The ongoing trilogue negotiations on the GDPR procedural regulation aim to address significant enforcement shortcomings. From strengthening complainants' rights to harmonising Data Protection Authorities' discretion and improving cross-border cooperation, these discussions carry major implications for data protection in Europe. This analysis highlights the urgent need for reforms to ensure effective and fair enforcement.
Chatkontrolle, KI-gestützte Altersverifizierung und Zwangsfilter auf Betriebssystemen bilden die letzten Beispiele einer langen Reihe von Regulierungsvorhaben, die im Namen des Kinder- und Jugendmedienschutzes Grundrechtseingriffe als alternativlos darstellen. Die Vorhaben lassen Kinder und Jugendliche die sich im Netz bewegen, mit ihren komplexen und vielschichtigen Bedürfnissen und Risikoprofilen im Stich. Anstatt evidenzbasierte Alternativkonzepte zu entwickeln und in wirksame, holistische Ansätze für Kinder- und Jugendmedienschutz zu investieren, werden auch ihre Grundrechte auf informationelle Selbstbestimmung, Privatsphäre und Autonomie eingeschränkt.
Online antisemitism is on the rise. Especially since the recent terror attack by Hamas in Southern Israel, platforms like X are (mis)used to propel antisemitism. Against this backdrop, this blog post analyses the legal framework for combatting online antisemitism in the EU and the regulatory approaches taken so far. It addresses the new Digital Services Act (DSA), highlighting some of the provisions that might become particularly important in the fight against antisemitism. The DSA improves protection against online hate speech in general and antisemitism in particular by introducing procedural and transparency obligations. However, it does not provide any substantive standards against which the illegality of such manifestations can be assessed. In order to effectively reduce online antisemitism in Europe, we need to think further, as outlined in the following blog post.
“Digital constitutionalism” has attracted a good deal of scholarly attention in recent years, much of it enthusiastic, some more sceptical. Just what constitutionalism means, and how this meaning can be transposed into a realm of private ― albeit increasingly regulated ― interactions rather than traditional public law, is part of the debate between the enthusiasts and the sceptics. All agree, however, that it is a normatively charged idea, a shorthand reference to certain values which include ― whether or not they are limited to ― respect for certain human rights. In this post, I argue that while we can indeed think of internet regulation in constitutional terms, we must first understand what I shall call the constitution of cyberspace. A descriptive effort must precede any normative projects directed at imposing values allegedly inherent in the notion of constitutionalism onto cyberspace. And further, understanding the constitution of cyberspace should at least make us wary of digital constitutionalism’s normative ambitions.
On 15 December, the European Commission adopted a European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles for the Digital Decade. It builds upon primary EU law instruments, and the question inevitably arises of what additional value and effect the Declaration may have.
“Ich surfe, also bin ich.” Das ist nach der Internet-Milieu-Studie des Deutschen Instituts für Vertrauen und Sicherheit im Internet das neue Credo der sogenannten Digital Natives. Auch das Verfassungsrecht reagiert auf diese Entwicklung. Das Internet ist heute auch “Grundrechtsverwirklichungsnetz“. Entsprechend laut werden die Rufe nach neuen Katalogen digitaler Grundrechte. Jüngst hat auch der Präsident des Europäischen Parlaments Martin Schulz eine “Charta der Grundrechte für die digitale Zeit” gefordert. Macht eine solche Charta Sinn? Was kann sie leisten? Wie weit soll sie reichen? Und wer soll sie ausarbeiten?
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters