There is hardly any clearer picture of the “tragic” pitfall in which the EU languishes than the last evolutions of the rule of law’s saga, the most recent of which is the C-448/23 case pending before the ECJ. The AG’s Opinion delivered on March 11th shows signs of the decline the EU suffers for the multiple crises occurred and for its reluctance to tackle politically, and open-mindedly, the manifold interrogatives that follow.
On 3 April 2025, AG de la Tour handed down his Opinion in C-713/23, Wojewoda Mazowiecki, a case concerning the recognition and transcription of same-sex marriage contracted in another Member State between two nationals of the State where recognition was sought. The Opinion states that Member States where same-sex marriage is not permitted must recognise a family bond lawfully established in another Member State. Yet, akin to a knight’s leap in chess, the Opinion sidestepped the question of marriage transcription with a reasoning that does not seem entirely convincing.
In 1973, Pierre Pescatore noted that “[P]rimacy is an ‘existential requirement’ of EU law”. The Opinion of AG Spielmann in Case C-448/23 (Commission v. Poland), delivered on 11 March 2025, opens with this harsh observation. His difficult task is to frame in legal terms the two essentially political rulings delivered by the Polish Constitutional Tribunal in 2021, where – notoriously – the “captured” domestic court refused to adhere to the most basic principles governing the relationship between national and EU law. This requires adjustments in the current vocabulary of the Luxembourg judges.
With new collections each season, the fashion industry produces a highly problematic fashion garbage heap every year. Circular economy projects seeking to produce “new” garments by reworking second hand and unsold fashion items have particular societal value against this background. Evidently, legal solutions that support fashion reuse have particular relevance in the light of these goals.
In the new ultra-fast fashion era, garment production cycles are accelerated to new heights, while the quality of the garments deteriorates. Key characteristics of the industry are its reliance on cheap manufacturing, overconsumption and short-lived garment use. This blog post will set out who is responsible for the protection of human rights from climate change within the textile industry. In a second step, this blog post aims to analyse the EU Strategy, focusing on the intersection between environmental and social rights in the textile industry.
The EU is facing an “Orbán problem”. That much is clear. The Hungarian government not only pursues an illiberal domestic agenda that violates the Union’s values in Article 2 TEU, but also cultivates close ties with autocratic regimes abroad, particularly with Russia. The Hungarian government consistently uses its veto powers to block Ukrainian military aid and dilute sanctions against Russia. The Commission should submit a new proposal under Article 7(2) TEU focusing on breaches of solidarity and threats to the Union’s security.
Over the last five years, there has been a noticeable turn towards human rights in climate litigation. In the same period, European climate legislation has evolved into a considerable legal framework. This warrants the question of whether there has been a similar turn to human rights before the Court of Justice of the EU – especially as Article 37 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights consecrates the “principle” of environmental protection.
With the effects of climate change escalating, there has been a notable increase in discussions about the, at first glance, not obvious impact of IP protection on environmental sustainability. At the same time, considerations of human and fundamental rights in the context of IP protection are increasingly shaping the legal discourse. Given these two major trends in IP law – growing attention to environmental sustainability as well as to human and fundamental rights – it seems that the time is ripe to explore what the human right to a healthy environment might mean for IP.
Die „Arbeitsgruppe Migration“ hat sich bei den Koalitionsverhandlungen darauf geeinigt, „in Abstimmung mit unseren europäischen Nachbarn Zurückweisungen an den gemeinsamen Grenzen auch bei Asylgesuchen vor[zu]nehmen“. Während zuletzt Personen zurückgewiesen wurden, die (angeblich) keinen Asylantrag stellten, planen CDU/CSU und SPD nun auch Zurückweisungen bei Asylgesuchen. Grundsätzlich sieht das Unionsrecht dafür ein Asyl- bzw. zumindest Dublin-Verfahren vor, wobei Abweichungen nur bei einer „nationalen Notlage“ erlaubt sind. Welche Folgen hätten Zurückweisungen von Asylsuchenden an den deutschen Grenzen?
The European Commission’s Joint White Paper on European Defence, together with the ReArm Europe Plan; now “quietly rebranded” as “Readiness 2030”, signals a transformative moment in the European Union’s approach to security. Nevertheless, this strategic shift remains limited to short-term measures, as more permanent frameworks are constrained by lack of political will and institutional obstacles. If not addressed, this will perpetuate a short-term vision that is not capable of addressing also broader hybrid threats to democratic governance and societal cohesion.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters