Articles for category: Regionen

Searching for the Ariadne‘s thread – The Legal Complexities of »Grexit« and »Graccident«

It seems more and more likely that Greece will not be able or willing to fulfill the reform demands by the Eurogroup, condition for the payment of available funds under the prolonged financial assistance programme, not to mention an additional programme. The immediate consequence seems obvious: Greece would, deliberately or not, have to leave the Euro. But that is tremendously problematic, legally. Should grexit or graccident still occur – the regulatory power of monetary law is sometimes limited – this would produce an aftermath of legal proceedings and generate legal uncertainty for years to come, at least in Greece.

15. März 2015

The Autonomy Paradox

Daniel Halberstam’s “constitutional defense” of Opinion 2/13 is certainly thought-provoking, but it ultimately fails to convince. By taking on the seemingly impossible task of defending the indefensible, Daniel allows us to see more clearly what’s really wrong with the Court’s view. However, he mischaracterizes the Court’s many critics by alleging that “they rushed to embrace Strasbourg while forgetting about the constitutional dimension of EU governance along the way”. Criticism of Opinion 2/13 is grounded in more than amnesia about the distinctive character of EU constitutionalism. Rather, the true problem is precisely the Court’s interpretation of the EU’s constitutional order: it ignores the fact that accession is a constitutional requirement and engages in cherry-picking when it comes to the relationship between EU law and international law. To move accession forward, we need to unpack what I call the “autonomy paradox.”

15. März 2015

It’s a stupid autonomy…

Risking further escalation of the rhetorical contest over a more catchy title, I would like to comment on Daniel Halberstam’s analysis of the ECJ’s Opinion 1/13 from a wider perspective. I would like to try to challenge the starting assumption which Daniel (and in fact also the commentators who were critical of the Opinion) makes – that the EU has a federal constitutional order, whose autonomy deserves the protection required by the ECJ. It is also because that no matter how much I find Daniel’s technical legal analysis insightful, I do not think the core issue concerns the doctrinal level.

14. März 2015

A Tale of two Courts

1. Wenige Jahre vor seinem Selbstmord auf der Flucht vor den Nazis schrieb Walter Benjamin einen berühmt gewordenen Satz: „Es ist niemals ein Dokument der Kultur, ohne zugleich ein solches der Barberei zu sein.“ Die Richtigkeit dieser Feststellung wird selten klarer als bei der Berufung auf „christliche und abendländische Bildungs- und Kulturwerte oder Traditionen“, wie es in der unbeholfenen Formulierung des nordrhein-westfälischen Gesetzgebers heißt. Wer sich auf solche beruft, meint auf der richtigen Seite der Geschichte zu stehen. Das ist nicht nur ein eigentümlicher Anspruch, zumal für einen deutschen Gesetzgeber nach 1945, es übersieht auch, dass die ungeheuerlichsten Totalitarismen des ... continue reading

13. März 2015

Kurswechsel in der Kopftuchfrage: nachvollziehbar, aber mit negativen Folgewirkungen

Die Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts vom 13. März 2015 zum Kopftuch der Lehrerin in öffentlichen Schulen hinterlässt einen zwiespältigen Eindruck: Einerseits ist positiv, dass es den Einstieg in eine stärker laizistische Lesart des Grundgesetzes, den das Gericht in der Vorgängerentscheidung 2003 unternommen hatte, revidiert. Andererseits überrascht, wie unbefangen der Erste Senat nun über die Entscheidungsgründe des vor zwölf Jahren entscheidenden Zweiten Senats hinweggeht.

13. März 2015

EU Accession to the ECHR: What to Do Next

The Opinion is the latest manifestation of the historic tension in post-war Europe between federal and international law. This is important unfinished business. Nobody can be complacent about the opening up of a gap between the human rights regime of the Council of Europe and the fundamental rights regime of the European Union. A fall-out between the ECtHR at Strasbourg and the CJEU at Luxembourg is a bad thing for European rights protection.

13. März 2015

Still a flawed decision

Nobody can tell whether the Court wanted to say “no unless” or simply “no”. The path to accession is very obscure after Opinion 2/13 – so much so that it is unclear if any accession agreement at all would withstand the Court’s scrutiny next time.

13. März 2015

It’s about Human Rights, Stupid!

Prof. Halberstam’s assessment of the Opinion 2/13 is based on the premise that the EU’s constitutional order is, as he put it, a “deep federal-type structure”. This federalist approach to Opinion 2/13 (and the autonomy of EU law) appears to be influenced by US constitutional experience and thinking. It neglects some important features of Europe's multi-layered human rights protection system as well as the EU's own constitutional order.

12. März 2015

Autonomy now?! A brief response to Daniel Halberstam

I read Daniel Halberstam’s eloquent and erudite defence of Opinion 2/13 with great interest and I agree that (some of) the Court’s arguments can be rationally explained. What struck me about his piece, however, is that while it is centred on the concept of autonomy, he doesn’t seem to regard it necessary to provide us with a definition of it. In order to mount an effective defence of the Court’s position, it would have surely been a good starting point to defend the Court’s conception of autonomy as expressed in the Opinion.

12. März 2015