On September 24 2019, the ECJ delivered its judgment in Google vs CNIL (C-517/17) which was expected to clarify the territorial scope of the ‘right to be forgotten’. In fact, the ECJ’s decision is disappointing in several respects. The Court does not only open the door to fragmentation in European data protection law but also fails to further develop the protection of individual rights in the digital age.
One of the frequent equivocal “courtesy” titles that has been awarded to Boris Johnson these days is that of plunger or reckless gambler. Boris Johnson may be many things — his language coarse, his behavior ruthless — but if you analyze his behavior in the current Brexit affair from a decision theoretic angle there is a rational interpretation for his seemingly irrational approach.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson has asked the European Council President in a letter for reciprocal ‘binding legal guarantees’ not to put in place infrastructure, checks, or controls at the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. The significance of this has been amplified by the European Parliament’s resolution that it will not consent to any Withdrawal Agreement without an Irish Backstop, in direct contravention to the UK’s position. This post will argue that the EU legal order places constraints on this option. Ireland would be in breach of EU law if it followed this course, and the EU institutions have no discretion to suspend these legal obligations.
A criminal proceeding has been suspended by a Hungarian justice of the Pest Central District Court to ask the European Court of Justice preliminary questions, inter alia, about his own judicial independence. Now, Hungary’s Supreme Court has stepped in and ruled that the reference was illegal, essentially arguing that preliminary references are not the fora to discuss such claims. In fact, however, this preliminary reference reveals that all other means to effectively challenge the rule of law backsliding in Hungary have failed.
On 4 September 2019, a Frankfurt court ruled that Germany must recognize marriages involving minors that had been concluded within the EU. The case involved a couple who had married in Bulgaria and now resides in Germany. The bride was 17 when she wed. The case throws into sharp relief hidden assumptions within the broader debate about ‘child marriage’ that has occupied German politicians and commentators over the last two years. These assumptions matter because they reflect broader European and international popular and political discussions as well as laws. But they also matter because they ignore a number of important developments over the last century across much of the world in reforming family law.
Councils for the judiciary are one of the main targets in political efforts to diminish the independence of the judiciary in several countries. Since more and more countries in the EU fail to provide a minimum of security as to their independence, it is of the utmost importance that this is dealt with on Union level.
At the first sight, the likely nomination of Věra Jourova as Commissioner for rule of law and dropping Frans Timmermans out of the portfolio appears to be a significant victory for the Visegrad Group. However, considering Jourova’s track record, her nomination might be a clever, but hazardous move by Ursula von der Leyen that may deepen the cleavage among the Visegrad countries, put an end to their coordinated acting in sovereignty related issues, and cause more headache in Budapest and Warsaw than expected.
In its first Communication entitled “Further strengthening the Rule of Law within the Union” published on 3 April 2019, the Commission offered a useful overview of the state of play while also positively inviting all stakeholders to make concrete proposals so as to enhance the EU’s “rule of law toolbox”. A follow up Communication from July 2019 sets out multiple “concrete actions for the short and medium term”. This post will highlight the most innovative actions proposed by the Commission before highlighting what we view as the main weakness of its blueprint: a reluctance to fully accept the reality of rule of law backsliding.
Weiler, Sarmiento and Faull suggest that the best way to avoid a no-deal Brexit, even at the 11th hour, would be to adopt “a regime of dual autonomy”. EU officials said that this proposal was "inadequate and nowhere near the landing zone". But we can also entertain the thought that reciprocity or symmetry is indeed a necessary if not a sufficient condition for the backstop compass to lead us to a landing zone. Six ingredients need to be added to the mix, however.
Spätestens seit der Veröffentlichung des UN Global Assessment Report im Mai 2019 wissen wir, dass etwa eine Million der insgesamt acht Millionen Arten vom Aussterben bedroht sind – mehr als jemals zuvor in der Geschichte unseres Planeten. Das sechste globale Massensterben von Tieren und Pflanzen erfordert ein konzertiertes Vorgehen der internationalen Staatengemeinschaft. Doch nationale Alleingänge, wie des US-Präsidenten Trump und seines brasilianischen Amtskollegen Bolsonaro, nehmen zugunsten der heimischen Wirtschaft unwiederbringliche Verluste der Artenvielfalt in Kauf, die den Bestand der Ökosysteme weltweit gefährden. Welche Mittel hält das Völkerrecht bereit, um dem entgegenzuwirken?
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters