Constitutional Resilience

Resilience of a body in general describes the ability to cope with an attack on its immune system. What is undisputed in psychology or biology is also valid for legal bodies, in particular for states. The term “constitutional resilience” obviously refers to the abilities of constitutions to cope with attacks and in the end to cope with a real crisis. In searching for answers on what constitutional resilience is, this article asks three questions: Where are the vulnerable parts of a democratic state governed by the rule of law? How can one protect the vulnerability of the state or some of its features? If vulnerable parts of a Constitution are properly protected – are the democratic state and its constitution safe?

Exit vom Brexit?

Das EuGH-Verfahren Wightman hat heute seinen vorläufigen Höhepunkt erreicht: Zum ersten Mal äußerte sich mit Generalanwalt Manuel Campos Sánchez-Bordona ein Vertreter des Gerichtshofs zu der Frage, ob das Vereinigte Königreich den Austrittsprozess einseitig beenden könne („Exit vom Brexit“). Die Antwort des Generalanwalts ist grundsätzlich zu begrüßen, weitere Klarstellungen werden aber nötig sein.

Voller Rechtsschutz! Abschiebungen sind auch nach verweigertem Eilrechtsschutz europarechtswidrig

Der asylrechtliche Eilrechtsschutz gem. § 36 AsylG ist europarechtlich nicht ausreichend, um die Vollziehbarkeit der Abschiebung zu begründen. Vielmehr ist es erforderlich, dass der asylsuchenden Person in allen asylrechtlichen Gerichtsverfahren ein volles Klageverfahren zur Verfügung steht. Eine vorherige Abschiebung ist europarechtswidrig.

Episode 5 of the Celmer Saga – The Irish High Court Holds Back

On 19 November 2018, Donnelly J gave her fifth judgment in the Celmer saga concluding that the real risk of a flagrant denial of justice has not been established by Mr Celmer and ordered that he be surrendered on foot of the European Arrest Warrants issued against him. Given that Donnelly J had initially found that there were ‘breaches of the common value of the rule of law’, this came as some surprise.

Vertragsverletzungs­verfahren als scharfes Schwert: Die erste Verurteilung eines Mitgliedstaats wegen justiziellen Unrechts

Justizielles Unrecht, d.h. die Verkennung von Unionsrecht durch mitgliedstaatliche Gerichte, war bislang noch nie Gegenstand eines Vertragsverletzungsverfahrens vor dem EuGH. Mit seinem Urteil in Sachen Accor II vom 04.10.2018 hat der EuGH nun erstmals einen Mitgliedstaat wegen justiziellen Unrechts verurteilt: Der französische Conseil d’État hatte ein vorheriges Urteil des EuGH nicht umgesetzt und gegen die Vorlagepflicht verstoßen. Mit dem Urteil platziert der Gerichtshof die Kommission wirkungsvoll als neuen Akteur, läuft aber auch Gefahr, den dialogue des juges zu erschweren.

Europe’s Rule of Law Dialogues: Process With No End in Sight

The cause for concern is not that violators of the rule of law are strategic political actors or that they are disingenuous. Rather, the real problem is the unspoken premise on the basis of which defenders of the rule of law are more and more inclined to accept these developments as the very features of the EU’s rule of law safeguards. This acceptance is based on the flawed premise that so long as a procedure is in place one cannot really do more to defend the rule of law.

Sweet Like Sugar, Bitter Like a Lemon: Bulgaria’s CVM Report

On 13 November 2018, the Commission published the latest reports on Bulgaria and Romania under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism. Bulgaria’s report is full of praise. Not surprisingly, the Bulgarian government was overjoyed. The civil society, on the other hand, was clearly upset. Why? The short answer is that the picture painted by the CVM report does not correspond to reality and only pours water to Bulgaria’s autocratic mill.

On Thin Ice: the Role of the Court of Justice under the Withdrawal Agreement

Her alleged red line of bringing “an end to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice in Britain” was always going to be a problem for Theresa May: After all, the UK’s commitment to comply with certain EU rules would inevitably mean that the ECJ’s interpretations of these rules would have to be binding on the UK. It is thus no surprise that the Withdrawal Agreement provides for the jurisdiction of the ECJ in various places. What is perhaps more of a surprise – and surely a negotiation win for the UK – is the EU’s legally problematic concession of an arbitration mechanism to resolve inter-party disputes over the interpretation of the Withdrawal Agreement.

Never Missing an Opportunity to Miss an Opportunity: The Council Legal Service Opinion on the Commission’s EU budget-related rule of law mechanism

Regrettably, we need to add the Council’s Legal Service to the list of key EU actors that seem intent on ignoring the existential threat to the Union posed by the spreading rule of law rot amongst EU member governments. In a (non-public) opinion on the proposed regulation of the Commission to create rule of law conditionality in the multi-annual financial framework adopted on 25 October 2018, the CLS indeed put forward multiple unpersuasive legal arguments to claim that the Commission’s proposal cannot be adopted. With this opinion, the CLS is advising the Council to actually prevent other institutions of the EU from doing their job to uphold and defend the set of common values on which the EU is based.