Articles for category: EuGH

Everything Comes at a Price

The sale of Union citizenship, which is at the heart of the case against Malta currently pending before the ECJ, has been the subject of feverish writing. With the Court’s judgment nearing, this short blogpost will, however, not opine on what the judgment should be. Instead, it considers the potential effects of a judgment that endorses the (ill-conceived) Opinion of AG Collins that Malta’s nationality by investment scheme does not conflict with EU law.

Manufacturing Integration

Advocate General Tamara Ćapeta recently concluded that Denmark’s so-called Ghetto Law constitutes direct discrimination based on ethnic origin and hence a violation of the Race Equality Directive. This blog highlights the harmful role of the integration narrative underlying the law and other coercive measures addressed towards “non-Western” Danes and non-Danes and the broader implications of the present case for challenging stereotypes embedded in integration policies and practices.

Data Retention in a Cross-Border Perspective

This blog post compares the European and US approach to metadata surveillance and highlights some challenges that arise therefrom. It aims at shedding light on the main legal issues that may arise for the future of global counterterrorism. The essential role of courts in striking and keeping a balance between security and protection of human rights is further examined in light of the judgement in La Quadrature du Net II. Efforts should be made to avoid that the economic power of the US would lower the privacy standards when it comes to metadata surveillance.

Die Vorratsdatenspeicherung

Die jüngeren Urteile des EuGHs zur Vorratsdatenspeicherung sind nicht als „kopernikanische Wende“ zu verstehen, in der der EuGH sein Selbstverständnis als Grundrechtsgericht aufgegeben hätte. Sie sind keine autoritär motivierte Abkehr von einer vormals grundrechtsfreundlichen Rechtsprechung. Vielmehr fügen sich die Urteile ein in die komplexe Entwicklung des ursprünglich national geprägten Sicherheitsverfassungsrechts. Diese Einordnung bedarf eines genaueren Blickes.

Protecting Victims Without Mass Surveillance

Mass data retention is on the rise. In the current heyday of security packages in Germany, we are now witnessing a “super grand coalition” in favor of mandatory IP address retention. Some are calling for greater protection for victims through data retention. Yet, what one often overlooks is the following: The investigative capacities of law enforcement authorities have never been better, and the digital data pools that can be analyzed have never been larger. Hence, victims must be protected without mass surveillance.

Eyes Everywhere

Ten years after its groundbreaking judgment declaring the Data Retention Directive incompatible with the EU Charter, the Full Court significantly eased its previously strict requirements. On 30 April 2024, it issued La Quadrature Du Net II and, for the first time, declared the general and indiscriminate retention of IP addresses permissible for the purpose of fighting general crime. Given the CJEU’s fundamental change of heart, we have gathered a range of scholars to contextualize the judgment and situate it within the broader debate on mass data retention, online surveillance, and anonymity.

Keine allgemeine Verfassungsaufsicht über die Unionswerte im Vertragsverletzungsverfahren

Am 19. Dezember 2022 reichte die Europäische Kommission in der Rechtssache C-769/22 eine Vertragsverletzungsklage ein, in der sie im zweiten Klagegrund eine eigenständige Verletzung von Art. 2 EUV geltend machte. Dies löste eine breite Diskussion darüber aus, ob der EuGH seine Wertejudikatur in Zukunft so weiterentwickeln könnte, dass Art. 2 EUV auch als eigenständige Rechtsgrundlage herangezogen werden kann – ohne eine Verbindung zu spezifischen Bestimmungen des Unionsrechts.

A Rare Win

In a rare win for the rights of asylum seekers in the first Greek asylum case making its way to Luxembourg, the CJEU has limited abusive uses of the safe third country concept that had condemned applicants to legal limbo. In its ruling on 4 October 2024, the Court left Greece’s designation of Türkiye as a safe third country intact. Nonetheless, the case will still have a significant impact on asylum applicants. This post sets out the practical effects of the judgment on people applying for asylum in Greece and beyond.