On October 10, 2019, the European Parliament’s Committees in charge of her proposed fields of responsibility rejected Sylvie Goulard, the French candidate for the position of Commissioner in the new Commission. It was the second hearing she had to undergo, on the basis of another around 60 pages of written Q&A. Several issues should be carefully considered.
On 17 September 2019, the European Ombudsman adopted a decision rejecting a complaint against the European Parliament submitted by The Good Lobby, an NGO “committed to giving voice to under-represented public interests and bringing more citizens into the public policy process”. The action was supported by Alberto Alemanno, also co-founder and director of the NGO, and Laurent Pech. In their post of last May 2019 they already described in detail their dealings with the Authority of European political parties and European political foundations (hereinafter the Authority) and with the President of Parliament. The subsequent stages and the Ombudsman’s take reveal the wider consequences of this process and some silver linings.
Directive 2013/48/EU of 22 October 2013 ‘on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings’ had an unfortunate fate in Bulgaria. In particular, the transposition is troublesome because the government used the Directive as a pretext to revive a totalitarian practice – secret arrests.
Poland is on the eve of the parliamentary elections to be held on October 13, 2019. This provides a good opportunity to step back for a second to analyse the turbulent years of 2015-2019 and to piece together scattered elements of a new constitutional doctrine that has emerged since November 2015. Such a perspective should help readers of Verfassungsblog to truly understand and appreciate the scale and depth of the change that has happened to the prevalent (and what was presumed to be unshakeable) post-1989 constitutional paradigms.
On 24 September 2019, Advocate General Tanchev delivered his opinion in joined cases C-558/18 and C-563/18. It is his latest involvement in a series of cases which concern the rule of law in Poland and which is questionable from a legal as well as factual standpoint.
Kaum hatten sich die Gemüter um die Urteile in den Rechtssachen Google LLC. v CNIL und GC and Others v CNIL etwas beruhigt, goss der Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union mit seiner Entscheidung in der Rechtssache Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook Ireland Limited vergangenen Donnerstag erneut Öl ins Feuer um die Diskussion zur normativen Gestaltung der Governance von Meinungsäußerungen im Internet. Der Fall führt ein weiteres Mal vor Augen, was fehlt: eine kohärente Theorie der Jurisdiktion und ihrer Grenzen im Cyberspace.
In the current “Brexit” crisis, the EU should strive to achieve a smooth agreement-based process. This is the only way to ensure that the intricate web binding the UK to the EU is not ripped up without a reliable substitute. Boris Johnson’s priority to withdraw the UK on 31 October "do or die“ is next to impossible to reconcile with that aim. Domestically, it will be difficult to halt Johnson’s no-deal plan. But what about the EU? Indeed, there are several measures the EU could take to deal with a rogue UK Prime Minister and to make a smooth withdrawal more likely.
In order to resolve the current stalemate in the brexit negotiations, we propose to establish a “Common No-Custom Area” in Ireland applicable only to products originating in either part of the island. This special regime conforms to the Frontier Traffic exception of Art. 24 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT/WTO) and builds on the “precedent” of Cyprus where a similar regime has been in place since 2004. This practical solution takes into account that a major part of intra-Ireland trade is made up of products originating in either part of the island.
Can Boris Johnson's and Dominic Cumming's Brexit strategy be made plausible by means of game theory? I think not. It seems too simple to present the current situation as a two-party game, with the UK (or Boris Johnson) on one side and the EU on the other. In reality, Johnson faces two opposite players—one being the EU, the other the hard Brexit opponents and the Supreme Court at home.
Zeichnet sich ein eleganter Weg zur Beilegung des grundrechtlichen Dauerstreits um die deutsche Vorratsdatenspeicherung ab? Gestern hat Bundesverwaltungsgericht mit seinem Vorabentscheidungsersuchen den Europäischen Gerichtshof wieder ins Spiel gebracht und damit das Bundesverfassungsgericht aus einer Zwickmühle befreit.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters