Articles for tag: EUEuroparecht

EU Law Through the State Lens

The conceptual apparatus that frames our knowledge of EU administrative law today has its origins in the legal scholarship that established a new field in the turn of the 1980s and during the 1990s. This scholarly field owes much of its uncontested existence to a series of major handbooks, which systematized materials that hitherto had been sparse and scattered, first in German, then in English and later still in French. Revisiting the past may provide some clues as to the role legal scholars can and should have in a period in which we may be witnessing an epochal transition in Europe.

Establishing Law in Context

Law in Context (LIC) was a revolution in EU law studies. It began in the 1980s and ‘90s and its effects continue today. This blogpost sketches selected basic landmarks. Inevitably it is a personal perspective, because if the short history of LIC shows anything, it is that there are almost as many views of ‘context’ as there are LIC scholars. To fully understand the LIC movement, it is essential to consider it in context; furthermore, despite changes in context, LIC remains pertinent today.

EU Law and Legal Theory

European law is a very strange creature. It is something that has been created, produced, mostly by jurisprudence and doctrine, and this makes European law especially challenging and interesting for scholars, because it has been, in many respects, a product of scholars. How should we approach the study of European law? How could we approach in a sensible way the study of European law?

Reconnecting EU Legal Studies to European Societies

EU legal studies suffer from a disconnect with social reality. If we need a method, it is one that allows us to reconnect with European societies as a bustle of unsettled forms of life, from both an existential and social perspective. Departing from classic institutional and constitutional approaches to EU law, while endorsing the critical turn in the EU legal studies, I will argue in favour of a new “anti-transcendental” perspective.

Becoming a (Critical) EU Law Scholar Today

Turning the existential crisis of Europe into critical knowledge, called for by Loïc Azoulai, requires – among other things – critical scholars. The question is, however, whether the present conditions allow for such people to emerge. I discuss only four of the many obstacles that critical scholarship faces today and conclude with a call for something that might be called “critical scholarship about legal scholarship”.

Controversies over Methods in EU Law

Methodological issues pervade contemporary debates in EU law. There are many reasons for this. Some are specific to the subject matter of EU law itself. The multiple crises that the European Union is experiencing lead EU law scholars to question their classical conception of EU law: a law of integration that should more or less naturally lead to a constitutional or federal order. These crises may also lead scholars to question their relationship with the European institutions, which have been central to the development of the core concepts of EU law and of EU law as a disciplinary field. 

Keine Blockade, sondern eine Frage der Kompetenz

Ein „Offener Brief“ an den Bundesjustizminister vom 29. Januar, den „über 100 namhafte Frauen aus Politik, Kultur und Wirtschaft“ unterzeichnet haben, fordert diesen auf, seine „Blockade-Haltung“ gegenüber einem Vorhaben der Europäischen Kommission aufzugeben. Die Kommission setzt sich für eine Richtlinie ein, die der Bekämpfung von Gewalt gegen Frauen und häuslicher Gewalt dienen soll. Unter anderem ist eine Vereinheitlichung im Sexualstrafrecht vorgesehen, nämlich beim Tatbestand der Vergewaltigung (Art. 5). Die zentrale Frage ist, inwieweit die Gestaltung von Strafrecht in die Kompetenz der EU fällt. Die Verfasserinnen des „Offenen Briefs“ scheinen davon auszugehen, dass die EU alles könne und dürfe und nur der widerborstige Bundesjustizminister ein Hindernis sei. Die Rechtslage sieht anders aus.

Turning the Exception into the Rule

In January 2023, Italy’s new government adopted a reform that heavily curtailed immigrant rights to speed up return procedures. Between September and October, several judgments issued by the Catania Tribunal declared the reform in violation of EU law. The judgments led to backlash, with PM Meloni and other members of the government accusing them of being politically motivated. While such political attacks on judges must always be condemned, they are particularly unwarranted given that the Catania Tribunal’s judges were correct in finding the new Italian border procedures incompatible with EU law.

The Comeback of the Mixed Chamber

Three years ago, in the wake of the Weiss judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court, we proposed the creation of a “Mixed Chamber” in the Court of Justice of the European Union, to rule in last instance on judicial disputes on points of Union competence. The rationale of a Chamber so composed is not obvious. After all, in a Union in which EU Law has primacy over national law, in which the autonomy of EU law is all-pervasive and where the Court of Justice is the ultimate interpreter of EU law, why should a Mixed Chamber be needed? We believe there are at least three good reasons that make a Mixed Chamber as salient as ever.

Not With a Bang But a Whimper

The European Union’s smallest Member State saw a significant decree delivered on primacy last month. Yet, even domestically, this bomb exploded in the middle of a desert; little to no noise came of it nationally or at the EU level. On the face of it, this is undoubtedly a major legal development – the first of its kind since Malta’s EU accession in 2004. The flawed interpretation offered by the Court says much about the fundamental importance of constitutional reform and is not, as such, a sign of institutional anti-EU sentiment… yet. However, as the main (and practically only) media report on the case concluded, what happens next is anyone’s guess. Constitutional reform in Malta must be put squarely back on the table before it’s too late.