The Reform of the EU Fiscal Rules

The reform of European economic governance has been in the air for quite some time, but it was not until 2023 that the Commission put forward the most substantial development since the Maastricht Treaty. In April 2024, the European Parliament, along with the Council, approved all three legislative proposals. These measures strengthen European economic security by protecting the sustainability of the Union's debt. Without examining the legislations’ details, this blog post reveals a propensity within EU economic governance towards neo-protectionism of the EU’s financial interests.

Ten Commandments to Stifle Academic Freedom

Since 2010, the beginning of the populist takeover and the authoritarian transition, Hungary has gathered a lot of experience on how to dismantle academic freedom. This knowledge can be useful for other autocrats as well. But even if we don’t want to give them tips on how to repeat what happened and is happening in this country, it might still be worth reconstructing how it all took place. This can be especially useful for calculating what to expect from autocrats and preparing how to defend against them.

Overcoming Big Tech AI Merger Evasions: Innovating EU Competition Law through the AI Act

To develop AI, computing power and access to data (aka bigness) are crucial. Now, Big Tech companies appear evading EU competition law. Companies like Google and Microsoft evade the EU Merger Regulation by entering partnerships with smaller AI labs that fall short of shifting ownership but nevertheless increase the monopolistic power of Big Tech. These quasi-mergers are particularly problematic in the context of generative AI, which relies even more than many other services on incredibly vast computing power. That is a dire state from an economic as well as a more fundamental and democratic perspective, as concentrating economic might in the hands of very few companies may cause problems down the road.

Long Live Nottebohm

Next year, Nottebohm will be turning 70. Only very recently, Weiler, on this blog, made the point that the argument of a genuine link – underpinning the case of the Commission against the Maltese golden passport scheme – is unconvincing and rests on a “tendentious reading of Nottebohm”. Yet, in Commission v Malta, the CJEU may well reinvigorate a European debate about the genuine links that bind us. I, for once, would argue it is high time to make the point that nationality is not just anything a State makes of it.

The Ball is in the Game

In 2017 strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) became an important topic on the EU level. As a result, the EU adopted the anti-SLAPP Directive, which shall protect journalists from abusive lawsuits that do not serve justice but only the sinister aim of silencing free press. However, there is important litigation as well. In 2024 the Real Madrid Club de Fútbol vs Le Monde case addressed the problem of exorbitant damages targeting press and introducing a deterrent effect on freedom of speech in transnational cases. From a rule of law and, especially, freedom of the press angle, the case is of paramount importance as it forwards a simple but groundbreaking argument: two of EU law’s most fundamental principles, mutual recognition and freedom of speech, are a strong basis to fight SLAPPs.

Pushbacks From Europe’s Borders Enter the Mainstream

The Polish reckoning with the illiberal turn of the past years seemingly does not apply to the unlawful practice of pushbacks on the Poland-Belarus border. The unlawful practices, best exemplified by pushbacks, have come to be accepted in the European mainstream. The humanitarian crisis on the Poland-Belarus border and its handling by the new government, together with its rejection of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, vividly illustrates this point.

A Proposal Towards a European Defence Union

In the context of profound (geo-)political changes, and following the Conference on the Future of Europe, the European Parliament (EP) adopted proposals for a Treaty reform for the area of defence. This blog post analyses the proposed formation of the European Defence Union (EDU) and the introduction of qualified majority voting (QMV) while concluding that the new framework would likely create contradictory outcomes and undesirably challenge the current constitutional balance.

»Very Tight Control«

In 2020, at the height of the Covid crisis, the EU had its 'Hamiltonian Moment'. To overcome the pandemic's economic shock, Member States agreed to back an unprecedented, capital markets-based 750 billion Euro funding scheme to kickstart the European economy. However, since then, it proved surprisingly hard to make sense of where all the money went. Apparently, one main oversight body is a rather informal committee of Member States. Now, internal documents paint a picture of peer scrutiny that remains at a general level, is conducted under tight deadlines, and is strongly limited by scarce resources. They also reveal an evolution of the process to a point what looks much like a mere formality.

A Non-EU Rule of Law Commission

In March, the European Parliament decided to sue the European Commission over a quid pro quo exchange of European Union funds with Hungary for support of Ukraine EU accession. This lawsuit marks a striking culmination of a years-long failure on the part of the Commission to protect the rule of law. Given frustrating delays from Brussels, this blog post proposes a non-EU accountability mechanism—a so-called Rule of Law Commission—to bolster and reinforce commitments to rule of law issues among European states.

A Rejoinder to Citizenship for Sale (Commission v Malta)

In his piece on Citizenship for Sale of 14 April 2024, Joseph Weiler criticizes the European Commission's infringement procedure against Malta's golden passport scheme. He names three reasons why the Commission should (or could) not have brought the case and the Court should not uphold it. While the present reply does not argue that the Court will necessarily find in the Commission's favour, the Commission's legal claim and strategy do not seem to be as (constitutionally) problematic as Weiler make them out to be.