Articles for category: Europa

Fighting Impunity Through Intermediaries

The 24th of February 2022 lastingly altered Europe’s security architecture. The European Union and its member states have continued to support Ukraine in a multitude of ways, including direct financial assistance, political support in relevant international fora, far-reaching sanctions against Russian citizens and businesses, and massive arms supplies. What has, however, remained ambiguous is within which (legal) framework the EU has provided different means of support towards Ukraine. In other words: what legal principle – that may also be derived from its treaty framework – determined and guided EU support towards Ukraine? This contribution argues that at least certain streams of EU assistance for Ukraine in countering the Russian Federation’s aggression – namely those aimed at ending impunity for international crimes – have been organized within a distinct rule of law context.

3. November 2023

, , ,

Strasburg Weighs In On Political Persecution In Turkey

In a pivotal judgment delivered by the Grand Chamber, the European Court of Human Rights held that the conviction of a former teacher Yüksel Yalcinkaya violated Articles 6,7 and 11 of the Convention. The applicant Yalcinkaya was a teacher who was dismissed with an emergency decree enacted during the state of emergency rule between 2016 and 2018 and was subsequently prosecuted and convicted for his use of the ByLock app and for his membership in a teachers’ union and an association which were also closed down with an emergency decree. In Erdogan’s ever more repressive Turkey, usage of said app or membership in organizations and unions may lead to arrest. Especially anything that appears remotely related to the oppositional Gulen movement carries the risk of persecution.

31. Oktober 2023

, , , , ,

Politisches Microtargeting vs. Rechtsaufsicht

In der letzten Woche ist bekannt geworden, dass die EU-Kommission, konkret der amtliche Account der Kommissarin für Inneres, Microtargeting auf X (vormals Twitter) nutzte, um Schwung in ein festgefahrenes Gesetzgebungsvorhaben zu bringen. Es handelt sich um eine gezielte Beeinflussung der gesellschaftlichen Debatte rund um die sogenannte „Kinderschutzverordnung“, auch bekannt als „Chatkontrolle“ durch datenbasierte Zielgruppenansprache (zur Berichterstattung und Analyse). Diese Posts sollten Druck auf mitgliedsstaatliche Regierungen ausüben, um doch noch eine Mehrheit für das Vorhaben zu beschaffen. Dieser Vorgang ist auch abseits der inhaltlichen Debatte um die „Chatkontrolle“ bemerkenswert, schließlich zeigt er neben den systemischen Risiken von Plattformen und dem Bedürfnis nach effektiver Durchsetzung von Plattformregulierung auf, dass die Kommission sich in einem Spannungsverhältnis der Funktionen als Aufsichtsbehörde und als politische Akteurin befindet und somit das systeminhärente Risiko besteht, dass sie ihre Funktion als Aufsichtsbehörde zugunsten politischer Ziele vernachlässigt.

24. Oktober 2023

, ,

Who Decides What Counts as Disinformation in the EU?

Who decides what counts as “disinformation” in the EU? Not public authorities, because disinformation is not directly sanctioned in the Digital Service Act (DSA) or other secondary legislation. Nor Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) and Very Large Online Search Engines (VLOSes), which avoid editorial decisions to maintain their legal status as intermediaries with limited liability. Instead, the delicate task of identifying disinformation is being undertaken by other private organisations whose place of administration and activity, purpose, funding and organizational structure appear problematic in terms of the legitimacy and even legality of the fight against disinformation. This blog post maps out the relevant (private) actors, namely the ad industry, fact checking organizations and so-called source-raters.

24. Oktober 2023

, , ,

Who Speaks on Behalf of the European Union?

“It’s a cacophony. It’s ridiculous”. This is how an EU diplomat described the flow of EU statements following the outbreak of the war between Israel and Hamas. The divergent reactions reveal the existence of institutional tensions about the Union’s external representation, which undermine the coherence and credibility of the EU’s external action. The war between Israel and Hamas concerns issues of foreign and security policy. Whether one likes it or not, this is an area where the Commission has a more limited role – also with respect to external representation. A certain restraint or, at the very least, closer coordination with the Member States and the European External Action Service could have been expected.

23. Oktober 2023

,

Post-populist Populism

Good news for democracy from Poland? It appears that in the recent general elections, the right-wing populist Law and Justice party (PiS), won most seats but not enough to allow it to form a coalition. Donald Tusk's Civic Coalition has a better chance of forming a coalition, which might put an end to PiS' eight years of rule. This, prima facie, seems like a victory of democracy over populism. While this is certainly true, in this post we wish to flag certain warning signs that this possible democratic rotation is not the end of the struggle for democracy but merely the beginning of this process. This is because even when populists are voted out of office, their legacy - at least partially - persists.

19. Oktober 2023

, , , , ,

At a Snail’s Pace

By 1 April 2018, member states had to transpose an EU Directive on ‘the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings’. Bulgaria has not fully transposed it to this day, and consistently undermines it. Now, finally, the Commission has launched infringement proceecings. Preceding the announcement, the Commission rejected Rasosveta Vassileva's reasoned complaints on the same issue, as late as 2022. Her odyssey is a concerning tale on how EU institutions handle citizen alerts.

18. Oktober 2023

, , , , ,

A Step Forward in Fighting Online Antisemitism

Online antisemitism is on the rise. Especially since the recent terror attack by Hamas in Southern Israel, platforms like X are (mis)used to propel antisemitism. Against this backdrop, this blog post analyses the legal framework for combatting online antisemitism in the EU and the regulatory approaches taken so far. It addresses the new Digital Services Act (DSA), highlighting some of the provisions that might become particularly important in the fight against antisemitism. The DSA improves protection against online hate speech in general and antisemitism in particular by introducing procedural and transparency obligations. However, it does not provide any substantive standards against which the illegality of such manifestations can be assessed. In order to effectively reduce online antisemitism in Europe, we need to think further, as outlined in the following blog post.

18. Oktober 2023

, , , ,

The Great Yes or the Great No

As we gear up for the most consequential elections in Poland since 1989, the situation on the ground after 8 years of the paranoid polarizing and no-holds-barred politics, forces all those concerned about the future, to ask where Poland is heading. On 14 October 2023, we must understand that POLEXIT is much more than a mere dispute over institutions, rule of law, judicial independence, etc. What is at stake now is incomparably greater. It is the defense of a certain way of life, values and belonging to a community of law and values, a civic Poland in Europe and Europe in civic Poland and finally of “Me and You” as part of Europe.

13. Oktober 2023

, , ,