English Articles

Aufruf für eine menschliche Flüchtlingspolitik

Diesen Aufruf, von über 200 Kulturschaffenden und anderen bereits unterschrieben, will ich den Leserinnen und Lesern des Verfassungsblogs nicht vorenthalten. Konstitutionalist_innen sind noch zu dünn gesät auf der Unterschriftenliste. Wer auf den Link oben klickt, kommt auf das Formular zum Unterschreiben. Bitte in großer Zahl davon Gebrauch machen und an alle potenziell Interessierten weiterleiten! Wir wollen doch mal sehen, ob wir hier nicht genügend zivilgesellschaftlichen Druck zustande bekommen, um etwas zu verändern.

12. November 2015

Dieudonné before the Strasbourg Court: Negationism isn’t freedom of expression

Satire is protected by the right to freedom of expression. Holocaust denial is not. This is the bottom line of yesterday’s decision by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of the French comedian Dieudonné M’Bala M’Bala, notorious for his frequent run-ins with French courts for antisemitic speech, defamation, or advocation of terrorism, and also known for his political involvement with right-wing extremists.

11. November 2015

, , , ,

What Schrems, Delvigne and Celaj tell us about the state of fundamental rights in the EU

The overall message looks puzzling. First, privacy is a super-fundamental right that reigns supreme above all other rights after the Court’s decision in Schrems. Second, national electoral rules governing the right to vote in elections to the European Parliament come under the scope of application of the Charter, but Member States can restrict such a right as long they do so in a proportionate way, says the Court in Delvigne. And third, illegal immigrants who have already been ordered to abandon the territory of the EU can be subject to criminal prosecution if they ever return, according to the Court in Celaj. In sum, Privacy is a super-fundamental right. The right to vote is quite super, but not as much. The rights to liberty and free movement are not super at all, at least when they concern third country nationals. Is this the kind of case-law one would expect from a fundamental rights court? Does this make any sense at all? Maybe it does.

16. Oktober 2015

, , , , ,

The Force awakens – The Schrems case from a German perspective

Just like Star Wars, the "Solange" saga about German constitutional order’s approach to fundamental rights protection in the context of European integration appeared as a story told and settled. But now there are rumours that in Germany Solange Episode III is in the making, with a release date around 2016. The ECJ’s Schrems decision will bring some turmoil to the Solange Episode III production in Germany.

16. Oktober 2015

, , , ,

The Schrems Judgement: New Challenges for European and international companies

In Schrems the CJEU has declared the Safe-Harbor-Decision of the European Commission invalid whilst strengthening the EU fundamental rights. The Court has done so with astonishing clarity. Although the matter is about Facebook Ireland’s transfer of data to servers of Facebook, Inc. in the U.S., it, ironically, will not be Facebook but companies of the European “old economy” that will have to face severe consequences in the aftermath of this landmark judgement. In many cases of every day data processing in the business world, the consent of data subjects will be impossible to obtain. It is at the same time nearly impossible to prevent data to be transferred outside the EU. Hence, a vast number of data processing operations which were lawful before Schrems are now illegal.

12. Oktober 2015

,

Negotiating the Data Protection Thicket: Life in the Aftermath of Schrems

The Schrems judgment of the ECJ has implications for the viability of the commercial practices of Internet giants (and minions), for the legality of state surveillance practices and for the future sustainability of an Internet that is global rather than parochial. It is thus not surprising that the Court of Justice of the EU delivered its judgment only one week after the Opinion of the Advocate General and that this judgment has attracted so much academic and media attention, including through the existing commentary on this blog. In adding to this commentary, I shall not rehash the well-versed facts but shall focus on three points which I found striking.

9. Oktober 2015

, ,

Safeguarding European Fundamental Rights or Creating a Patchwork of National Data Protection?

On Tuesday, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union declared the Commission’s US Safe Harbour Decision invalid. The Court’s ruling in Case C-362/14 of the Austrian Internet activist Maximillian Schrems v the Irish Data Protection Commissioner is a milestone in the protection of European fundamental rights, but it also preserves space for different national supervisory standards and national discretion on whether data may actually be transferred. Is the ruling opening the way for a patchwork of national data protection? How does this ruling influence the TTIP negotiations?

9. Oktober 2015

, , , , , ,