Articles for category: Europa

Ein Recht auf Rehabilitation für Folteropfer oder: Wenn der EuGH die Flüchtlingseigen­schaft vergisst

Schwer kranke Drittstaatsangehörige erhalten nur dann Schutz vor Abschiebung, wenn sie mangels medizinischer Behandlung im Heimatstaat eines qualvollen Todes sterben würden. Diese Linie hat der EGMR mittlerweile zwar etwas gelockert, aber subsidiären Schutz gibt es auf dieser Basis jedenfalls nicht. Jetzt hat der EuGH seine Rechtsprechung aktualisiert und für Folteropfer, die an schweren psychischen Folgeschäden leiden und in ihrem Heimatstaat keine adäquate Behandlung erhalten können, die Anforderungen an die Verfügbarkeit medizinischer Behandlung im Herkunftsstaat herabgesetzt. Doch so richtig glücklich macht auch dieses Urteil nicht.

Harnessing Artificial Intelligence the European Way

Will 10 April 2018 be remembered by many as the day of Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony before the US Senate? The hearing was covered by the media in all aspects down to the tie he was wearing. But that was not the only important event taking place on that day, and maybe not even the most important one: I am talking about the Declaration on Cooperation in Artificial Intelligence, signed on the same day but hardly noticed. And yet its impact in the long term might exceed that of the current scandal about Facebook and Cambridge Analytica by far.

What’s (still) Wrong with Glyphosate? On Pesticides, Public Trust and Parliamentary Scrutiny

The Glyphosate saga that had been troubling farmers, regulators, activists and corporations for almost seven years, finally came to an end with the renewal of the authorization for the infamously notorious pesticide in December 2017. Or did it? Reacting to the widespread institutional and societal concern generated by the uncertainty over Glyphosate’s safety, the European Parliament has set up a special committee on the authorization procedure for pesticides, which held its first working meeting in Brussels on April 12th, 2018. With this, the first renewal of Glyphosate’s authorization became a major case of politicization of science in the European Union.

Den Behörden Beine machen: Das EuGH-Urteil zur Familien­zusammen­führung von Flüchtlingen

Der EuGH hat am 12. April 2018 im Urteil A und S den Familiennachzug von Eltern zu unbegleiteten Kindern maßgeblich erleichtert und dabei insbesondere die Frage geklärt, zu welchem Zeitpunkt die Person unter 18 Jahre alt gewesen sein muss. In dogmatisch überzeugender Weise arbeitet der Europäische Gerichtshof heraus, dass auf den Zeitpunkt der Asylantragstellung abzustellen ist. Ist also die Person unter 18 Jahre alt, wenn sie einen Asylantrag stellt, dann ist sie für die Familienzusammenführung auch dann als minderjährig anzusehen, wenn sie während des Asylverfahrens volljährig wird. Dieses Urteil hat erhebliche Auswirkungen auf die deutsche Praxis des Familiennachzugs zu unbegleiteten Minderjährigen. Mit der Entscheidung bestätigt der EuGH seine zunehmende grundrechtliche Orientierung in Migrationsfragen.

Selmayr’s Appointment: Why this Juncker Crisis is Much More Dangerous for the EU Commission than the Santer Crisis in 1999

The promotion of Jean-Claude Juncker's chief of cabinet Martin Selmayr to secretary general of the EU Commission has caused quite a stir in some parts of the press, but rather little critique in the EU Parliament, among EU lawyers and in the eurobubble in general. This episode will come back recurrently during the populist campaign against the EU institutions in 2019. And later it will still be used to weaken the Commission. 2019 will sadly be far from the end of this story.

The Pisciotti Saga: A Duel in Karlsruhe as Finale?

The arrest of the Italian businessman Romano Pisciotti at Frankfurt Airport on 17 June 2013 has been the cause of many judicial decisions. The latest, if not last, was rendered this week by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Considering the reasoning of the Court, the last decision on this matter might actually come from the German Federal Court of Justice: The German supreme court might get to answer the thorny question whether or not the German Federal Constitutional Court had violated EU law by not referring the case to the CJEU. Such an unprecedented clash between federal courts would surely be a worthy coronation of a long saga.

The Strange (German) Case of Mr. Puigdemont’s European Arrest Warrant

The decision by the Oberlandesgericht of Schleswig in the Puigdemont case is a flawed ruling that seriously undermines the effectiveness of the European arrest warrant, and I would even say its future survival. It is also a manifest example of mistrust between courts of Member States, the type of conduct that destroys the foundations of mutual recognition and judicial cooperation.

Judicial Independence as a Precondition for Mutual Trust

The Celmer case calls for us to reflect on the question what role judicial authorities can and should play in ensuring compliance with democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights (DRF) in other EU Member States. In our view, judicial authorities ultimately have an independent responsibility to put a halt to surrenders, in case the wanted person’s fair trial rights are put in peril due to a general lack of judicial independence in the issuing state. At the same time, the political responsibility for balancing diverse EU constitutional principles needs to be borne by democratically elected institutions. Therefore, the court of the executing state should not only halt or suspend judicial cooperation in the event that persuasive pieces of evidence point to a violation of the values shared by the EU and the Member States in the issuing state, but it should also freeze the case awaiting a resolution of the matter from political actors.

The Copenhagen Declaration: Are the Member States about to Pull the Teeth of the ECHR?

On Thursday, the member states of the European Convention of Human Rights will meet in Copenhagen to adopt a joint declaration on the future of the human rights system in Europe. The Draft of the Copenhagen Declaration, presented on 5 February 2018 and sponsored by the current Danish Presidency of the Council of Europe, has met with considerable alarm on the part of human rights activists and academics. It makes unclear, ambiguous or inaccurate statements that could represent a serious crisis of the system if not redefined in the adoption of the final Declaration.

The Consensus Fights Back: European First Principles Against the Rule of Law Crisis (part 2)

For the EU to have a chance against the rising politics of resentment, the language, and perspectives through which the EU looks at the member states, must be challenged and change. “Essential characteristics of EU law” must go today beyond traditional “First Principles” of supremacy and direct effect, to embrace the rule of law, separation of powers, independence of the judiciary and enforceability of these principles as part of the ever-evolving consensus.