Articles for category: EuGH

Beyond Protection

Whether and how gender-related violence can constitute a ground to claim and receive asylum has long been a subject of debate in refugee law. While feminist legal scholars have long sought to alleviate the gender-blindness of the original text of the Refugee Convention, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) only started taking some steps in this direction earlier this year. The CJEU determined in K, L, that women or specific groups of women who share a belief in an additional common characteristic — such as a belief in gender equality — may be regarded as members of a ‘particular social group’ (PSG), making them eligible for refugee status.

Im »Westen« viel Neues

Der EuGH hat in seinem Urteil vom 11. Juni 2024 einen geschlechtsspezifischen Asylgrund bestätigt: Frauen, die jahrelang in einem Umfeld der Gleichberechtigung zwischen Frauen und Männern gelebt haben, können unter Umständen einen Anspruch auf Asyl haben, wenn sie diese Lebensweise in ihrem Heimatland aufgeben müssten. Das Urteil stärkt damit nicht nur die Stellung von Frauen in Asylfragen. Es könnte sich auch auf den Schutzstatus von sogenannten „Klimaflüchtlingen“ auswirken.

The Unbearable Lightness of Interfering with the Right to Privacy

The European Court of Justice has once again ruled on national data retention laws. In La Quadrature du Net II, the full court allowed the indiscriminate retention of IP addresses for the purpose of fighting copyright infringement. It seems that the Court is slowly but surely abandoning its role as guardian of the right to privacy, as it now allows member states to collect vast amounts of data on their citizens in order to solve even the most minor of crimes.

Orbán’s Veto Play – The Subsidiarity Card

Viktor Orbán is known to use veto threats in the European Council to get his way. This time, he was keen to see that after months of tense exchanges with the Commission, Hungary gets access to EU funds that had been blocked in order to achieve compliance with the rule of law and fundamental rights conditionality. So, PM Orbán saw it fit to loudly contest Ukraine’s accession and the financial aid package of 50 billion Euros. This may be PM Orbán’s strongest veto play to date.

To Score Is to Decide

Can the act of assigning a score to someone constitute a decision? This, in essence, is the question the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) had to answer in Case C-634/21. And the Court’s answer is yes, following in the footsteps of the Advocate General’s opinion on the case. Rendered on 7 December, this ruling was eagerly awaited as it was the first time the Court had the opportunity to interpret the notorious Article 22 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) prohibiting decisions “based solely on automated processing".

Squaring the triangle of fundamental rights concerns

Ex ante, the July 2022 ruling by the Court of Justice of the EU on Passenger Name Records had a very specific scope — the use of passenger name records by government agencies. Upon closer inspection, however, it has important implications for the governance of algorithms more generally. That is true especially for the proposed AI Act, which is currently working its way through the EU institutions. It highlights, ultimately, how national, or in this case European, legal orders may limit the scope for international regulatory harmonization and cooperation.

Automated predictive threat detection after Ligue des Droits Humains

The Ligue des droits humains ruling regarding automated predictive threat detection has implications for the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) Regulation and the EU Commission’s proposal for a Regulation on combating online child sexual abuse material (CSAM). Both legal instruments entail the use of potentially self-learning algorithms, and are spiritual successors to the PNR Directive (the subject of Ligue des droits humains).

EU Privacy and Public-Private Collaboration

Core state functions, such as law enforcement, are increasingly delegated to private actors. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the development and use of security technologies. This public-private collaboration harbours detrimental consequences for fundamental rights and the rule of law; in particular, for the principle of legality. The policy outcomes which result from this collaboration are not democratically accountable, and allow human rights to be superseded by private, profit-driven interests.

Challenging Bias and Discrimination in Automated Border Decisions

In Ligue des droits humains, the Court of Justice of the European Union explicitly addresses the fact that the use of AI and self-learning risk models may deprive data subjects of their right to effective judicial protection as enshrined in the Charter. The importance of this judgment cannot be understated for non-EU citizens and at the European borders more generally.

Foreseeability and the Rule of Law in Data Protection after the PNR judgment

The rule of law cannot be reconciled with the existence of secret laws, unclear laws and laws which cannot be obeyed. However, this may be difficult to realise in practice, where full transparency is at odds with the legislative goals; where a certain degree of flexibility of rules is necessary to address changing circumstances, in which these rules function; and where a disconnect occurs between the visions of the lawmaker and reality created by modern technologies that are utilized to pursue them. The CJEU's ruling in Lige des droits humains on Passenger Name Record Directive underscores the difficulty of foreseeability of algorithmic measures and the rule of law.