On 21 April 2021, the European Commission proposed the world’s first Artificial Intelligence Act, with the intention to explicitly protect the rule of law against the “rule of technology”. Despite this expressed goal, the normative power of the regulation raises serious concerns from the perspective of fundamental rights protection.
The ECtHR judgment M.A. v. Denmark is significant for several reasons. Firstly, because it adds to an already growing international criticism of Denmark’s asylum and immigration policy. Secondly, because the judgment helps clarify the Court’s position on an issue, family reunification for refugees, where case law has hitherto been somewhat ambiguous, and where several European States have introduced new restrictions since 2015. Third, and finally, the judgment represents – to paraphrase Harold Koh - another “way station…in the complex enforcement” of migrant and refugee rights by international human rights institutions.
On 30th June 2021, search-and-rescue activists from Sea-Watch witnessed a brutal attack by the so-called Libyan Coast Guard against a migrant vessel carrying 64 during an attempted pushback. Now, prosecutors in Sicily have launched an investigation against the Libyan Coast Guard for “attempted shipwreck.” This the first time, a European court opens an investigation against the Libyan Coast Guard, and the fact that an Italian court should do so bears legal and political importance.
On 8 July, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in case Shahzad v. Hungary, concerning the denial of access to an asylum procedure and the forced removal of a Pakistani national by Hungarian police officers. The court found that the acts violated the prohibition of collective expulsion as well as the right to an effective remedy. With this decision, the Court on the one hand straightens out some possible misunderstandings, on the other hand returns to the line of argument opened in N.D. and N.T. v. Spain in ways that should be considered more closely.
At the end of 2020, for the first time in its more than 40 years of jurisprudential history, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights declared the arbitrary dismissals of two public prosecutors to be unconventional. Not only judges but also prosecutors are increasingly subject to threats to their independence, both in Latin America and Europe, as well as in other regions. This article addresses the question of whether the same judicial guarantees apply to public prosecutors and attorneys as to judges and looks at how the Inter-American Court sought inspiration from the precedents of the European Court of Human Rights.
On 30 June 2021, the European Parliament and the Council signed the EU Climate Law. The Law has drawn a lot of attention, stirred not least because of its head-line grabbing name. Was it merely meant to be a symbolic law to enshrine the EU’s climate objectives into law and celebrate the EU Green Deal? Or was it meant to be a new governance framework that changes the way decisions are taken on EU and Member State level?
France’s highest administrative court ruled that the French government had failed to take sufficient action to mitigate climate change and ordered it to take additional measures to redress that failure. The Grande Synthe II decision of 1 July 2021 follows the findings by the Conseil d’État in a previous decision that France’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets constitute legal obligations that are enforceable against the state. However, how, and when to redress France’s failure have been, to a broad extent, left to the discretion of the government. This all but ensures the Grande Synthe saga to continue.
Judges are prominent actors with a significant impact on European integration. Yet, no references to them appear in the Joint Declaration on the Conference on the Future of Europe. This corresponds to a view, unsustainable in the age of extensive access to information, that judges sit in ivory towers and speak exclusively through their decisions that other actors then explain to the broader public.
UEFA's stance on the rainbow flag has generated attention around the world. The disciplinary proceedings against Manuel Neuer by UEFA show: sport governing bodies still massively limit the freedom of political expressions by the athletes during big sporting events.
On 16 June, by two parallel orders, the EU Court of Justice said the last word on the legality of advocate general Sharpston’s divestment. In the end, the Court did little more than reiterate the press statement it made in response to the member states’ declaration on the subject. The member states made a legitimate decision based on an old custom, and the Court could do nothing but oblige.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters