Articles for tag: Antidiskriminierung, EuGH, Europarecht, Gleichheit, LGBT Rights, LGBTIQ+, the Hungarian anti-LGBTIQ* law

Somewhere Over The Rainbow

On 5 June 2025, Advocate General Ćapeta issued her Opinion in Commission v. Hungary, a landmark ECJ case on Hungary’s “anti-LGBTIQ” law. While the law is overtly discriminatory, the Commission framed its case around internal market rules, Charter rights, and Article 2 TEU values. While this might seem curious, I argue this reflects a strategic “camouflaging” of non-discrimination claims to better protect LGBTIQ rights within the limits of current EU anti-discrimination and equality law.

11. Juni 2025

, , , , , ,

Grenzgänger

&

Kaum im Amt, hat der neue deutsche Innenminister die Pläne zu einer strikteren Kontrolle an den deutschen Staatsgrenzen umgesetzt. Die aktuelle Praxis der Bundespolizei wirft Fragen mit Blick auf die Vereinbarkeit mit der Dublin-III-Verordnung und dem Schengener Grenzkodex auf und ist nicht mit Art. 72 AEUV zu rechtfertigen. Unilaterale Abweichungen würden zudem das in Art. 3 Abs. 2 EUV formulierte Ziel der Realisierung eines unionsweiten Mobilitätsraums gefährden.

20. Mai 2025

, , , , , , ,

Dobrindts Rechtsbruch

Der neue Innenminister Alexander Dobrindt hat am 7. Mai 2025 die Bundespolizei angewiesen auch Schutzsuchenden bei Binnengrenzkontrollen die Einreise basierend auf § 18 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 AsylG zu verweigern (und diese in den jeweiligen angrenzenden Staat zurückzuweisen). Damit sind die bei Schutzsuchenden verpflichtend durchzuführenden Dublin-Verfahren für diese Personengruppe faktisch ausgesetzt. Davon ausgenommen sind nur „erkennbar vulnerable Personen“, die „weiterhin an die zuständigen Stellen oder Erstaufnahmeeinrichtung weitergeleitet werden.“ Diese Aussetzung des Dublin-Verfahrens an den deutschen Binnengrenzen ist evident rechtswidrig – also ein klarer Rechtsbruch.

15. Mai 2025

, , , , , , ,

Just Asking

Have you ever wondered why a legal text is the way it is, or whether its implementation actually works as intended? Typically, one would approach such questions by consulting existing textual material. If one is extraordinary inquisitive, one might even file access-to-document requests. However, sometimes one cannot escape the feeling that something is missing. In that situation, I suggest, one should do the obvious: talk to people who know better – ideally, the people working on or embodying the phenomenon one intends to research.

12. Mai 2025

, , , ,

Local Meanings of EU Law

Law can be viewed not as a universal (or European) science but, following Geertz, as local knowledge. To illustrate the relevance of this perspective for understanding EU law, its effects, and the limits of integration through law, this text draws on the findings of a “classical” comparative study on the application of proportionality as an EU law principle in three national contexts: France, England, and Greece. This type of approach has the potential to evolve – and indeed is already evolving – into an interdisciplinary exploration of the diverse ways in which EU law is understood, applied, and experienced in settings as varied as the Paagalayiri market in Ouagadougou, the train-line connection between Paris and Marseille, or the camp of Moria on Lesvos.

9. Mai 2025

, , ,

(De)coloniality and EU Legal Studies

In EU legal studies, time, space, place, and knowledge are locations for contestation, deliberation and reconstruction. Other submissions in this symposium have elaborated on the limitations in understanding and accounting for the ‘what was’ as a fundamental blind spot of EU law. Extending from this starting point, I will show how decolonial approaches can bridge the gap between history, theory, and action, offering practical and alternative solutions for reconciliation. To do so, I will use the rule of law as one such site for contestation.

8. Mai 2025

, , , ,

Longing for Safety before the European Court of Justice

On 10 April 2025, Advocate General de la Tour delivered his Advisory Opinion in the joined cases Alace and Canpelli dealing with the powers of Italy – and, by extension, other EU Member States – to legislate on what constitutes a “safe third country” and a “safe country of origin”. The AG confirmed that Italy can list a third country as “safe” when it is “generally” deemed as such, provided that this designation is compliant with EU law. This piece discusses how the human rights of applicants seeking international protection are likely to be hindered by this approach.

7. Mai 2025

, , ,

The “Crisis of Critique” in EU Law

Critique has become one of the latest buzzwords in EU legal studies. Who, after all, would not want to be identified as a critical scholar if the danger is that one’s work might otherwise be labelled as reactionary, unsophisticated, naïve or whatever other signifier could be used to demolish the value of scholarly enterprise? But the down-side of this growing interest in being critical as an EU law scholar is that the idea of critique itself is in danger of becoming inflated.

7. Mai 2025

, , ,

Rethinking EU Law Beyond the Liberal Feminist Paradigm

In K,L v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (‘K,L’), the CJEU decided that a belief in the value of gender equality associated with the lifestyle of the westernized woman be regarded as a reason for persecution. While the decision contributes to a gender-sensitive EU asylum law, I argue that the CJEU’s classification of the young women’s belief in the value of gender equality as ‘identificatory’ (as opposed to ‘religious’ or ‘political’) perpetuates a long-standing criticism of the liberal feminist paradigm.

18. September 2024

, , , , ,