Articles for tag: Common Foreign and Security PolicyEU ECHR accessionEuropean Charter of Fundamental Rights

Escaping Jurisdictional Blackholes

There is a lack of effective judicial protection in the field of EU Common Foreign and Security Policy. In a recent opinion, AG Ćapeta has suggested that the solution rests with asserting the possibility of establishing the non-contractual liability of the EU for breach of fundamental rights in CFSP cases, regardless of whether the measure imposes restrictions. However, the Council also has a positive duty stemming from the Charter to include a jurisdictional clause in all CFSP measures indicating the national court which has jurisdiction in those cases.

Pride or Prejudice?

The joined cases IX v Wabe and MH Müller Handels GmbH offered the CJEU a second chance to heed the arguments raised against Achbita and reconsider its decision. Hopes that the Court would be willing to revise Achbita diminished significantly after AG Rantos’s disappointing Opinion in the case. Last week's decision in IX v Wabe to largely uphold Achbita was then also unsurprising, but nevertheless disappointing.

Grundrechtswende zur Jahreswende

Das Ende des in vielerlei Hinsicht denkwürdigen Jahres 2020 hat Karlsruhe mit einer zukunftsweisenden Grundsatzentscheidung eingeläutet. Mit seinem kurz vor Jahreswechsel veröffentlichten Beschluss in Sachen Europäischer Haftbefehl III erkennt nun auch der Zweite Senat des Bundesverfassungsgerichts die Unionsgrundrechte als unmittelbaren Prüfungsmaßstab der Verfassungsbeschwerde an. In einem begrüßenswerten und keineswegs selbstverständlichen Schritt schwenkt der Zweite auf die Linie des Ersten Senates ein.

Towards a European Court of Fundamental Rights

With its judgments on bulk data retention issued at the beginning of this month, the European Court of Justice has entitled itself to examine virtually all surveillance measures in the digital sphere. In doing so, it has once more clarified its positioning as the decisive Fundamental Rights Court in Europe. In the midst of the ultra vires-storm caused by the PSPP-judgement of the Bundesverfassungsgericht – and questions arising with regard to German Legal Hegemony in Europe – a true shift of power to the ECJ can be spotted which is, surprisingly, supported by the national constitutional courts.

Technology and Law Going Mental

On 28 August 2020, Neuralink gave a much anticipated update on their progress to connect humans and computers. In the near future, the activities within our brain will be recorded, analysed, and altered, shaking our conception of inaccessible mental processes. A multitude of legal issues will arise, in particular to what extent fundamental and human rights protect mental processes and neurological data collected by (therapeutic or enhancing) brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) from being accessed by states without the individual’s consent. To date, however, there remains a significant gap as neurological data does not enjoy absolute protection from any interference within the existing European human and fundamental rights frameworks. This gap could be remedied by introducing new mental rights.

Die Grenzen der Wissenschaftsfreiheit

In der Coronakrise arbeiten Wissenschaftler auf der ganzen Welt unter Hochdruck an Impfstoffen und Medikamenten gegen das Virus. Die Krise zeigt: Ohne ein funktionierendes Wissenschaftssystem jenseits staatlicher Grenzen geht es nicht. Dabei unterliegen jedoch auch Virologen mit ihrer Forschung der Dual-Use-Verordnung, die sie erheblich in ihrer Kommunikation und somit in ihrer Wissenschaftsfreiheit einschränkt.

Muzzling Associations of Judges

Art 88 a of Poland's so-called "muzzle law" law prescribes that judges must disclose their membership in associations, their functions performed in non-profit foundations and membership in parties before they became judges. The provision applies to memberships in all kinds of associations, including associations of judges. In this form, the provision violates the European Convention of Human Rights as well as the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The Hungarian “Lex NGO” before the CJEU: Calling an Abuse of State Power by its Name

On 14 January 2020, Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered his Opinion in Case C-78/18 on the restrictions incorporated into a 2017 Hungarian law on the financing of NGOs from abroad. He makes clear that Hungary’s “Lex NGO” not only restricts the free movement of capital but also violates several fundamental rights, and is therefore incompatible with EU law.

In Rights We Trust

Cases concerning the execution of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) provide seemingly endless material for new questions of fundamental importance to the relationship of the multiple constitutional layers in Europe. In a barely noted judgment in the case of Romeo Castaño v. Belgium, the European Court of Human Rights has now added an important piece to this puzzle. The judgment indicates that, in the light of other recent jurisprudence of both the Court of Justice of the EU and the ECtHR, both Courts are on their way to find a workable framework to address some of the issues in this field.