Articles for category: Gerichte

A Human Rights Breakthrough in Sports Law?

On 11 July 2023, the ECtHR found in its Chamber judgment in Semenya v. Switzerland that international-level athlete Mokgadi Caster Semenya had been discriminated against by the Eligibility Regulations for Female Classification of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF, now World Athletics). These regulations required her to undergo hormone treatment to lower her natural testosterone levels in order to be admitted to international competitions in the female category. In the Chamber's view, Switzerland had violated the Convention by failing to provide sufficient institutional and procedural safeguards to enable Ms. Semenya to have her discrimination complaints effectively examined. If the GC upholds the Chamber’s findings on jurisdiction and scrutiny, the Semenya judgment will have a significant impact on the human rights approach of sports federations and on future CAS proceedings.

Prekariat Gefängnis

In seiner Entscheidung über die Verfassungsbeschwerden zweier Gefangener aus NRW und Bayern vom 20.6.2023 erklärt das Bundesverfassungsgericht die landesgesetzlichen Regelungen zur Vergütung von Gefangenenarbeit für mit dem Resozialisierungsgebot aus Art. 2 I i.V.m. Art. 1 I GG unvereinbar. Auf den ersten Blick ist die Entscheidung für die Beschwerdeführer ein Erfolg, da das BVerfG eine Verletzung ihres Grundrechts auf Resozialisierung durch die bestehenden landesrechtlichen Vorschriften anerkennt. Jedoch relativiert das Gericht die verfassungsrechtlichen Anforderungen an eine angemessene Bezahlung von Gefangenenarbeit, indem es das Kriterium der Angemessenheit aufweicht. Klare Vorgaben in Bezug auf die Vergütung von Gefangenenarbeit sucht man in der Entscheidung vergeblich.

Strong on Hate Speech, Too Strict on Political Debate

Online hate speech is a topic that has gained importance in recent years. The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) made an important ruling in this context on 15 May 2023 in Sanchez v. France. From a democratic theory and individual rights’ perspective, I would endorse the first decision because it tackles the so-called “silencing” and “desensitization effect” of hate speech. The second decision, however, runs the risk of adversely affecting free political debate, especially when individual politicians are called upon to delete comments by third parties.

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.

The European Legal Architecture on Security

As the European legal architecture on internal security is being built around large-scale databases, AI tools and other new technologies, the relationship between the public and private sectors has become increasingly complex. We examine one aspect of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s recent judgment in Ligue des droits humains, namely the data protection rules applicable to cooperation between the public and private entities in personal data sharing. The judgment enhances the ‘personal data autonomy’ of individuals and requires public authorities to justify to a high standard any obligations it seeks to place on the private sector to share personal data related, directly or indirectly, to travel by air.

Caution: Safeguards may appear more robust than they are

At a time when the European security architecture is evolving, and when national lawmakers must pay greater attention to an evolving set of common standards and safeguards to prevent disproportionate government access to data, it is essential to shed critical light on their implementation in actual practice. As different as the EU PNR Directive and the German legal framework are, they both include provisions that seek to prevent disproportionate government access and to ensure effective and independent review of data collection and subsequent data processing.