With Giudizio Universale, climate litigation has found its way to Italy. This case has many aspects in common with the general transnational phenomenon, both in terms of the structure and content of the legal arguments used. The case highlights the difficulties that courts face in view of the high social expectations connected to this kind of proceedings.
Sind Gerichte als Institutionen des einzelfallbezogenen Rechtsschutzes geeignete Einrichtungen zur Bewältigung der Klimakrise? Könnten sie die sicherlich notwendigen gesamtgesellschaftlichen und globalen Transformationsprozesse anleiten? Bernhard Wegener bezieht klar Stellung gegen die „zuckersüße Illusion von Climate Justice“.
Although the KlimaSeniorinnen judgment discusses a number of rights of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), including Article 6 (right of access to a court), Article 2 (right to life), and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the focus of this blog post is on its discussion of Article 8 (right to private, home and family life). The question raised by that discussion is whether the judgment is one that will “frighten the horses” and lead to oppositional cries of judicial overreach around the separation of powers, or if it is more an unexceptional case of “move on, nothing to see here.” My argument is that the judgment is mostly the latter but that it has what, in computer gaming terms, is known as an “Easter egg” – a hidden element included by the developers to surprise and reward those who look carefully. That could turn out to be more controversial.
Since March 2024, the undertakings Alphabet/Google, Amazon, Apple, Byte-Dance/TikTok, Meta, and Microsoft must comply with the obligations of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). Within the first month after the 6-months implementation period has ended, the European Commission opened investigations against Alphabet/Google, Apple, and Meta for non-compliance with the obligations in the DMA. All proceedings can be traced back to related competition law cases. However, only two proceedings follow the same reasoning as their competition law role models, while the case against Meta reveals that the approaches under the DMA can and will deviate significantly to those under competition law and data protection law.
The three much-awaited judgments rendered by the European Court of Human Rights on 9 April 2024 are truly historic and unprecedented. In Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, the Grand Chamber established that climate change is 'one of the most pressing issues of our times' and poses a threat to human rights. With this ruling, the Court confirmed that States have a positive obligation to adopt measures to mitigate climate change under Article 8 ECHR, the right to family and private life. The judgments will undeniably set the tone for climate litigation in the years to come. It will impact both litigation and other procedures before other international courts.
In a transformative moment for European and global climate litigation, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled today that the state has a positive duty to adopt, and effectively implement in practice, regulations and measures capable of mitigating the existing and potentially irreversible future effects of climate change. In Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (“KlimaSeniorinnen”), the Court held that by failing to put in place a domestic regulatory framework for climate change mitigation, the Swiss government violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the right to respect for private and family life. The judgment is a milestone for human rights protection.
Social media allows users to share content worldwide. This also enables users to distribute illegal content. The laws of the EU Member States vary greatly when it comes to what content they consider to be illegal, especially regarding hate speech. Thus, it is important which national law applies in cross-border cases concerning online content. Ultimately, this question is closely linked to the broader reshuffling of power in the digital sphere: will it be actual ‘law’ that platforms enforce online or norms made by platforms themselves? So far, the law of 27 Member States plus the EU itself remains utterly chaotic compared to the more uniform Terms of Service (ToS) of the internet giants.
For almost a decade now, the European Union (EU) has been struggling with the erosion of the rule of law in some of its Member States. The IEP explored the various pillars of the rule of law resilience, culminating in the recent RESILIO report. Unsurprisingly, the independent judiciary and effective public administration prove to be key for the functioning of the rule of law. To remain resilient, the rule of law needs a solid democratic political culture anchored in a robust civil society, independent media, and a sound public debate. Henceforth, a long-term investment in democracy is the best way to strengthen the resilience of the rule of law.
Es ist fraglich, ob es tatsächlich die Anzahl kleiner Parteien im Europaparlament ist, die dessen Handlungsfähigkeit gefährdet. Eher geht die Gefahr wohl von der zunehmenden Anzahl an rechtsextremen und antieuropäischen Abgeordneten aus, die es sich zum Wahlziel gemacht haben, eine Sperrminorität zu erreichen und damit das Europaparlament zu blockieren – und die nicht notwendigerweise aus kleinen Parteien stammen. Um die Handlungsfähigkeit des Parlaments zu sichern, sollten sich Politiker:innen darauf konzentrieren, Wählerstimmen für eine stabile pro-europäische Mehrheit zurückzugewinnen.
The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) has been fully applicable for a little more than a month now. The conditions are thus in place for the emergence of the out-of-court dispute settlement (ODS) ecosystem envisaged in Article 21 DSA, arguably the DSA’s most original contribution to securing digital platform users’ rights. In this post, we try to envision the shape such an ecosystem might take over the next few years in the key area of social media content moderation (SMCM). We argue that the DSA may create an adjudication system dominated by a few ODS providers backed by public-private partnerships and ready to work in concert with the complaint-handling mechanisms set up by the platforms themselves.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters