Articles for category: Europa

Be Careful What You Wish For

The European Court of Human Rights has issued some troubling statements on how it imagines content moderation. In May, the Court stated in Sanchez that “there can be little doubt that a minimum degree of subsequent moderation or automatic filtering would be desirable in order to identify clearly unlawful comments as quickly as possible”. Recently, it reiterated this position. This shows not only a surprising lack of knowledge on the controversial discussions surrounding the use of filter systems (in fact, there’s quite a lot of doubt), but also an uncritical and alarming approach towards AI based decision-making in complex human issues.

A Leap Towards Federalisation?

On September 13th, co-rapporteurs Guy Verhofstadt (Renew, BE), Sven Simon (EPP, DE), Gabriele Bischoff (S&D, DE), Daniel Freund (Greens/EFA, DE) and Helmut Scholz (The Left, DE) presented in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs of the European Parliament (AFCO) a wide and ambitious project of Treaty change. This short contribution will highlight and evaluate the most important proposals of AFCO's project and argue that, if adopted, the reform would further the Union’s federalisation, thus potentially changing its legal nature.

The Legal Art of Judging Art

In another round of the case "Metall auf Metall", the German Federal Court of Justice is asking the Court of Justice of the European Union how to define the concept of pastiche. The CJEU response will not only be crucial for the rules of artistic imitation, but also set the legal frame for the digital reference culture of millions, as expressed in Memes and GIFs every day. This Article takes the referral to the CJEU as an opportunity to recapitulate the proceedings with a sideways glance at the Supreme Court’s  Warhol case. Its discussion of transformative use addresses the questions the CJEU will have to answer when defining “pastiche”. How should we deal with the art of imitation?

Sex Workers in Strassburg

A few years ago, France banned buying sex. In M.A. and Others v. France the European Court on Human Rights (ECtHR) now held that a motion of sex workers against that ban is admissible. The Court did not rule on the merits at this stage – this will follow in a subsequent judgement. Nevertheless, this admissibility decision marks a milestone as, for the first time, the Court will examine whether a sex purchase ban violates the rights of sex workers as guaranteed in the European Convention on Human Rights. The ruling appears eagerly anticipated due to its legal precedent within Member States that have passed similar legislation.

The Price of Transatlantic Friendship

While the citizens of most EU Member States enjoy visa-free travel to the US, citizens of Bulgaria, Romania and Cyprus do not. Following the Commission’s repeated refusal to activate the reciprocity mechanism in EU visa law to remedy this inequality in access to visa-free travel, the European Parliament asked the CJEU whether the Commission was under an obligation to do so. The Court answered in the negative, holding instead that the Commission had wide discretion in this regard. Its reasoning centers the sensitive political nature that visa retaliation vis-á-vis the US implies, while failing to instill a sense of urgency in working towards equal treatment of EU citizens. This threatens to perpetuate a situation in which the advantages of supranational integration in the context of the Schengen acquis are permanently withheld from nationals of Romania, Bulgaria and Cyprus.

Shielding Frontex

In a landmark case, the EU General Court ruled this week on liability claims against Frontex for human rights violations - and rejected the damage claims. The case was the first of its kind concerning human rights responsibility of Frontex and had all the ingredients to prompt the General Court to finally clarify a number of pervasive and urgent questions concerning Frontex responsibility for complicity in unlawful human rights conduct. Instead, by conflating the wrongful conduct under scrutiny, the Court prevents a critical examination of Frontex’s conduct altogether. The significance of the case thus lies in the adopted approach by the Court, which, in effect, contributes to the systematic shielding of Frontex from any responsibility for contributions to human rights harms.

An Interdisciplinary Toolbox for Researching the AI-Act

The proposed AI-act (AIA) will fundamentally transform the production, distribution, and use of AI-systems across the EU. Legal research has an important role to play in both clarifying and evaluating the AIA. To this end, legal researchers may employ a legal-doctrinal method, and focus on the AIA’s provisions and recitals to describe or evaluate its obligations. However, legal-doctrinal research is not a panacea that can fully operationalize or evaluate the AIA on its own. Rather, with the support of interdisciplinary research, we can better understand the AIA’s vague provisions, test its real-life application, and create practical design requirements for the developers of AI-systems. This blogpost gives a short glimpse into the methodological toolbox for researching the AI-act.

Europe’s Digital Constitution

In the United States, European reforms of the digital economy are often met with criticism. Repeatedely, eminent American voices called for an end to Europe’s “techno-nationalism.” However, this common argument focusing on digital protectionism is plausible, yet overly simplistic. Instead, this blog post argues that European digital regulations reflect a host of values that are consistent with the broader European economic and political project. The EU’s digital agenda reflects its manifest commitment to fundamental rights, democracy, fairness, and redistribution, as well as its respect for the rule of law. These normative commitments, and the laws implementing those commitments, can be viewed in aggregate as Europe’s digital constitution.

Reinventing a Broken Wheel

On 16 July, the European Commission and the Tunisian government signed a new strategic partnership on migration, sparking outrage by European parliamentarians, researchers and civil society actors given Tunisia’s autocratic turn since 2021 and the recent flaring up of racial and xenophobic violence. The deal is emblematic of the blind spots of trans-Mediterranean migration cooperation over the past decades: First, a growing reliance on informality and symbolic politics at the expense of accountability; and second, a persistently Euro-centrist perspective that overlooks the dynamics South of the Mediterranean, with dire policy consequences.

Not With a Bang But a Whimper

The European Union’s smallest Member State saw a significant decree delivered on primacy last month. Yet, even domestically, this bomb exploded in the middle of a desert; little to no noise came of it nationally or at the EU level. On the face of it, this is undoubtedly a major legal development – the first of its kind since Malta’s EU accession in 2004. The flawed interpretation offered by the Court says much about the fundamental importance of constitutional reform and is not, as such, a sign of institutional anti-EU sentiment… yet. However, as the main (and practically only) media report on the case concluded, what happens next is anyone’s guess. Constitutional reform in Malta must be put squarely back on the table before it’s too late.