Articles for tag: DeforestationEUEUDRIndigene VölkerLieferketteUmweltrecht

Out of the Woods?

Large-scale deforestation not only accelerates climate change and biodiversity loss, it is also a serious threat to human rights. While the EU has pursued strategies to combat illegal logging since the early 2000s, it has mostly turned a blind eye to the adverse human rights effects of deforestation. The new EU Regulation on Deforestation (EUDR) acknowledges that human rights and the protection of forests are inextricably linked, but is this really a “major step for ‘deforestation-free’ trade”? This post provides a brief introduction to the EUDR, its most salient features, and critically, its weak points.

Securitizing the Economy

In June 2023, the European Commission presented the European Union’s first Economic Security Strategy. Its publication is in itself a Zeitenwende  in the EU’s foreign and economic policy, despite undeniable shortcomings, in particular the lack of a clear definition which opens the door for overly protectionist measures under the guise of security concerns. To succeed, however, it is critical to view economic security as a public good which can benefit the EU, its Member States, and its citizens.

Changing Tides in European Election Law

On 15 June, the Bundestag approved a minimum percentage threshold for elections to the European Parliament (EP). Shortly before the summer break, the Bundesrat (Federal Council) also agreed to the clause. German lawmakers already failed twice in this endeavour before the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht, short BVerfG). This time, the German legislator can refer to a binding EU legal act backing its reform efforts. This means the electoral threshold must now be treated (also by the constitutional court) as determined by EU law – with all consequences. However, even a 2% hurdle is not 100% safe from the BVerfG.

The Definition of ›Digital Labour Platform‹ in the Proposed Platform Work Directive

On 9 December 2021, the European Commission announced its proposal for a Directive on improving working conditions in platform work—the ‘Platform Work Directive.’ The Directive’s main goals are to reduce false self-employment among persons performing platform work, to regulate algorithmic management on digital labour platforms, and to provide legal certainty for platforms. This blog post focuses on an element of the proposed Directive that has gone relatively unremarked in the scholarly and policy debates so far: the definition of ‘digital labour platform.’

Why Europe Must Never Forget about the Polish Constitutional Court

 In 2023, we should have been celebrating the 41st anniversary of the establishment of Polish Constitutional Court. “Should” is used advisedly here because as is well known Poland no longer has a constitutional court. Undoubtedly, the technical question of how to rebuild the Court is important, yet we should also understand why its rebuild must be the first order of the day after the present dark days of total capture. I argue, in this respect, that the EU would do well to remember the central role constitutional courts have played in the particular form of constitutionalism that emerged in the aftermath of Europe’s experience with totalitarianism, and the laudable way in which the Polish Constitutional Court took up this task.

The Dangers of Conflation

On May 17th 2023 Advocate General de la Tour handed down the Opinion in case C-402/22. It addresses the meaning of “particularly serious crime” found in Article 14 (4) (b) of the 2011 Qualification Directive, which sets out the grounds for revocation or refusal to grant refugee status under EU law. This provision refers to “refugees delinquents” and introduces security concerns of states as the ground for depriving persons of their refugee status. In practice, it opens the question of how to treat refugees that committed certain crime(s) after they obtained refugee status. In this blog I detail the AG’s answer to that question and raise one overriding concern regarding Article 14 QD.

Reform the European Union for Enlargement!

External shocks such as the financial and migration crises, the Coronavirus pandemic, as well as internal and external security threats from terrorism as well as Russia's war against Ukraine emphasise that the EU, which has developed to be more heterogeneous, has become increasingly fragile. In line with a reduced willingness and ability of Member States to integrate further, the EU is becoming incapable of action and therefore is in danger of losing the trust of its citizens. Against this background, it is important not to gloss over the problems and to develop constructive solutions. This blogpost offers several possible solutions.

Institutional Corsets and the Question of Timing

There has been a lot of noise around whether Hungary should, and legally could, be blocked from taking over the Council presidency in the second half of 2024, considering the state of the rule of law in the country. On 1 June, the European Parliament adopted a resolution, questioning Hungary’s ability to “credibly fulfill” the tasks of a Council presidency and asking the Council to “find a proper solution as soon as possible”, else Parliament could take “appropriate measures”. Such concerns are legitimate, but another question seems to be sidelined in the debate: How much practical damage can the upcoming Council presidency under Hungary actually do in the EU?

An Honest Broker?

A characteristic of the functioning of the EU is that the Presidency of the Council of Ministers rotates between Member States every six months according to a previously agreed order. The EU Presidency is responsible for driving forward the Council’s work on EU legislation. In the second half of 2024, Hungary will take over the Presidency, followed by Poland in the first half of 2025. Given their rule of law record, it is highly questionable whether they will act in the Council’s general interest. In order to avoid damage, there are three avenues available to the Council and the Member States.

»Ziviler Ungehorsam – Testfall für den demokratischen Rechtsstaat«

… so lautet der Titel eines Aufsatzes von Habermas, erschienen 1983. Genau diesen Testfall erleben wir derzeit. Es scheint, als ob „der Rechtsstaat“ – nach Wochen des intensiven Protests durch die „Letzte Generation“ in Berlin – nun „andere Saiten aufziehen“ möchte, und erneut nach dem Strafrecht greift, genauer gesprochen nach einem Tatbestand des ohnehin nicht unproblematischen Präventivstrafrechts. Meine These ist jedoch, dass der Versuch, die Klimaproteste „wegzustrafen“, den Rechtsstaat zwangsläufig schwächt, anstatt ihn zu stärken. Da politischer Protest im Ausgangspunkt als wesentliches Element einer demokratischen Kultur ausgehalten werden muss, ist auch der Umgang mit unter Umständen strafbaren Aktionen im Zuge des politischen Protests - freilich im Rahmen des Legalitätsprinzips - mit Augenmaß zu wählen, um diesen Grundsatz nicht zu konterkarieren.