Articles for category: Europa

Legislating fiction

Members of Parliament in the UK will on 16 and 17 January 2024 debate the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, which ‘gives effect to the judgement of Parliament that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country’ for asylum-seekers. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in November 2023 that Rwanda was manifestly not safe as asylum seekers sent to the country would face a real risk of ill-treatment due to insufficient guarantees against refoulement. The Bill thus aims to use law to determine a factual situation for as long as the law is in force. This blog discusses the risks inherent in creating such a ‘legal fiction’ and how the Bill could be revised to mitigate this risk, before assessing the chances of it becoming law in the currently turbulent political context.

Ein Blockierer als Vorsitzender

Ungarn übernimmt am 1. Juli 2024 den Vorsitz im Rat der EU. Das stößt auf Widerstand, denn zentrale Teile von Ungarns Verfassungspolitik stehen mit rechtsstaatlichen Grundsätzen nicht im Einklang. Das Land gilt in Europa als Außenseiter und Quertreiber, es betreibt eine Blockadepolitik. Zuletzt hat Ungarns Ministerpräsident auf dem Dezember-Gipfel des Europäischen Rates erneut seine Fähigkeiten als Veto-Spezialist unter Beweis gestellt. Und solch ein Land soll den Ratsvorsitz übernehmen? Rechtlich lässt sich das kaum verhindern, denn der Vorsitz ist gemäß dem Primärrecht festgelegt und kann Ungarn ohne Rechtsverstöße nicht entzogen werden. Politisch wäre ein Entzug unklug, weil Ungarn ihn zum Anlass nähme, weniger kompromissbereit zu sein.

Time to talk about academics‹ role in Qatargate

Two years ago, we discussed the problems associated with revolving doors at the European level on this platform. One year ago, Qatargate was on the agenda. Confronted with a slew of ‘gates’ that challenge the legitimacy of EU decision-making and the ethics of its politicians and staff, EU institutions rushed to propose a series of reforms to prevent future scandals. We could discuss in detail the causes and consequences of these scandals, what they teach us about the state of European democracy, and the inadequacy of the reforms undertaken. Instead, we have chosen to redirect our focus inward, contemplating the broader scholarly community. We believe this introspective analysis is what EU institutions should have done, rather than hastily shifting to the technicalities of reform proposals.

Putting X’s Community Notes to the Test

All of the biggest social media platforms have a problem with disinformation. In particular, a flood of false information was found on X, formerly Twitter, following the terrorist attack by Hamas on 7 October 2023 and the start of the war in Ukraine. The EU Commission therefore recently initiated formal proceedings against X under Art. 66 para. 1 of the Digital Services Act (DSA). One of the subjects of the investigation is whether the platform is taking sufficient action against disinformation. Despite these stakes, X takes an approach different to all other platforms: As can be inferred from the X Transparency Report dated 03.11.2023 posted information is not subject to content moderation, but solely regulated through a new tool: The Community Notes.

Community Notes auf dem Prüfstand

Die größten Social Media Plattformen haben ein Problem mit Desinformation. Insbesondere auf X, vormals Twitter, war nach dem Terroranschlag der Hamas am 07.10.2023 und dem Beginn des Krieges in der Ukraine eine Flut an Falschinformationen feststellbar. Daher hat die EU-Kommission vor Kurzem mitgeteilt, dass sie ein förmliches Verfahren nach Art. 66 Abs. 1 Digital Services Act (DSA) gegen X eingeleitet hat. Gegenstand der Untersuchung ist unter anderem, ob die Plattform hinreichend gegen dieses Problem vorgeht. X setzt dabei alles auf eine Karte: Wie aus dem X Transparency Report vom 03.11.2023 geschlossen werden kann, unterliegen Desinformationen nicht der sog. Content Moderation, sondern ihnen soll allein durch den Einsatz eines neuen Tools entgegengewirkt werden. Das heißt, dass die Nutzerinhalte auf X von Seiten des Betreiberunternehmens weder durch Algorithmen noch durch dazu beauftragte Personen auf Falschinformationen kontrolliert werden.

The European Game

The long-awaited judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-333/21 - European Super League Company has finally arrived. There is a lot to unpack, especially with respect to developments in competition law. Constitutional lawyers will, however, find particular interest in how the Grand Chamber dismissed Advocate General Rantos’ pitch for a constitutional recognition of the European sports model based on Article 165 TFEU. This post focuses on this aspect of the European Super League judgment. It argues that while the Advocate General’s construction was rejected, the Court still used this judgement to further define its own constitutional understanding of the European sports model, as well as to solidify its role as the primary interpreter of that model.

Same, Same but Different?

The Commission’s decision to release a significant amount of EU money is a testament to some serious pitfalls in the mechanism, which governs the unblocking of frozen EU funds. To recall, Hungary’s endowments are blocked via two different channels, based on two different conditionality criteria, which have some overlapping points. Both prescribe reforms to preserve the independence of the judiciary, which according to the Commission’s justification has been successfully accomplished by Hungary.  The Commission has, however, never published a detailed plan that would attach a specific amount to be released to every sufficiently satisfied conditionality criterion. In this blog post, I showcase that the overlap between the two conditionality mechanisms and the absence of a robust ex-ante blueprint for releasing frozen funds make the unblocking process highly obscure. This lack of transparency both decreases the efficiency and robustness of conditionality, and increases the tendency for inter-institutional conflicts.

Constitutional Identity vs. Human Rights

In two recent Latvian cases concerning the Russian-speaking minority decided respectively in September and November 2023, the ECtHR made clear that protection of constitutional identity has now been elevated to a legitimate aim for a differential treatment under the Convention. This post explores how the protection of constitutional identity has been deployed to enable a collective punishment by association with a former occupier, and how the ECtHR’s reasoning has effectively endorsed such a punishment, which is unbefitting of a liberal democratic system the ECHR aspires to represent. Until the three cases were decided, no liberal European democracy could argue without losing face that suppressing a large proportion of its population was its constitutional identity – one of the goals of its statehood. Today, this claim is seemingly kosher, marking a U-turn in the understanding of what the European human rights protection system is for minorities in Europe.

Militant Rule of Law

To protect the rule of law based legal system against abusive use of the loopholes, imperfections, contradictions of the law, to avoid legal inertia legal positivist arguments are needed to convince and mobilize the legal mind. The same applies when the blind fortune of democracy provides the opportunity to erase the legally enthroned injustice and domination of illiberal regimes. When it comes to legal enactments that serve legal cheating the rule of law must respond to systemic abuse of the law, and that requires and justifies a rule of law based exceptionalism and a systemic remedy.

Not Just Abortion

On 14 December 2023, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the case M.L. v. Poland. The ECHR decided that the restrictions on abortion rights that Poland had violated Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Contrary to the hopes of the initiators of the case, this is not a European Roe v. Wade moment. The ECHR again refused to affirm that Article 8 can be interpreted as conferring a right to abortion. Nevertheless, the ECHR made significant findings regarding Polish rule of law violations.