As climate protests are mounting across Italy, there is a corresponding escalation in repressive responses from public authorities. This trend is not unique to Italy but is rather widespread throughout Europe, as evidenced by frequent reports in national newspapers and posts on this blog. What sets Italy apart from other European nations is the spectacular increase in the use of preventive measures by the public security administration.
On 20 February 2024, the European Court of Human Rights decided in the case of Wa Baile c. Suisse on racial profiling. This blog argues that the judgment represents a cautious step forward in the fight against racial profiling and repairs some shortcomings of earlier case law. The ECtHR holds that Switzerland violated Article 14 in combination with Article 8 ECHR. It reverses the burden of proof and accepts that both the lack of an adequate preventive framework and reports by international human rights bodies and NGOs contribute to establishing a presumption of discrimination.
Americans missed another opportunity on Monday to reduce the threat Donald Trump presents to constitutional democracy in the United States and in other countries. The Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson unanimously overturned decisions that held Trump ineligible to run for the Presidency. Three justices acknowledged that Trump is an “oathbreaking insurrectionist.” None challenged that Trump committed treason on January 6. Nevertheless, in an unsigned per curium opinion that had some basis in policy, but little or no foundation in the constitutional text or history of the Fourteenth Amendment, the justices ruled that states had no power to determine whether persons were eligible for the presidency under Section 3.
In Slovakia, we are witnessing something truly extraordinary. Within the first hundred days of the new administration, Slovakia has experienced a paradigmatic change in the penal codes, an attack on civil society organizations, an abolishment of the Special Prosecutor’s Office, a bill for a limitation of the whistleblower protection, and politicization of independent institutions. Accordingly, I argue that Slovakia faces a much faster democratic backsliding than what was happening in Hungary and Poland. Based on the pace of the initial steps, we can expect a radical shift in Slovakia’s democratic character and its position in international relations.
The situation unfolding in Tunisia serves as a stark example of blatant executive overreach into the realm of the judiciary. On February 12, 2024, Youssef Bouzakher, one of the most senior judges in Tunisia, submitted an individual communication against Tunisia to the UN Human Rights Committee. Through a series of presidential decrees adopted during 2021-2022, he was removed from his position as High Judicial Council member and President and was later dismissed from his judicial position together with 56 other magistrates. In this blog post, I will analyze the centrepiece of the assault on the Tunisian judiciary by President Kais Saied, namely presidential decree 2022-35, in light of international standards on judicial independence, and particularly, the ones from the African system.
The constant portrayal of migration as an exceptional and problematic phenomenon fuels public anxieties and makes deterrence and harshness seem like the only effective political approaches to managing global migration. By contrast, positive visions of how a society of immigration needs to look like for all members of society to benefit are scarce. Yet to counter apocalyptic scenarios, we need not only such a positive vision but also a theory of societal action that helps to realize it. This blog post offers such a vision and theory that is grounded in the normative and legal framework of the European Union. It argues that we should conceptualize the European society as an inclusive, participatory, and self-reflexive community that is based on constitutional principles as enshrined in Art. 2 TEU. To realize this vision, we must understand practices of claiming and defending human rights not as an overreach into the political latitude of the legislator but as a joint practice of (political) community-building.
The governance of migration, in particular of asylum migration, is caught in the contrast between the political relevance of numbers, and the individuum-based structure of the law. For politics, it matters how many persons arrive, require shelter, enter procedures. For the legal assessment, however, numbers mostly do not matter: The right not to be rejected at the border, the right to access an asylum procedure and to shelter during that procedure are individual rights that are independent from the overall number of arrivals. This contrast is visible in periodical debates about a maximum number of asylum seekers per year, or proposals to abolish the individual right to protection altogether. Such proposals disregard that individual rights to protection are enshrined not just in constitutional law, but also in European and international law, and for good reason. However, it is worth taking the perspective of numbers seriously – while respecting the individual right to protection.
Ein Brief von irgendwo zwischen Erfurt und der Elbestraße
A letter from somewhere between Erfurt and Elbestraße
The CJEU has pending before it a crucial case on the criminalisation of seeking asylum and assistance to those seeking protection. At this critical juncture, this blog post highlights a sample of important decisions in which courts, giving effect to constitutional and international legal principles, set legal limits on this form of criminalisation. These cases reflect not only the appropriate legal limits, but also acknowledge the character of irregular migration and smuggling. Rather than framing individuals as dangerous illegal migrants and exploitative smugglers, they reassert the humanity of both those in search of refuge and opportunity, and those that assist them.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters