Articles for tag: coping strategiesEGMREMRKSubsidiarität

The ECtHR’s Coping Strategy

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is operating in an increasingly challenging political and legal environment. Even if member states have stopped short of far-reaching reforms, they have signaled their collective desire for a more restrained Court, starting with the 2012 Brighton Declaration. Governments in established democracies, like the United Kingdom, have refused to implement or dragged-out implementation of ECtHR judgments. In some countries, government officials or major politicians have suggested exiting the Court’s jurisdiction altogether. Finally, several member states have rolled back domestic rights protections for politically unpopular groups, such as criminal defendants, suspected terrorists, asylum seekers, and non-traditional families.

Die Grenzen des »entgrenzten Gerichts«

Der IT-Sicherheitsbeschluss des BVerfG vom 8. Juni 2021 fügt sich in einen breiteren Trend der letzten Jahre, in dem das Gericht die verfassungsprozessualen Zügel gegenüber Rechtssatzverfassungsbeschwerden zunehmend enger zieht. Aus institutioneller Perspektive bestehen gewichtige Gründe für eine verfassungsgerichtliche Verschärfung der Darlegungsanforderungen in Schutzpflichtkonstellationen.

Why the British demands on national parliaments must be resisted

Six years ago today, the Treaty of Lisbon came into force, introducing an early warning system for national parliaments concerned with the principle of subsidiarity. UK Prime Minister David Cameron has called for more incisive rights of national parliaments to block EU legislation. The UK government, which normally preens itself on its flexibility and pragmatism, is trying to impose a one-size-fits-all approach on national parliaments, ignoring their very different mandates, powers, practices, timetables and levels of political interest and staff support. The fact is that waving subsidiarity cards is the least important EU function of national parliaments.

Cameron’s EU reforms: political feasibility and legal implications

David Cameron, the UK’s Prime Minister, has set out his objectives for EU reforms in a speech at Chatham House on 10 November 2015 – objectives which he later clarified in a letter to the President of the European Council Donald Tusk. Cameron’s demands fall in four categories – i) safeguarding Britain’s position in the Union’s ‘variable geometry’; ii) strengthening the competitiveness of the Union’s internal market; iii) bolstering the democratic authority of the EU by strengthening the role of national parliaments in the EU’s decision-making process; and iv) ensure changes to the principles of free movement and equal treatment of Union citizens in access to welfare systems in the host state. The political feasibility and legal implications of these objectives differ quite significantly. More crucially, each of the stated objectives can be interpreted and implemented in different ways. Generally, it seems, Cameron’s success seems to depend on presenting reforms that at the same time address British domestic issues as well as strengthen the EU’s functioning.

On the Margin: Beobachtungen zu Rezeption, Ratio und Reform der Straßburger Rechtsprechung

The principle of margin of appreciation is particularly difficult to define. Attempts thus far have not accurately managed to embody the complexity of the Court’s jurisprudence. There is much subtle variation in how and when the margin applies. If the Convention were to include any definition of the nature or breadth of the margin of appreciation, or if it were to impose a wide margin of appreciation, this would significantly undermine the Court’s capacity to apply the principle with sufficient care, restraint and flexibility to protect Convention rights. There is no doubt that most of old contracting states would not ... continue reading

Der Bundesrat, mein am wenigsten geliebtes Verfassungsorgan

Der Bundesrat hat kurz vor Ostern zum ersten Mal von einer wichtigen neuen Lissabon-Errungenschaft Gebrauch gemacht: Seinem blitzeblanken neuen Recht nämlich, angebliche Verletzungen des Subsidiaritätsprinzips durch geplante EU-Rechtsakte zu rügen. Die Länderkammer hat sich dafür die geplante EU-Richtlinie zur Schutzanordnung ausgesucht. Dabei geht es um Opfer von Straftaten, die ihre Peiniger mit gerichtlichen Verfügungen auf Abstand halten, um nicht erneut zum Opfer gemacht zu werden – Musterfall ist die verprügelte Ehefrau, die ihren gewalttätigen Mann daran hindern will, ihr erneut zu nahe zu kommen. Solche Schutzanordnungen gibt es überall, aber sie gelten nur im jeweiligen Mitgliedsstaat. Wenn die Ehefrau im ... continue reading