Post-populist Populism

Good news for democracy from Poland? It appears that in the recent general elections, the right-wing populist Law and Justice party (PiS), won most seats but not enough to allow it to form a coalition. Donald Tusk's Civic Coalition has a better chance of forming a coalition, which might put an end to PiS' eight years of rule. This, prima facie, seems like a victory of democracy over populism. While this is certainly true, in this post we wish to flag certain warning signs that this possible democratic rotation is not the end of the struggle for democracy but merely the beginning of this process. This is because even when populists are voted out of office, their legacy - at least partially - persists.

At a Snail’s Pace

By 1 April 2018, member states had to transpose an EU Directive on ‘the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings’. Bulgaria has not fully transposed it to this day, and consistently undermines it. Now, finally, the Commission has launched infringement proceecings. Preceding the announcement, the Commission rejected Rasosveta Vassileva's reasoned complaints on the same issue, as late as 2022. Her odyssey is a concerning tale on how EU institutions handle citizen alerts.

The Great Yes or the Great No

As we gear up for the most consequential elections in Poland since 1989, the situation on the ground after 8 years of the paranoid polarizing and no-holds-barred politics, forces all those concerned about the future, to ask where Poland is heading. On 14 October 2023, we must understand that POLEXIT is much more than a mere dispute over institutions, rule of law, judicial independence, etc. What is at stake now is incomparably greater. It is the defense of a certain way of life, values and belonging to a community of law and values, a civic Poland in Europe and Europe in civic Poland and finally of “Me and You” as part of Europe.

A Hidden Success

Following the EU General Court’s dismissal of the complaint of WS and other asylum seekers against Frontex in its ruling on September 6, 2023, scholarly commentary has largely expressed disappointment. However, a more optimistic way of reading the judgement is also possible. By declaring the lawsuit admissible, the court confirmed that factual misconduct by Frontex can be addressed with action for damages claims – and this in itself is a major step forward in the system of fundamental rights protection in the European Union.

Automated Decision-Making and the Challenge of Implementing Existing Laws

Who loves the latest shiny thing? Children maybe? Depends on the kid. Cats and dogs perhaps? Again, probably depends. What about funders, publishers, and researchers? Now that is an easier question to answer. Whether in talks provided by the tax-exempt ‘cult of TED’, or in open letters calling for a moratorium, the attention digital technologies receive today is extensive, especially those that are labelled ‘artificial intelligence’. This noise comes with calls for a new ad hoc human right against being subject to automated decision-making (ADM). While there is merit in adopting new laws dedicated to so-called AI, the procedural mechanisms that can implement existing law require strengthening. The perceived need for new substantive rules to govern new technology is questionable at best, and distracting at worst. Here we would like to emphasise the importance of implementing existing law more effectively in order to better regulate ADM. Improving procedural capacities across the legal frameworks on data protection, non-discrimination, and human rights is imperative in this regard.

The Comeback of the Mixed Chamber

Three years ago, in the wake of the Weiss judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court, we proposed the creation of a “Mixed Chamber” in the Court of Justice of the European Union, to rule in last instance on judicial disputes on points of Union competence. The rationale of a Chamber so composed is not obvious. After all, in a Union in which EU Law has primacy over national law, in which the autonomy of EU law is all-pervasive and where the Court of Justice is the ultimate interpreter of EU law, why should a Mixed Chamber be needed? We believe there are at least three good reasons that make a Mixed Chamber as salient as ever.

Europe’s Faustian Bargain

On Thursday, news broke that the German government had agreed to incorporating the previously rejected Crisis Regulation into the EU’s new asylum and migration pact. The decision was a radical change of course since Germany had previously consistently opposed its inclusion. Framed as allowing for more ‘flexibility’ in case of migratory surges, the Crisis Regulation’s adoption will, in effect, suspend the EU asylum system as we know it for the time being, given that recorded sea arrivals are currently nearing the 2015 levels. A crisis in need of regulation, if you will. In this blogpost, I highlight the dangerous fallacy that underpins our tolerance for the illegality that has come to characterize contemporary border control. In particular, our failure to oppose the constant expansion of the limits of the law that occurs in the name of crisis and political necessity rests on the mistaken assumption that we have nothing to lose in this race to the bottom. 

Verwaltung ohne Verantwortung

Mit Urteil vom 6. September 2023 hat das Gericht der Europäischen Union (EuG) in erster Instanz erstmalig über eine Schadensersatzklage geflüchteter Personen gegen die Europäische Agentur für die Grenz- und Küstenwache (Frontex) entschieden und die Klage abgewiesen. Politische und zivilgesellschaftliche Vereinigungen sowie die Wissenschaft weisen schon länger auf systemische Mängel bei der Geltendmachung von Rechtsverletzungen gegenüber Frontex hin. Die Entscheidung des EuG perpetuiert diese Mängel, weil sie Bewertungsmaßstäbe nicht berücksichtigt, die aus menschenrechtlicher Sicht geboten sind. Eine dogmatisch überzeugende Integration dieser Maßstäbe in das Unionsrecht würde die Rechte geflüchteter Personen wahren und so das unionale Recht auf effektiven Rechtsschutz stärken.

A Leap Towards Federalisation?

On September 13th, co-rapporteurs Guy Verhofstadt (Renew, BE), Sven Simon (EPP, DE), Gabriele Bischoff (S&D, DE), Daniel Freund (Greens/EFA, DE) and Helmut Scholz (The Left, DE) presented in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs of the European Parliament (AFCO) a wide and ambitious project of Treaty change. This short contribution will highlight and evaluate the most important proposals of AFCO's project and argue that, if adopted, the reform would further the Union’s federalisation, thus potentially changing its legal nature.

Migrant Instrumentalisation: Facts and Fictions

The last two years have seen recurring efforts to introduce the concept of instrumentalisation of migration into EU asylum law on a permanent basis. This post will demonstrate why the ‘instrumentalisation of migration’ is an overly simplified and generalised term that does not capture the complexities of the situation on the ground. Its adoption into EU asylum law thus threatens both to undermine legal certainty and bear far-reaching consequences for the Rule of Law in the EU.