Articles for category: AAA General

President Tusk’s Proposal for a New Settlement for the UK in the EU: Fueling – not Taming – EU Disintegration

The European Union is at the crossroad. On 17 February the European Council will deal with the United Kingdom’s request to renegotiate the terms of its EU membership. The British Conservative government has committed to holding a referendum on withdrawal from the EU before the end of 2017. At the same time, the British Prime Minister has opened negotiations with its European partners, asking for a »new deal« between the UK and the EU. In particular, Mr. David Cameron advanced four requests: the UK should be legally exempted from participating to the project of »an ever closer union«; national parliaments ... continue reading

»2004 EU Accession« as a Founding Moment? Of lost opportunities, alienating constitutionalism and vigilant courts

Much as the liberal elites in Poland are appalled by the ruthlessness of the attack on the Constitutional Court and the Polish rule of law, they are the ones to be blamed for the civic passivity that continues to define post-transition societies in general. The truly reformative potential of 1989, and then 2004, was lost when elites neglected the importance of connecting with the “real” people beyond the magic of the big-bang moments of 1989 and 2004. This "alienating constitutionalism" is one of the dark sides of 2004 Founding Moment, one that nobody really saw coming at the time of the EU Accession. Should the citizenry start embracing and defending the Court as "my own", the truly powerful legacy of the 2004 Founding Moment would be discovered.

Awakenings: the „Identity Control“ decision by the German Constitutional Court

The GCC has applied, for the first time, its “identity control” to a case fully covered by EU Law. In the end, it quashes the decision of the instance court but it states that EU and German law are perfectly in line with the solution it comes to. What is all the fuss about? Why has the GCC made an “identity control” when the Framework Decision solves the case anyway in the same terms? It seems as if the GCC is sending a message to Luxembourg. It is a harmless judgment on the facts, but a very important one on the symbolic side.

Europarechtsbruch als Verfassungspflicht: Karlsruhe zündet die Identitätskontroll­bombe

Jetzt ist es passiert. Der Zweite Senat des Bundesverfassungsgerichts hat die Bombe gezündet. Hier ist er, der Fall, wo Deutschland sagt: Wir tun nicht, was wir europarechtlich müssen, weil wir glauben, es verfassungsrechtlich nicht zu dürfen. Europarechtsbruch als Verfassungspflicht! Seit Jahrzehnten wälzen wir uns unruhig im Schlaf bei diesem Gedanken. Und ausgerechnet jetzt, in diesem unseligen Januar 2016, wo uns ohnehin schon allerorten die Fundamente Europas unter den Füßen wegbröckeln, wird er Wirklichkeit. Nun muss man zugeben, dass der zuständige Berichterstatter Peter M. Huber es verstanden hat, seinen Senatskolleg_innen einen Fall zu präsentieren, der diesen Schritt geradezu nahelegt.

David Cameron’s EU reform claims: If not ›ever closer union‹, what?

UK Prime Minister David Cameron claims that the reforms he seeks for Britain will be good for the European Union as a whole. That proposition deserves examination. Here we focus on only one, but the most totemic of his demands – namely that the UK wins a ‘formal, legally-binding and irreversible’ exemption from the EU’s historic mission of ‘ever closer union of the peoples of Europe’. Jobs and immigration might stir the masses in the referendum campaign, but it is the issue of ‘ever closer union’ that divides most sharply the sovereignists from the federalists and could, if mishandled, do severe collateral damage to the rest of the EU.

The Commission vs Poland: The Sovereign State Is Winning 1-0

Studying Soviet legal theory is probably one of the most tedious activities imaginable, but it can teach us a great deal, sadly, about the contemporary reality in some of the Member States of the EU: a reality captured by Uładzisłaŭ Belavusaŭ’s catchy phrase ‘Belarusization’ of the EU with enviable precision. Not a single person familiar with the basics of the principle of the Rule of Law could possibly be in doubt that what is going on in Poland now is a partly Soviet-style dismantlement of the Western values of democracy and the Rule of Law. By having started its famed Pre-Article 7 Procedure against Poland the Commission made four drastic mistakes and did not move any closer to stopping Polish backsliding.

A New Page in Protecting European Constitutional Values: How to best use the new EU Rule of Law Framework vis-a-vis Poland

The application of the EU Commission's Rule of Law Framework in the current Polish case is a step in the right direction. It seems a good instance to develop the Framework as an EU mechanism to protect European constitutional values in a European legal space which is rife with constitutional crises, but short of instruments to address them. Its pertinence appears even more clearly in comparison to the Council's (in)activity under its own rule-of-law mechanism, hastily put forward after the Commission’s Framework. The activation of the Framework has shown its potential to mobilize European public opinion and orient public discourses to the current condition of EU values.

Opposition? Gibt’s bei uns nicht.

Opposition und Meinungsvielfalt, Konkurrenz und Kontroverse, Politik als robustes Ringen um wechselnde Mehrheiten und konzeptionelle Alternativen – dass eine gesunde Demokratie so etwas notwendig zum Gedeihen braucht, haben wir alle in der Schule gelernt. Heute stand das Thema Opposition in Karlsruhe auf der Agenda. Die Erkenntnis des Tages: Opposition gibt es in Deutschland nicht nur faktisch nicht. Sondern auch rechtlich.

Straßburg nimmt den Kampf gegen Überwachungsstaat auf

Die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention schützt uns davor, dass unser Staat zu einem Überwachungsstaat mutiert. Das zumindest ist der Anspruch, den der Straßburger Menschenrechtsgerichtshof vor wenigen Wochen in seiner epochalen und in der deutschen Öffentlichkeit viel zu wenig wahrgenommenen Entscheidung Sacharow v. Russland aufgestellt hat: Wenn Polizei oder Geheimdienst die Telefon- und Internetkommunikation von buchstäblich jedem überwachen darf, dann darf auch buchstäblich jeder dagegen klagen. Und wenn es an hinreichend robuster Kontrolle dieser Überwachung fehlt, dann verletzt sie buchstäblich jeden von uns in unserem Recht auf Privatsphäre. Vielleicht hatte die vergleichsweise geringe Resonanz auch damit zu tun, dass es ein russischer Fall war. Aber heute hat es mit der Kammerentscheidung Szabó v. Ungarn den ersten EU-Staat erwischt. Es wird nicht der letzte bleiben.