Articles for category: Gerichte

Online Speech at the US Supreme Court in Moody v. Netchoice

The First Amendment of the US Constitution raises some of the most difficult legal hurdles for regulating the global digital public sphere today. In Moody v. Netchoice, the US Supreme Court heard appeals from two judgments, an appeal from a decision of the Fifth Circuit declaring that Texas’ social media law H.B. 20 did not violate the First Amendment, and an appeal from a decision of the Eleventh Circuit finding Florida’s social media law S.B. 7072, instead, unconstitutional. These laws are similar in that they both attempt to impose must-carry and non-discrimination obligations on social media platforms, which in practice amounts to requiring them not to discriminate against conservative users’ posts. The compatibility of these two laws with the First Amendment cuts across a plethora of crucial issues on the future of social media regulation which the court could, but didn’t fully, address.

11. Juli 2024

, , ,

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.

5. Juli 2024

, , ,

Rethinking the History & Tradition Approach

In a landmark 8-1 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Rahimi that the federal government has the authority to disarm individuals deemed by courts to be credible threats to their partners or children, consistent with the Second Amendment. This ruling marks a significant shift from the Court's previous stance in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which had established a stringent history and tradition test for evaluating gun regulations that undermined key tenets of the rule of law – clarity, consistency, and predictability.

4. Juli 2024

,

All Eyes on Sudan (too)

This article is an attempt to add layers to the discussions of ongoing mass atrocities committed in several parts of the world by discussing an under-reported situation of large scale violence unfolding in Sudan since April 2023, in the hope that the ‘international community’ can address multiple catastrophic situations with similar urgency, mobilise for justice for all peoples, end the culture of impunity, and eventually shift the discourse towards the structural causes of such large-scale violence in different parts of the world.

4. Juli 2024

,

Ukraine, the Netherlands and 26 Third States Without Russia Before the ECtHR

The hearing in the case of Ukraine, the Netherlands v Russia lasted four hours and twenty-five minutes. more than double than an “ordinary” Grand Chamber hearing. These four hours and twenty-five minutes are an important milestone in what is undoubtedly one of the most important set of cases in the history of European Convention on Human Rights. They cover more than ten years of Russian activities in Eastern Ukraine, including the open war of aggression since February 2022. The number of third parties involved in the proceedings likewise renders the case extraordinary.

1. Juli 2024

, ,

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.

27. Juni 2024

, , , ,

Warum das KlimaSeniorinnen-Urteil nicht undemokratisch ist

Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (EGMR) hat im Fall „KlimaSeniorinnen" ein bemerkenswertes Urteil zugunsten einer lebenswerten Zukunft für alle gefällt. Vor allem in der Schweiz stieß das Urteil jedoch auf scharfe Kritik. Die Schweizer Volkspartei bezeichnete den Entscheid als „dreiste Einmischung fremder Richter", der Aargauer Zeitung spricht von einer „Aushebelung der Demokratie". Der Entscheid des EGMR – zumindest nach Schweizer Verständnis – wirft also zentrale Fragen der Gewaltenteilung und der Rolle der Justiz bei der Beurteilung von Menschenrechten auf.

25. Juni 2024

, ,

Two Steps Forward?

On May 25 2024 the Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou delivered his opinion in the Case C-406/22 CV v Ministerstvo vnitra České republiky, Odbor azylové a migrační politiky on several issues regarding the application of the safe country of origin (SCO) concept. The case could have significant impact on SCO policies of several EU Member States and the rights of refugees as it addresses the possibility of designating countries as safe with territorial exceptions as well as a more active approach to judicial review of SCO designations. If adopted by the CJEU, the AG’s suggestions could serve to enhance refugee protection, though the adoption of the Pact on Migration and Asylum might possibly counteract this.

12. Juni 2024

, , ,

Protecting the Freedom to Express the „Thought that we Hate“

Das Schweizer Bundesverwaltungsgericht hat in einem Urteil vom 7. Mai 2024 die Schutzgewährung für das Zeichen „Bimbo QSR“ einer mexikanischen Lebensmittelfirma verneint. Das Gericht hielt auf Grundlage des Art. 2 lit. d des Schweizer Markenschutzgesetzes (MschG) fest, dass „das mehrdeutige Wort "Bimbo" auch als rassistisches Schimpfwort verstanden“ werde und es damit den absoluten Ausschlussgrund der Sittenwidrigkeit erfülle. US Bundesgerichte gehen diese Thematik interessanterweise genau umgekehrt an und setzten die Kompatibilität einer derartigen Schutzverweigerung mit der Meinungsfreiheit ins Zentrum ihrer Analyse.

11. Juni 2024

Waiting for Kinsa

On 18 June 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union will sit as a Grand Chamber in a hearing addressing the compatibility of the so-called Facilitators Package with the principle of proportionality set out in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR). The Kinsa case (previously named Kinshasa) provides an opportunity for the CJEU to counteract the trend towards overcriminalisation of humanitarian action that has taken hold across the EU. This blog highlights the ways in which the Facilitator Package fails to take account of important fundamental rights and why the criminalization of solidarity that it has facilitated is not an inevitability but a political choice.

10. Juni 2024

, ,