Articles for category: Europa

Öffentliche Überwachung vor den europäischen Gerichten

Europa hat eine erhebliche Ausweitung staatlicher Überwachungs- und Terrorismusbekämpfungsbefugnisse erlebt, die den zunehmenden Appetit der Gesetzgeber und der Exekutive auf eine Normalisierung der Überwachung zeigen. Lange Zeit haben die europäischen Gerichte diesem Trend energisch entgegengewirkt und Siege für die Grundrechte im Bereich der Überwachung errungen. Die jüngsten Entscheidungen des EuGH und des EGMR eröffnen jedoch ein anderes Bild, das auf einen breiteren Paradigmenwechsel hindeutet.

Enlarging the Hole in the Fence of Migrants‹ Rights

With the judgment in A.A. and others v. North Macedonia, the European Court of Human Rights further branches out the creative exception to the prohibition of collective expulsions and turns it into an obligation to offer a place to apply for asylum somewhere at the border. But not only are these legal access points for asylum applications often de facto restricted, the ever more creative exceptions to rights of the Convention and its Protocols threatens the credibility and authority of the Court.

A Backdoor Exit from the European Convention on Human Rights

Russia left the Council of Europe on 16 March 2022. The European Court of Human Rights declared that Russia will remain a Party to the Convention until 16 September 2022. This resolution is inconsistent with applicable termination rules. But even beyond technicalities, it reveals fundamental defects in the design of the ECHR denunciation clause. Forced withdrawal and expulsion from the Council, as mechanisms to sanction severe violations of human rights, should not have the effect of relieving the delinquent State of its conventional human rights obligations.

The Council of Europe as an AI Standard Setter

On 4 April 2022, Member States of the Council of Europe commences negotiations on the world’s first international binding legal instrument in the field of artificial intelligence. The CoE has a large reservoir of both experience and expertise in the field of standard setting, as far as the three key priorities are concerned: promoting human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Given the undisputed need for regulating AI activities, the CoE appears a prime candidate for this undertaking.

Letters from Brussels with Love and the Issue of Mutual Trust in Nationality Matters

In a recent article on this blog, I have set out that the spotlight will soon be turning on the European passportization of Russian oligarchs. And well, what shall I say, it did not take long for the Commission to come out swinging. In a recommendation issued on March 28, the Commission urged “Member States to immediately repeal any existing investor citizenship schemes and to ensure strong checks are in place to address the risks posed by investor residence schemes”.

Artificial Intelligence Must Be Used According to the Law, or Not at All

Democracy requires to strengthen the Rule of Law wherever public or private actors use algorithmic systems. The law must set out the requirements on AI necessary in a democratic society and organize appropriate accountability and oversight. To this end, the European Commission made several legislative proposals. In addition to the discussion on how to use algorithmic systems lawfully, the question when it is beneficial to use them deserves more attention.

The Rule of Law versus the Rule of the Algorithm

When we chose the title of this symposium, we thought it might be controversial. We expected that at least some of the authors would argue that algorithmic threats to the rule of law were solvable, or that responsibly-implemented algorithms could even help the delivery of justice. None of the experts did. In the series of articles which we will present to you in the next days, we find no techno-optimism. That should give everybody pause - especially to the advocates in favour of algorithmic solutions for every problem.

The Council of Europe’s Sharp Turn

The Council of Europe (CoE) responded promptly to Russia’s act of aggression against Ukraine first by suspending Russia’s representation rights on 25 February 2022, and then by expelling it on 16 March 2022 in accordance with Article 8 of the Statute. The Committee of Ministers used the Article 8 procedure for the first time in the history of the CoE. This might have crucial implications for the broader CoE context and could make the threat of suspension and expulsion more credible for other member states as well.

Unmatched Levels of Sanctions Coordination

In early 2022, the European Union (EU) was quick and decisive in imposing an unprecedented set of measures against Russia. Among other things, the EU targeted the Russian Central Bank, which is an extraordinary move, given that central banks are rarely on sanctions lists. Reconciling the interests of 27 Member States is an art itself, especially in a highly sensitive policy area which continues to be dominated by individual Member State interests. Overall, the swiftness of EU measures went beyond most of our expectations.

Take Down the Wall. And Make Russia Pay for It

EU law allows admitting Ukraine into the Union immediately. This is not only the moral imperative, it would also not require any Treaty revision and mark a return to the classical approach of the first EU accession: accession first, full taking on of the acquis later, with lengthy transitional periods. Ukraine will also require a super Marshall plan to ensure speedy reconstruction. This is doable: the seized – say confiscated – “Russian” money, a bit short of a trillion by now, will be enough, with the EU hopefully topping this amount.