Articles for category: AAA General

(State) Immunity for Palestine?

On December 11, 2023, the Berlin Public Prosecutor's Office decided to discontinue investigations against Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian National Authority. The declared reason for doing so lies in his immunity pursuant to Section 20 para. 1 of the German Courts Constitution Act (GVG). The decision is instructive with regard to Germany's understanding of sovereign immunity and Palestine's role in international relations.

The EU’s Faustian Bargain

Twelve years into the EU’s rule of law crisis, this week has demonstrated that EU leaders are still unwilling to confront their own complicity in Orbán’s rise and to do something about it. Is this sad spectacle a price worth paying in exchange for a symbolic gesture of goodwill to Ukraine? That is the wrong question to ask. The right question to ask is this: if the EU continues to treat the rule of law as a bargaining chip and to make promises it won’t keep, for how much longer will our Union remain a club worth joining?

Orbán’s Veto Play – The Subsidiarity Card

Viktor Orbán is known to use veto threats in the European Council to get his way. This time, he was keen to see that after months of tense exchanges with the Commission, Hungary gets access to EU funds that had been blocked in order to achieve compliance with the rule of law and fundamental rights conditionality. So, PM Orbán saw it fit to loudly contest Ukraine’s accession and the financial aid package of 50 billion Euros. This may be PM Orbán’s strongest veto play to date.

Same Old, Same Old

Following the General Affairs Council on 12 December 2023, the Spanish presidency issued its conclusions on the evaluation of the Annual Rule of Law Dialogue (ARoLD). The overly positive assessment that transpires from the conclusion fails to convince, due to the continued reliance on confidentiality and the lack of any tangible standards. Moreover, the improvements suggested by the Presidency fall overwhelmingly short of addressing the issues that plague this instrument, confirming it as a weak exercise in posturing with no real stakes involved.  

Escaping Jurisdictional Blackholes

There is a lack of effective judicial protection in the field of EU Common Foreign and Security Policy. In a recent opinion, AG Ćapeta has suggested that the solution rests with asserting the possibility of establishing the non-contractual liability of the EU for breach of fundamental rights in CFSP cases, regardless of whether the measure imposes restrictions. However, the Council also has a positive duty stemming from the Charter to include a jurisdictional clause in all CFSP measures indicating the national court which has jurisdiction in those cases.

To Score Is to Decide

Can the act of assigning a score to someone constitute a decision? This, in essence, is the question the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) had to answer in Case C-634/21. And the Court’s answer is yes, following in the footsteps of the Advocate General’s opinion on the case. Rendered on 7 December, this ruling was eagerly awaited as it was the first time the Court had the opportunity to interpret the notorious Article 22 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) prohibiting decisions “based solely on automated processing".

The Future of the Rule of Law in the EU

With systemic threats to and violations of the rule of law not subsiding, notwithstanding the expected end of backsliding in the case of Poland, the future of the rule of law in the EU is likely to be one of retrenchment accompanied by increased gaslighting to mask an increased gap between EU rhetoric and EU action. This means that the Commission’s decision to unlock € 10 bn of EU funding previously frozen on rule of law grounds to “sway Viktor Orbán on Ukraine” should not be seen as a once-off aberration but as prefiguration of a new abnormal normal.

The Long Overdue Fall of Al-Kateb

On the 8th of November, the High Court of Australia delivered a landmark ruling that the indefinite detention regime under the Migration Act is unconstitutional, overruling the 2004 decision of Al-Kateb. The decision, both in form and substance, sent shockwaves through Australia’s legal and political establishment. In adopting the relatively uncommon procedure of issuing orders immediately following the hearing (with reasons to follow), a gap was created where politicians rushed to come up with a legislative response in the absence of any clearly articulated constitutional rules. In an island country, where several elections in the last 20 years have been ostensibly won and lost over concerns of ‘illegal’ immigration, this decision has been political dynamite.