The tale of the ‘political Commission’ is not only bound to weaken the Union’s ability to meet the outstanding challenges touching upon its institutional core but has fundamentally undermined the EU’s action in an area of most fundamental concern: the unfulfilled promise of democracy and the rule of law for all European citizens.
Einem Chefarzt an einem katholischen Krankenhaus zu kündigen, weil er als Katholik gegen das Gebot der Unauflöslichkeit der Ehe verstoßen hat, kann als religiöse Diskriminierung gegen Europarecht verstoßen. Das hat der Europäische Gerichtshof heute entschieden. Sechs Gedanken von Hans-Michael Heinig, Experte für Religionsverfassungsrecht, zu dem heutigen Grundsatzurteil aus Luxemburg.
This time was supposed 'to be different', at least this was the motto of the 2014 European Parliament elections campaign. With less than a year before the next European elections, the time is ripe to examine how different this EU political cycle has actually been.
The idea of a political European Commission may be the defining idea of the Juncker Presidency. It was the idea that gave Mr. Juncker the Presidency in the first place. As he stated in 2015, he wanted a 'very political Commission'. This ambition raises many questions, particularly: What does the political Commission mean? Did it work and should it be repeated?
The EU finds itself in the perverse situation of providing some of the largest transfers of funds precisely to those governments who most prominently thumb their nose at its democratic and rule-of-law norms. The legal debate about this misses the fact that the EU already has a sufficient legal basis to suspend the flow of funds to states in which rule-of-law norms are systematically violated. The real problem to date has not been the lack of adequate legal tools, but the lack of political will on the part of the European Commission to use the tools that already exist.
The Celmer case is back before the High Court of Ireland, which gave a further judgment on 01 August 2018. The decision provides a first insight into the practical application of the CJEU's ruling, most notably its encouragement of executing judicial authorities to enter into dialogue.
Tomorrow, a new weird chapter opens up in the „affair Puigdemont“: The Spanish Supreme Court Judge Pablo Llarena, who unsuccessfully issued the European Arrest Warrant against former Catalan premier Carles Puigdemont, is cited before a Belgian court. He is object of a civil lawsuit filed by Puigdemont who accuses the magistrate of a lack of impartiality and violating the presumption of innocence as well as his right to reputation. What is the most astonishing about this lawsuit is the fact that it is a Belgian court which shall judge the professional actions of a Spanish judge.
On 13 August 2018, Lyudmyla Kozlovska, an Ukrainian national and the President of the Open Dialog Foundation (ODF) in Poland, was detained at Brussels airport on the basis of a Polish entry ban reported into the Schengen Information System (SIS II). One day later, the Belgian border authorities deported her to Kiev, Ukraine. This case raises questions on the discretionary power of states to use the SIS II for entry bans on ‘unwanted migrants’ and the obligation of executing states, in this case Belgium, to check the legitimacy or proportionality of these other states decisions. Furthermore, this case illustrates the necessity of effective remedies against decisions reported in large-scale databases such as SIS.
On the 23rd of July 2018, the European Commission registered a European Citizens’ Initiative called “Permanent European Union Citizenship”, with the objective, in the context of Brexit, to ask the Commission to “propose means to avoid risk of collective loss of EU citizenship and rights, and assure all EU citizens that, once attained, such status is permanent and their rights acquired”. The aim of this initiative is, for British citizens, to retain European Union citizenship post Brexit. However, paradoxically enough, a considerable number of British expats, who are the main concerned, are legally unable to support this initiative (or any other as it turns out) because of a legal conundrum.
„Hund sans scho“ ist in Bayern das höchste Lob für ein Verhalten, das auf mindestens unkonventionelle Weise zum gewünschten Erfolg geführt hat. Besonders wahlkämpfende Politiker lassen sich gern nachsagen, dass‘ fei echt Hund san, weil sie sich mit einer Mischung aus Nachdruck und Bauernschläue für Förderbescheide, Umgehungsstraßen oder ähnlich beliebte Maßnahmen eingesetzt haben. Aber auch der Bayerische Verwaltungsgerichtshof hat das Prinzip verstanden. Er ließ jüngst verlauten, dass man es zur Durchsetzung der bisher schmählich ignorierten Entscheidungen zu Luftreinhalteplänen und Dieselfahrverboten für möglich halte, den Bayerischen Ministerpräsidenten in Zwangshaft zu nehmen. Droht Markus Söder eine Ladung zum Haftantritt in Stadelheim?
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters