Articles for category: Europa

LawRules #6: We need to talk about Attorneys

Attorneys are not on everyone's mind when they think about the rule of law. The European Commission gave a prime example for that when it remained conspicuously silent about the role of lawyers in its recent Rule of Law report. Yet, attorneys play just as important a role in preserving the rule of law as other parts of the judicial system do. What's more: Where they are at risk of being prosecuted for doing their jobs, the erosion of the rule of law is imminent. We talk about attorneys with our distinguished guests in this week's episode of our podcast, co-hosted by the German Bar Association, We Need to Talk About the Rule of Law

Vicarious Hegemony and the Anti-hegemonic Thrust of European Law: a Conversation

We are debating the specter of German Legal Hegemony. It’s a new dimension for most German lawyers. The prevailing view has been that Germany is at the receiving end and losing out. Many consider Germany as making a too small impact on European law because it’s too inflexible for its federalism and too inhibited for many reasons. Quite a few see the 2nd Senate of the BVerfG as the last institution defending law and reason against overbearing European institutions as Berlin politicians have largely given up. The symposium has provided a different picture. How to deepen learning from it? Today we propose a discussion which is both analytical and normative.

Corona Constitutional #49: Vom Sinn und Zweck des Datenschutzes

Die SPD und die Union haben sich diese Woche auf die Einführung eines Bundestrojaners für Geheimdienste geeinigt. Der Europäische Gerichtshof hat Anfang des Monats einmal mehr die Vorratsdatenspeicherung für unvereinbar mit europäischen Grundrechten erklärt und seit Mitte des Jahres ist das Privacy Shield, die Rechtsgrundlage für den transnationalen Datenverkehr, gekippt. Erik Tuchtfeld bespricht mit RALF POSCHER, Direktor des Max-Planck-Instituts zur Erforschung von Kriminalität, Sicherheit und Recht, das Ziel und die Funktion des Datenschutzes und die Gefahren durch Massenüberwachung.

A Draft is no Infringement

In the last few weeks, little more has been said about the infringement action launched by the Commission against the UK at the beginning of October for failure to fulfil obligations under EU law in relation to the Withdrawal Agreement.  However, not only has this not gone away, but the recent ratcheting up of ‘no deal’ tensions means that a claim may soon be made on the so-called insurance policy (the controversial clauses in the UK Internal Market Bill), turning the threatened breach into an actual one.  After the Bill becomes law, and assuming that the controversial clauses remain, a minister may use those clauses to pass a statutory instrument, for example, forbidding any checks to be carried out on goods travelling from Great Britain into Northern Ireland.  Some would argue that the threat is bad enough and itself justifies an infringement action.  That may be so.  However, the Commission’s action is still premature.

Towards a European Court of Fundamental Rights

With its judgments on bulk data retention issued at the beginning of this month, the European Court of Justice has entitled itself to examine virtually all surveillance measures in the digital sphere. In doing so, it has once more clarified its positioning as the decisive Fundamental Rights Court in Europe. In the midst of the ultra vires-storm caused by the PSPP-judgement of the Bundesverfassungsgericht – and questions arising with regard to German Legal Hegemony in Europe – a true shift of power to the ECJ can be spotted which is, surprisingly, supported by the national constitutional courts.

Constitutionalising the EU Foreign and Security Policy

In the appeal case of Bank Refah Kargaran v Council (C-134/19 P), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has held that the EU Courts have jurisdiction over claims for damages in the area of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). This is coherent with the rationale of the exceptional exclusion of jurisdiction under CFSP and confirms that the Union’s commitment to the rule of law extends to CFSP.

LawRules #4: We need to talk about Procedural Law

Court packing schemes, forced retirement of judges – organisational rules are often misused to get the judiciary under control. How do you distinguish “good” judicial reforms from “bad” ones? Is there such a thing as a “good” court packing scheme? This is what we discuss this week with MARIAROSARIA GUGLIELMI, CHRISTOPH MÖLLERS and ANDRÁS BAKA.

Kein rechtsfreier Raum

In einem Brief vom 5. August dieses Jahres drohten die US-Senatoren Cruz, Cotton und Johnson der Fährhafen Sassnitz GmbH mit nichts anderem, als der totalen wirtschaftlichen Zerstörung. Der Grund für diesen Einschüchterungsversuch: hier werden russische Rohrverlegungsschiffe für das Erdgas-Pipeline-Projekt Nord Stream 2 umgebaut und so für die Fertigstellung des Projekts vorbereitet. Die Rechtmäßigkeit der angedrohten extraterritorialen Sanktionen ist völkerrechtlich umstritten. Deshalb hat der wissenschaftliche Dienst des Bundestages am 8. September eine Ausarbeitung veröffentlicht, die überprüfen soll, ob solche Maßnahmen völkerrechtskonform sind. Die Argumentation des wissenschaftlichen Dienstes überzeugt dabei jedoch weder auf der Ebene des Allgemeinen Völkerrechts, noch auf der des Völkervertragsrechts.

Finally: The CJEU Defends Academic Freedom

The CJEU’s judgment against Hungary in the CEU case is the first major judicial pronouncement by a European court on the institutional dimension of academic freedom as a fundamental human right. Infringement action has become the surprise weapon in the Commission’s rule of law toolbox. The initial surprise is a thing of the past: over the years the Hungarian government has built some defenses of its own, using familiar components of the European constitutional architecture in service of illiberal democracy.