Der Preis der Deeskalation

Mitten in einer transatlantischen Zollschlacht hat die Europäische Union einem US-Handelsdiktat zugestimmt, das einen drohenden Handelskrieg abwendet – und zugleich fundamentale verfassungsrechtliche Fragen aufwirft. Hat Brüssel aus Notwendigkeit seine Prinzipien preisgegeben? Oder beweist der Deal die bemerkenswerte Elastizität des EU-Verfassungsraums unter äußerem Zwang? Zwar schafft das Abkommen kurzfristig Stabilität, langfristig aber lotet es die Grenzen von Kompetenzen, Demokratie und Rechtsstaatlichkeit in der EU aus – eine Gratwanderung zwischen Souveränität und Submission.

“We Were Just Cooperating!”

On June 12th 2025, Advocate General (AG) Ćapeta delivered her Opinion in Case WS v Frontex (C-746/23 P), concerning Frontex’ responsibility for violations of fundamental rights in joint return operations (JROs). The AG first exposes serious logical and legal flaws in the General Court’s approach before explaining why Frontex can be held directly accountable for fundamental rights violations when acting in cooperation with Member States; a question that was central to the applicants’ case but one that the General Court failed to address entirely.

The Legal Profession in the Executive Branch

The Trump administration is reshaping the roles of the U.S. legal profession and the civil service to use them as a tool to support the President’s political interests. This impacts an understudied and politically significant group of bureaucrats: government lawyers. They play a critical gatekeeper role in establishing legal principles that can both enable and hinder the systematic weakening of democratic institutions. The case of Brazil has a lot of important lessons to offer.

Frontex vor dem EuGH

Der EuGH hatte in seinem viel kritisierten Urteil vom 6. September 2023 (T-600/21, WS u.a. v. Frontex) im Fall der rechtswidrigen Rückführung einer sechsköpfigen Familie den Zurechnungszusammenhang und damit die deliktische Haftung der EU-Agentur verneint. Aktuell sind EuGH und EGMR erneut mit einer Vielzahl an Fällen befasst, die operative Rückführungsmaßnahmen betreffen. Die nunmehr in der Revision in der Rechtssache WS u.a. v. Frontex ergangenen Schlussanträge machen deutlich, dass der EuGH wesentlichen Fragen in Bezug auf die Verantwortlichkeit von Frontex ausgewichen ist.

Bullying Universities

David Pozen at Columbia University calls Columbia University’s new agreement with the federal government “regulation by deal.” In regulation by deal, the administration foregoes the process of developing general standards to be enforced by regularized processes, all under the watchful eyes of courts, and instead bargains directly with each institution to be regulated, striking a bespoke arrangement with each. It’s a strategy that uses the power of the government outside the development of general rules and therefore outside the law.   

Can The EU Levy Its Own Taxes?

The budgetary dance in the EU budgetary cycle always starts early and seems to follow similar patterns: the heads of state assess their positions, the press then divides them into camps (usually a frugal and an expansionist one), and the European Commission proposes measures that would expand the Union's budgetary autonomy. With the announcement of a new “Corporate Resource for Europe” (“CORE”), the Commission has relaunched an age-old debate: can the Union levy its own taxes, and if so, on what legal basis?

Suspension of EU Association Agreements Does Not Require Unanimity

In its meeting on 15 July 2025, the Council of the EU failed to adopt concrete measures vis-à-vis Israel, limiting itself to an “exchange of views on an inventory of possible follow-up measures”. This hesitant approach stands in contrast to clear indications that Israel is in breach of its human rights obligations under Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement (AA), and to the EU’s own obligation to work towards consolidating human rights and the principles of public international law pursuant to Article 21 TEU. While a suspension of the entire AA was never really foreseeable, an important question relates to the voting threshold within the Council that would apply to such a decision relating to the AA.

Copyright, AI, and the Future of Internet Search before the CJEU

With Like Company v Google, the first groundbreaking AI copyright case is now headed to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). In this case, a Hungarian press publisher challenges Google and its Gemini chatbot for reproducing and communicating its editorial content without authorisation. The Court’s decision will establish the legal framework for AI’s relationship with copyright and press publishers’ rights across the EU. It will potentially reshape how generative AI systems can or cannot lawfully access, process and reproduce journalistic and other protected content. This may even fundamentally affect the economic and technical architecture of future AI development.

Turkey’s Gerontocratic Constitutional Moment

In less than a year, Turkish politics has undergone a profound realignment. It began in October 2024 with a remarkable speech by Devlet Bahçeli, leader of the far-right Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and President Erdoğan’s chief coalition partner. In one of the most cryptic U-turns of his career, Bahçeli—long a hardliner on the Kurdish question—proposed reopening the long-frozen peace process with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), the separatist armed group that has waged a decades-long insurgency against the Turkish state. In short, the tectonic plates of Turkish politics are shifting, and at the center of this transition stands a cast of aging men, each well past seventy.

Petro’s Schmittian Turn

On 11 June 2025, Colombian President Gustavo Petro issued a decree calling a national popular consultation on a package of long-stalled social reforms. The decree came after the Senate had explicitly rejected his formal request to hold such a vote – approval that is constitutionally required under Article 104 of the Constitution. This reveals something deeper and more dangerous: an increasingly Schmittian conception of democratic power, in which the president, claiming to represent a unified people, overrides institutional checks in the name of higher constitutional fidelity.