Articles for category: Europa

The Digital Services Act as a Global Transparency Regime

On both sides of the Atlantic, policymakers are struggling to reign in the power of large online platforms and technology companies. Transparency obligations have emerged as a key policy tool that may support or enable achieving this goal. The core argument of this blog is that the Digital Services Act (DSA) creates, at least in part, a global transparency regime. This has implications for transatlantic dialogues and cooperation on matters concerning platform governance.

Mehr Transparenz, aber vorläufig keine weitreichende Entlastung

Am 27. Februar hat das Europäische Parlament nun einer Reform der Zuständigkeiten des EuGH zugestimmt. Die vorgeschlagenen Änderungen der Satzung (EuGH-Satzung nF) sollen einerseits die Arbeitsbelastung des EuGH vermindern und andererseits der Transparenz der Verfahren dienen. Letzteres stellt einen entscheidenden Beitrag zur Offenheit des Gerichtshofs dar. Ob die Reform allerdings zu einer echten, langfristigen Entlastung des EuGH führen wird, lässt sich angesichts der geringen Anzahl erfasster Verfahren sowie der vorgelagerten „Triage“-Entscheidung beim Gerichtshof bezweifeln.

Ein stabiles Parlament (auch) für Europa

Die (Wieder-)Einführung der Sperrklausel bei den Wahlen des Europäischen Parlaments (EP) in Deutschland hat eine wichtige Hürde genommen: Das Bundesverfassungsgericht steht einer unionsrechtlich verbindlich vorgegebenen Zwei-Prozent-Sperrklausel nicht im Weg. Anträge der Partei DIE PARTEI und ihres Vorsitzenden gegen die Zustimmung Deutschlands zu einer verbindlichen Sperrklausel im EU-Direktwahlakt (DWA) verwarf das Gericht in seinem Beschluss vom 6.2.24 mangels hinreichender Begründung eines Eingriffs in die deutsche Verfassungsidentität als unzulässig. Und das lag nicht nur am begrenzten Prüfungsmaßstab des Gerichts. Der von der Zustimmung der Mitgliedstaaten abhängigen Reform des DWA sollte nun von deutscher Seite nichts mehr in die Quere kommen.

Re-Imagining the European (Political) Community through Migration Law

The constant portrayal of migration as an exceptional and problematic phenomenon fuels public anxieties and makes deterrence and harshness seem like the only effective political approaches to managing global migration. By contrast, positive visions of how a society of immigration needs to look like for all members of society to benefit are scarce. Yet to counter apocalyptic scenarios, we need not only such a positive vision but also a theory of societal action that helps to realize it. This blog post offers such a vision and theory that is grounded in the normative and legal framework of the European Union. It argues that we should conceptualize the European society as an inclusive, participatory, and self-reflexive community that is based on constitutional principles as enshrined in Art. 2 TEU. To realize this vision, we must understand practices of claiming and defending human rights not as an overreach into the political latitude of the legislator but as a joint practice of (political) community-building.

Pushing Back

The CJEU has pending before it a crucial case on the criminalisation of seeking asylum and assistance to those seeking protection. At this critical juncture, this blog post highlights a sample of important decisions in which courts, giving effect to constitutional and international legal principles, set legal limits on this form of criminalisation. These cases reflect not only the appropriate legal limits, but also acknowledge the character of irregular migration and smuggling. Rather than framing individuals as  dangerous illegal migrants and exploitative smugglers, they reassert the humanity of both those in search of refuge and opportunity, and those that assist them.

No Benefit

On January 18, 2024, the German federal parliament (Bundestag) passed the controversial Repatriation Improvement Act which de facto criminalises humanitarian support for entry by land as well as entry of minors by sea, land, and air. The German provision resembles both in wording and substance Article 12 of the Italian Consolidated Immigration Act (TUI) whose compatibility with EU law the CJEU is set to rule on, following a preliminary reference procedure initiated in July 2023. While the effect of a pending referral is uncertain, in the current case, the German government should have suspended its legislative process.

Humanitarian Externalisation

Why are the reasons given in support of the declared aim of the current asylum policies in the UK, EU and USA of breaking the business model of smugglers expressed in humanitarian terms? It is, no doubt, tempting to simply dismiss this humanitarian rhetoric as hypocrisy, as the compliment that vice pays to virtue. Yet however justified that dismissal may be in particular cases, to turn away too quickly from this phenomenon would be to miss something of political significance in its form and to fail to register the historical entanglement of humanitarianism and border externalisation.

No Backdoor for Mass Surveillance

Bulk data retention is the evergreen of European security policy. On February 13, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) – once again – ruled in Podchasov on Russia’s collection of and access to citizens’ private communication. The Court made it clear that weakening the encryption of all citizens cannot be justified. This sends an important message not only to the Russian state, but also to other European governments that contemplate installing “backdoors” on encrypted messenger services like Telegram, Signal or WhatsApp.

The Future of Legal Struggles

The year 2023 was not a good year for the rights of asylum seekers. The decision about a new legal framework for the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) was described as a "historic moment" (Ylva Johansson), but in fact works as a programme of disenfranchisement. If the pursuit of progressive positions are blocked in the political arena, actors shift their strategies to the judicial field. Even before the summer of migration 2015, successful legal struggles had a significant impact on European migration policy. Push-backs on the high sea were prohibited and transfers of asylum seekers to inhumane conditions under the Dublin system were prevented. The draft for the new CEAS are characterised by attempts to circumvent the consequences of these judgements. In this blogpost, I will discuss what the future of legal struggles within the framework of the new CEAS might look like.

Asylum-Seekers‹ Right to Free Movement

Restricting the freedom of movement of unwanted asylum seekers is the conceptual core of the CEAS reform package politically agreed upon by the EU’s legislative institutions in December 2023. Large groups of the people seeking international protection in the EU will be subject to so-called border procedures. Their claims will be processed while being ‘kept at or in proximity to the external border or transit zones’ (Commission proposal) in order to prevent their onward movement and to facilitate ensuing deportations. Introducing such confinement measures will be mandatory for all Member States, provided that an asylum seeker meets certain criteria, in particular a low rate of success of earlier protection claims made by his or her fellow nationals, calculated on an EU-wide average. Why did we fail to make asylum-seekers’ right to free movement relevant in context of the CEAS reform?