Sind Staaten auch nur Menschen?

Grundrechte sind für Menschen da, nicht für Staaten. Das ist nach deutscher Verfassungsdoktrin so selbstverständlich, dass man sich kaum traut es hinzuschreiben. Der Staat hat keine Grundrechte, kann schon aus denklogischen Gründen keine haben. Grundrechte binden die öffentliche Gewalt: Sie sollen ihr nicht Freiheit geben, sondern welche nehmen. Gilt das auch für europäische Grundrechte? Das könnte zweifelhaft erscheinen, wenn man das heute verkündete Urteil Bank Mellat des Europäischen Gerichtshofs ansieht.

Human Dignity and Constitutional Identity: The Solange-III-Decision of the German Constitutional Court

As long as the German constitution is in force, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany intends to enforce the right to human dignity, law of the European Union not withstanding. It is going to enforce that right not only against conflicting Union law if necessary, but also parallel to its European protections. That is the central message of the court's historic decision of January 26th, 2016, in its second European arrest warrant case.

Blutige Nase im Endspiel oder im Freundschaftsspiel? Eindrücke von der zweiten Karlsruher Verhandlung im OMT-Verfahren

Was ist von der Entscheidung des BVerfG in Sachen OMT zu erwarten? Auch wenn man sich dafür ein wenig aus dem Fenster lehnen muss, so scheint doch vorstellbar, dass das Gericht seine Rechtsprechung zur Integrationsverantwortung um ein weiteres Element bereichern wird: eine als Minderheitenrecht ausgestaltete Befugnis des Bundestages, über Art. 23 Ia GG hinaus Nichtigkeitsklagen nach Art. 263 I, II AEUV vor dem Gerichtshof wegen Kompetenzverletzungen zu erheben. Andere mögliche Urteilsaussprüche wie z.B. eine Befassungspflicht des Bundestages mit behaupteten Kompetenzüberschreitungen blieben dann doch eher symbolhaft, auch wenn der Senat einen gewissen Glauben in die legitimatorische Kraft solcher Debatten erkennen ließ. Wie auch immer die Lösung des Gerichts aussehen wird: sie wird sich voraussichtlich auf den Maßstabsteil beschränken.

Hitting where it hurts the most: Hungary’s legal challenge against the EU’s refugee quota system

Following the drama and confusion on the South-Eastern borders of the EU in the hot summer of 2015, the EU and the Member States adopted a Council Decision which introduced a quota system for the distribution and settlement of asylum seekers and migrants. Its aim was to establish a regime for the fair sharing of burdens among the Member States. This quota system was opposed and subsequently challenged before the EU Court of Justice by Hungary, one of the worst affected EU Member States, by which it affirmed its position as a Member State which regards the Union primarily as an arena for vindicating its national interests, and which is not hesitant to prioritise its own interests, mainly in areas which fall within competences retained by the Member States, over those of other Member States and of the Union.

On the new Legal Settlement of the UK with the EU

In this brief comment I discuss some of the legal questions that arise out of the proposals for a new settlement between the UK and the EU.[1] As I will show, the precise nature of the draft agreement is unclear. This legal instrument raises difficult issues of both EU and public international law and could potentially cause serious uncertainty or even a constitutional crisis. Press reports have missed this legal complexity. Ministerial statements have been silent about it.

What will happen if the Dutch vote ›No‹ in the Referendum on the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement?

On 6 April 2016, a referendum on the approval of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement will be held in the Netherlands. This is the direct result of a new law that gives citizens the right to initiate a so-called ‘corrective’ referendum to refute decisions taken at the political level. If the "No" camp prevails, as polls suggest it will, that would not be a victory for democracy as proclaimed by the Dutch initiators of the referendum but rather the opposite. Allowing a relatively small part of the population in a relatively small member state to block the entry into force of an agreement which is approved by the national parliaments of 29 countries and the European Parliament would be very cynical. It would also undermine the consistency and legitimacy of the EU’s external action taking into account that other, largely comparable agreements would remain unaffected.

Why Tusk’s Proposal is not so Bad

Should the other EU member states rebuff the UK’s reform demands and seize the opportunity to amend the Constitutional treaties instead? Unlike Federico Fabbrini, who in his post of the 3rd of February proposed they should, I will argue that European integration doesn’t follow a linear path, and it may therefore be necessary to give in to some requests. This would not lead to EU disintegration.

Ganz, aber doch nur teilweise – die Beteiligung des Deutschen Bundestages an gemischten völkerrechtlichen Abkommen der EU

Die Bundesregierung und der Deutsche Bundestag streiten zurzeit über die Notwendigkeit der Zustimmung zur Ratifikation des Wirtschaftspartnerschaftsabkommens zwischen Westafrika und der Europäischen Union. Es liegt auf der Hand, dass im Hintergrund der Ratifikationsfrage die weitreichende innenpolitische Debatte zu TTIP steht. In diesem Beitrag sollen die Rechtsfragen, die sich im Hinblick auf die Zustimmung zur Ratifikation des WTA als (nach Unionsrecht) gemischtem Abkommen stellen, kurz systematisch aufbereitet werden.

President Tusk’s Proposal for a New Settlement for the UK in the EU: Fueling – not Taming – EU Disintegration

The European Union is at the crossroad. On 17 February the European Council will deal with the United Kingdom’s request to renegotiate the terms of its EU membership. The British Conservative government has committed to holding a referendum on withdrawal from the EU before the end of 2017. At the same time, the British Prime Minister has opened negotiations with its European partners, asking for a »new deal« between the UK and the EU. In particular, Mr. David Cameron advanced four requests: the UK should be legally exempted from participating to the project of »an ever closer union«; national parliaments ... continue reading