Teilweise bringt die GEAS-Reform Verbesserungen für die Rechtsstellung von Kindern mit sich. Andere Bereiche – wie etwa die Regelungen zum neuen Screening-Verfahren oder Möglichkeiten der (de facto) Inhaftierung von Kindern – werfen aus kinderrechtlicher Perspektive allerdings Bedenken auf. Vor diesem Hintergrund beleuchtet dieser Beitrag, wie das Kindeswohl bei der nationalen Umsetzung der GEAS-Reform angemessen berücksichtigt werden kann.
Value-based reasoning features prominently in CJEU case law, most recently in AG Ćapeta’s opinion in Commission v. Hungary. However, what is treated as absolute within the Union turns flexible and conditional in cases concerning asylum, integration, as well as anti-discrimination. A closer look at the “feminist” cases (WS, K and L, and AH and FN) reveals how “Western values”-centred reasoning is deployed at the Member State level and re-elaborated by the CJEU as the fundamental value of gender equality – opening the door to ideological reinterpretations.
Advocate General Ćapeta delivered her Opinion regarding a violation of Article 2 TEU, which lies at the heart of the pending case before the CJEU – a case that bears, quite appropriately, the name “Valeurs de l’Union”. Her opinion is likely to cause a stir. Even though this is not the final judgment, it is unprecedented for Article 2 TEU to be declared justiciable and found to have been infringed.
In the near future, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) may issue its first compensation awards against Russia for its conduct in the war in Ukraine. When that happens, the question of how to enforce such awards will become paramount. Given Russia’s lack of cooperation, claimants may seek to enforce compensation awards in third states holding Russian assets, a promising yet untested avenue. Drawing from a recent report by Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI), this post explores some of the legal hurdles this avenue entails as well as some of its broader implications. We believe that this approach could be a limited but significant instrument to redress harm for victims of human rights abuse committed in the war.
On 14 May 2025, the General Court of the EU ruled in favour of The New York Times in the much-awaited Pfizergate case, annulling the European Commission's decision to withhold the SMS text messages presumed to have been exchanged between EU Commission President von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla. While presented as another case concerning document access, potentially illuminating the informal negotiation process behind COVID-19 vaccine contracts and the management and archive of texts and other instant messages, this judgment largely defies this expectation.
The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) stands as a central institution in the European legal and political landscape. Its judgments not only shape the trajectory of European integration but also reveal deeper EU Law Stories – ideological clashes, conflicting narratives and distributive consequences with the subtle emergence of winners and losers in each case. Yet, these dimensions often remain hidden behind the opaque language of the increasingly lengthy rulings and traditional doctrinal analysis.
With new collections each season, the fashion industry produces a highly problematic fashion garbage heap every year. Circular economy projects seeking to produce “new” garments by reworking second hand and unsold fashion items have particular societal value against this background. Evidently, legal solutions that support fashion reuse have particular relevance in the light of these goals.
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.
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.
Der Bundesgerichtshof hat entschieden, dass das Grundrecht auf Kriegsdienstverweigerung im Kriegsfall ausgesetzt werden könne. Dabei verlangt der unantastbare Kernbereich dieses Grundrechts gerade im Verteidigungsfall uneingeschränkte Geltung. Seine Einschränkung würde bedeuten, dass Gewissensentscheidungen hinter die Pflicht zur bewaffneten Landesverteidigung zurücktreten müssten – ein Widerspruch zum verfassungsrechtlichen Schutz der individuellen Gewissensfreiheit.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters