Articles for tag: EU-Turkey Dealinformalisationlegal remedy

A ‘Complete’ System of Legal Remedies?

In practice, Member States and the EU increasingly rely on informal instruments for cooperation with third countries, especially in the area of migration control, with important implications for the rule of law. The choice for informality becomes particularly problematic when it affects the legal situation of irregular migrants, including refugees because it makes it very difficult for them to challenge these instruments in front of EU courts. This blog post explores the effects of EU’s recourse to informality on the judicial protection of the rights of irregular migrants by using the EU-Turkey Statement as an example. The Statement, also known as the EU-Turkey ‘deal’, raises serious doubts as to whether the EU legal order indeed provides for the promised ‘complete’ system of legal remedies.

Patching a gap in the EU’s system of judicial remedies

In the judgment in case C-575/18 P last week, the Court of Justice closed a hole in the EU’s system of judicial protection: it ruled that judicial review of a Commission’s claim of own resources under Regulation 1150/2000 could be obtained through an action for damages for unjust enrichment based on analogous application of Art. 268, 340 (2) TFEU. This case shines a light both on the deficiencies in the EU system of legal remedies and on the approach of the Court of Justice in addressing them.

TTIP-Rechtsschutz zu Ende denken

Die EU-Kommission hat für ihren jüngsten Vorschlag zu TTIP viel Lob erfahren. Eine grundsätzliche Frage lässt der Vorschlag allerdings weiterhin offen: Warum sollen nur ausländische Investoren, nicht aber einheimische Unternehmen, Verbraucher und Arbeitnehmer, die jeweils zu ihren Gunsten vereinbarten Schutzstandards einklagen können? Ist die einseitige Klagemöglichkeit nicht ein ungerechtfertigter Vorteil ausländischer Investoren gegenüber anderen von TTIP betroffenen Personen und Gruppen?

Thinking out legal remedies under TTIP

Last week, the EU commission presented its reform proposal for the investment chapter in the currently negotiated EU-US free trade agreement TTIP. The proposal has rightly sparked an overall positive response, as its many improvements set new benchmarks for international investment law. However, a more fundamental question, brought up again in the aftermath of the Commission’s proposal, still remains open: Why should only foreign investors, and not domestic enterprises, consumers and workers, have the right to claim TTIP provisions intended to protect their respective rights and interests? Isn’t an exclusive right to bring individual claims an unjustified advantage for foreign investors over other individuals and groups that are equally affected by TTIP?