When the EU makes international agreements and implements them, its scope is not only limited by the competence allocation and procedures in its own primary law but also by fundamental features of the international legal order. In the Western Sahara judgment, the CJEU has drawn lines in the sand not only geographically but also constitutionally.
Guy Verhofstadt is famous for articulate ‘The answer is more Europe’ positions on all issues European. Jan-Werner Müller might be right: should there have been no Verhofstadt, Eurosceptics would have had to invent him. This is particularly so given his position on EU citizenship for UK nationals after Brexit as the chief European Parliament Brexit negotiator. In this contribution, I explain why playing with any kind of ‘associate EU citizenship status’ for the Brits after Brexit is a terrible idea undermining all what should be cherished about the project of European unity.
On 27 February 2018 the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) handed down a judgment in Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v Tribunal de Contas. The case concerned a legal challenge of the Portuguese association of judges against austerity measures temporarily reducing the salaries of public sector workers. The CJEU may have used it to potentially reconfigure a long-standing compromise underlying the EU constitutional order, and to send a signal to Poland (and others) and preparing for future engagement with what could possibly be independent Polish courts.
The German government is floating the idea of restructuring EU funds to benefit member states that take in migrants and refugees. What seems like a selfish move by the country that hosts the largest number of refugees in Europe may be an step towards resolving the lingering EU political crises.
Spiegeleier auf der Flamme des Grabmals des Unbekannten Soldaten braten ist eine krasse Form des Protests – aber so krass, dass sie mit drei Jahren Gefängnis auf Bewährung bestraft werden darf, ohne die Meinungsfreiheit zu verletzen? In seinem Urteil Sinkova v. Ukraine zeigt sich der EGMR außerstande, satirischem Protest gegen staatliche Erinnerungspolitik den nötigen Spielraum zu verschaffen.
There is a number of varying thresholds to free speech regulation set out by relevant legal tools which can do nothing but confuse countries. Moreover, anti-hate speech legislation developed on an international and European level is marred by what I refer to as the hierarchy of hate, namely the arbitrary focus on particular types of hate speech, such as racist speech, and the simultaneous disregard for other genres such as homophobic speech.
Unternehmen können sich aus mitbestimmten Rechtsformen unter dem Schutz des Europarechts friktionsfrei „hinausverlagern“. Dafür sorgt der EuGH mit seinem Urteil im Fall Polbud. Die dort vorgenommene Auslegung der Niederlassungsfreiheit kann man nur als verstörend bezeichnen, und die potenziellen Auswirkungen auf die Arbeitnehmermitbestimmung als verheerend.
With this blogpost for the T.M.C. Asser Institute – Verfassungsblog joint symposium, I would like to draw attention to another facet in the legal governance of historical memory, that regarding the use of totalitarian symbols of the past. This issue remains particularly pertinent in the region of Central and Eastern Europe in parallel to the widely discussed decline in the rule of law.
For Christmas 2017, the French Council of State – the Supreme Court for administrative matters in France – gave a nasty present to those attached to the free movement of persons in the Schengen area. In a ruling issued on 28 December (see here, in French), it upheld the decision of the French Government to reintroduce, for the ninth time in a row, identity control at its “internal” borders, i.e. borders with other Schengen countries – even though checks at internal borders are not, in fact, systematically performed. This decision, issued without even bringing the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling, sets aside, probably unlawfully, the time limit set by the Schengen Borders Code.
The European Commission has filed a complaint against Poland with the Court of Justice of the European Union based on Article 258 TFEU, in connection with the Polish Act on the Common Courts System. Fines may be charged on Poland as a result of the case, but the Commission has probably quietly withdrawn some of its charges, apparently opting for the somewhat modified “Hungarian scenario”. The impact of this new approach on the reversibility of the changes introduced to the Polish judiciary will be very limited.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters