Slovakia voted on the final day of September 2023. The electoral rhetoric, results and subsequent coalition-building give grounds to expect illiberal constitutional changes. More attention is needed towards the Constitutional Court’s capacity to resist such illiberalization, as Slovakia may join Hungary in a revamped illiberal Visegrad alliance.
By 1 April 2018, member states had to transpose an EU Directive on ‘the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings’. Bulgaria has not fully transposed it to this day, and consistently undermines it. Now, finally, the Commission has launched infringement proceecings. Preceding the announcement, the Commission rejected Rasosveta Vassileva's reasoned complaints on the same issue, as late as 2022. Her odyssey is a concerning tale on how EU institutions handle citizen alerts.
As we gear up for the most consequential elections in Poland since 1989, the situation on the ground after 8 years of the paranoid polarizing and no-holds-barred politics, forces all those concerned about the future, to ask where Poland is heading. On 14 October 2023, we must understand that POLEXIT is much more than a mere dispute over institutions, rule of law, judicial independence, etc. What is at stake now is incomparably greater. It is the defense of a certain way of life, values and belonging to a community of law and values, a civic Poland in Europe and Europe in civic Poland and finally of “Me and You” as part of Europe.
Who loves the latest shiny thing? Children maybe? Depends on the kid. Cats and dogs perhaps? Again, probably depends. What about funders, publishers, and researchers? Now that is an easier question to answer. Whether in talks provided by the tax-exempt ‘cult of TED’, or in open letters calling for a moratorium, the attention digital technologies receive today is extensive, especially those that are labelled ‘artificial intelligence’. This noise comes with calls for a new ad hoc human right against being subject to automated decision-making (ADM). While there is merit in adopting new laws dedicated to so-called AI, the procedural mechanisms that can implement existing law require strengthening. The perceived need for new substantive rules to govern new technology is questionable at best, and distracting at worst. Here we would like to emphasise the importance of implementing existing law more effectively in order to better regulate ADM. Improving procedural capacities across the legal frameworks on data protection, non-discrimination, and human rights is imperative in this regard.
On Thursday, news broke that the German government had agreed to incorporating the previously rejected Crisis Regulation into the EU’s new asylum and migration pact. The decision was a radical change of course since Germany had previously consistently opposed its inclusion. Framed as allowing for more ‘flexibility’ in case of migratory surges, the Crisis Regulation’s adoption will, in effect, suspend the EU asylum system as we know it for the time being, given that recorded sea arrivals are currently nearing the 2015 levels. A crisis in need of regulation, if you will. In this blogpost, I highlight the dangerous fallacy that underpins our tolerance for the illegality that has come to characterize contemporary border control. In particular, our failure to oppose the constant expansion of the limits of the law that occurs in the name of crisis and political necessity rests on the mistaken assumption that we have nothing to lose in this race to the bottom.
On September 13th, co-rapporteurs Guy Verhofstadt (Renew, BE), Sven Simon (EPP, DE), Gabriele Bischoff (S&D, DE), Daniel Freund (Greens/EFA, DE) and Helmut Scholz (The Left, DE) presented in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs of the European Parliament (AFCO) a wide and ambitious project of Treaty change. This short contribution will highlight and evaluate the most important proposals of AFCO's project and argue that, if adopted, the reform would further the Union’s federalisation, thus potentially changing its legal nature.
In the United States, European reforms of the digital economy are often met with criticism. Repeatedely, eminent American voices called for an end to Europe’s “techno-nationalism.” However, this common argument focusing on digital protectionism is plausible, yet overly simplistic. Instead, this blog post argues that European digital regulations reflect a host of values that are consistent with the broader European economic and political project. The EU’s digital agenda reflects its manifest commitment to fundamental rights, democracy, fairness, and redistribution, as well as its respect for the rule of law. These normative commitments, and the laws implementing those commitments, can be viewed in aggregate as Europe’s digital constitution.
Nach der Vorstellung des Lagebildes „Clankriminalität Berlin 2022“ fordert die Berliner Innensenatorin Iris Spranger öffentlichkeitswirksam eine Beweislastumkehr im Recht der Vermögensabschöpfung für Fälle mit Bezug zur sog. Clankriminalität. Damit erlangt die Entwicklung der vermögensabschöpfungsrechtlichen Debatte ihren vorläufigen, allerdings keineswegs überraschenden Tiefpunkt. Neben erheblichen verfassungsrechtlichen und strafprozessrechts-dogmatischen Bedenken, die gegen diesen Vorstoß sprechen, stellt sich die Frage, ob das Abschöpfungsbesteck des geltenden Rechts nicht gleichermaßen in der Lage wäre, diese Operation durchzuführen.
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.
Am 09. Juli 2023 haben die Europäische Union und Aotearoa Neuseeland ein umfangreiches Freihandelsabkommen abgeschlossen, das die Europäische Kommission mit Blick auf Nachhaltigkeitsfragen als ambitioniertestes Abkommen aller Zeiten bezeichnet. Bei genauerem Hinsehen zeigt sich, dass der Regelungsumfang in vielerlei Hinsicht umfassender und progressiver ist als in anderen Abkommen. Dennoch sind Defizite bei der Ausgestaltung des Streitbeilegungsverfahrens auszumachen, die auch darin begründet liegen, dass das Nachhaltigkeitskapitel es nicht vermag, einen für seine Widersprüche sensibilisierten, kritischen Nachhaltigkeitsbegriff zu etablieren.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters