Articles for tag: Art. 267 TFEU, effectiveness, EuGH, Europarecht, Implementation of EU Law, primacy, uniform application, uniform interpretation, Vorlage an den EuGH

To Uniformity and Beyond

&

After the Hungarian judiciary had already faced controversy over the preliminary reference procedure under Article 267 TFEU in the question phase, a new tension has emerged. The supreme judicial body in Hungary now seeks to intervene in the answer phase of the procedure – aiming to shape the referring court’s interpretation and application of the CJEU’s ruling. These dynamics foreshadow an institutional conflict over how the Hungarian judiciary internalizes and operationalizes the jurisprudence of the CJEU. At stake is the fulfillment of the principle of sincere cooperation enshrined in Article 4(3) TEU.

10. September 2025

, , , , , , , ,

The Next Episode On Gender-Based Asylum

&

One of the CJEU’s most talked-about recent cases asks a simple question: when does someone belong to a “particular social group” under EU refugee law? On 11 June 2024 in K, L v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (K, L), the CJEU found that, women who genuinely came to identify themselves with the fundamental value of equality between women and men during their stay in the host country can be regarded as belonging to a particular social group. However, the implementation of the K, L judgment has led to a divergence between national policy and national courts over the meaning of “identification with the fundamental value of equality between women and men.”

22. August 2025

, ,

Safe for Everyone?

On 1 August, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) delivered its much-anticipated judgment, addressing the interpretation of the “safe country of origin” (SCO) concept under the Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32 (APD). Contrary to AG de la Tour, the Court firmly ruled that Member States cannot designate a country as “safe” unless it provides adequate protection to its entire population. Ultimately, the Court’s judgment effectively preserves the current protection until the EU legislator fully exercises its prerogative to amend the rules.

20. August 2025

, , , ,

Frontex vor dem EuGH

Der EuGH hatte in seinem viel kritisierten Urteil vom 6. September 2023 (T-600/21, WS u.a. v. Frontex) im Fall der rechtswidrigen Rückführung einer sechsköpfigen Familie den Zurechnungszusammenhang und damit die deliktische Haftung der EU-Agentur verneint. Aktuell sind EuGH und EGMR erneut mit einer Vielzahl an Fällen befasst, die operative Rückführungsmaßnahmen betreffen. Die nunmehr in der Revision in der Rechtssache WS u.a. v. Frontex ergangenen Schlussanträge machen deutlich, dass der EuGH wesentlichen Fragen in Bezug auf die Verantwortlichkeit von Frontex ausgewichen ist.

29. Juli 2025

, , , , ,

Copyright, AI, and the Future of Internet Search before the CJEU

With Like Company v Google, the first groundbreaking AI copyright case is now headed to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). In this case, a Hungarian press publisher challenges Google and its Gemini chatbot for reproducing and communicating its editorial content without authorisation. The Court’s decision will establish the legal framework for AI’s relationship with copyright and press publishers’ rights across the EU. It will potentially reshape how generative AI systems can or cannot lawfully access, process and reproduce journalistic and other protected content. This may even fundamentally affect the economic and technical architecture of future AI development.

17. Juli 2025

, , , ,

Von Worten zu Taten

Am 23. Juni 2025 trafen sich die 27 Außenminister der Europäischen Union (EU) in Brüssel, um über die Zukunft des Assoziierungsabkommens mit Israel (AA EU–Israel) zu beraten. Das Außenministertreffen selbst führte zu keiner Entscheidung über eine mögliche Aussetzung des Abkommens. Gemäß Art. 21 EUV ist die EU jedoch verpflichtet, im Einklang mit dem Völkerrecht zu handeln und bei festgestellten Menschenrechtsverletzungen auf der Grundlage des AA EU–Israel zu reagieren. Andernfalls riskiert die EU, gegen ihr eigenes Primärrecht zu verstoßen.

12. Juli 2025

, , , ,

The Antagonistic Unity of Copyright and Freedom of the Arts

&

On 17 June 2025, Advocate General Emiliou delivered his opinion in the second referral of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) to the CJEU in the case “Pelham” – also known as “Metall auf Metall” (Case C-590/23). He defines “pastiche” – currently the most controversial concept of European copyright law – and makes a fundamental statement on EU copyright law and its relationship to freedom of the arts as guaranteed by Art. 13 CFR.The InfoSoc Directive, which is at the heart of EU copyright law, is too restrictive with regard to the artistic use of copyright-protected works and therefore not compatible with the Charter’s freedom of the arts. Emiliou’s opinion is a breakthrough. It grounds copyright in freedom of the arts and paves the way for a new perspective on the relationship between copyright and artistic freedom.

3. Juli 2025

, ,

In the End… Who Cares?

On 3 June 2025, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment on the Kinsa-Case. At the core of the matter were the criminal charges of a third-country national for the facilitation of unauthorized entry of two minors in the territory of an EU Member State. With this ruling, the Court takes an important step towards the de-criminalization of care for migrant children who are seeking international protection. However, the Grand Chamber’s reasoning offers limited considerations on the relevant links between “actual care”, humanitarian assistance, and migrant children’s rights. This shortcoming may ultimately curb protection standards of migrant children in future cases

30. Juni 2025

, , , , , ,

When Failure Succeeds and Success Fails

Despite its modest uptake since its inception in 2012, the European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) has become the subject of several cases before the Court of Justice of the EU. The ECI is the world's first and only instrument of direct transnational democracy, allowing a group of at least seven European citizens from seven different EU member states to request that the Union take new action. The growing legal challenges around successful but ineffective ECIs reflect a fundamental mismatch between constitutional recognition of participatory democracy and institutional realities.

19. Juni 2025

, , , ,

Whose Values?

&

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.

16. Juni 2025

, , , ,