Game of Chicken

Yesterday, on September 12th, the Israeli Supreme Court, sitting en banc, heard eight petitions challenging a hotly contested constitutional amendment. The Court has rarely sat en banc in the past, and this is the first time that it sits in a composition of fifteen justices, attesting to the importance that the Court attributes to this decision. The amendment modifies Basic Law: the Judiciary, which protects judicial independence, lays out the process of judicial selection for all the state courts and grants the Supreme Court the authority to supervise state action when the Court convenes in its capacity as a High Court of Justice. In this blog, I will explain each side’s arguments and the strategic considerations behind the Attorney General’s unprecedented move to push the Court to explicitly invalidate a constitutional amendment. I will show how both sides ultimately found themselves dragged into a game of chicken from which they could not back down.

The Price of Transatlantic Friendship

While the citizens of most EU Member States enjoy visa-free travel to the US, citizens of Bulgaria, Romania and Cyprus do not. Following the Commission’s repeated refusal to activate the reciprocity mechanism in EU visa law to remedy this inequality in access to visa-free travel, the European Parliament asked the CJEU whether the Commission was under an obligation to do so. The Court answered in the negative, holding instead that the Commission had wide discretion in this regard. Its reasoning centers the sensitive political nature that visa retaliation vis-á-vis the US implies, while failing to instill a sense of urgency in working towards equal treatment of EU citizens. This threatens to perpetuate a situation in which the advantages of supranational integration in the context of the Schengen acquis are permanently withheld from nationals of Romania, Bulgaria and Cyprus.

Shielding Frontex

In a landmark case, the EU General Court ruled this week on liability claims against Frontex for human rights violations - and rejected the damage claims. The case was the first of its kind concerning human rights responsibility of Frontex and had all the ingredients to prompt the General Court to finally clarify a number of pervasive and urgent questions concerning Frontex responsibility for complicity in unlawful human rights conduct. Instead, by conflating the wrongful conduct under scrutiny, the Court prevents a critical examination of Frontex’s conduct altogether. The significance of the case thus lies in the adopted approach by the Court, which, in effect, contributes to the systematic shielding of Frontex from any responsibility for contributions to human rights harms.

The False Hope of Israel’s Protestors

The Israel Supreme has become a major mobilizing source for the weekly mass protests against the reform that have been taking place in the last six months in many Israeli towns. Tens of thousands of liberals and conservatives rally around this institution, if not around anything else, confident that the Court is capable of preventing the government from irreversibly breaching the democratic walls. Unfortunately, this confidence is both unfounded and likely to sabotage the anti-reform movement. Given its past rulings and when keeping in mind the conservative nature of the institution of the Israeli judiciary, it is safe to say that the Israel Supreme Court will not be able to salvage the country from a democratic backsliding driven by a determined executive.

Europe’s Digital Constitution

In the United States, European reforms of the digital economy are often met with criticism. Repeatedely, eminent American voices called for an end to Europe’s “techno-nationalism.” However, this common argument focusing on digital protectionism is plausible, yet overly simplistic. Instead, this blog post argues that European digital regulations reflect a host of values that are consistent with the broader European economic and political project. The EU’s digital agenda reflects its manifest commitment to fundamental rights, democracy, fairness, and redistribution, as well as its respect for the rule of law. These normative commitments, and the laws implementing those commitments, can be viewed in aggregate as Europe’s digital constitution.

Decolonising Criminal Law?

On August 11, the last day of the ongoing session of Parliament, the Indian Government tabled a notice that it wished to introduce three new bills on the Floor of the House for consideration. These were proposed statutes to replace the holy trinity of Indian criminal law: The Indian Penal Code of 1860, the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973, and the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, were to be replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam respectively. Even though the reform was marketed as an attempt to break from the colonial origins of criminal law, it actually represents a resurgence of the colonial-style authoritarian approach, rather than an effort to build upon the relatively modest progress made half a century ago in advancing individual freedom and civil rights.

Direct Democracy and Indirect Electoral Campaign

In a last-minute attempt to grow voter presence at the booths on the 15th of October, Poland’s ruling party announced it would be combining the upcoming parliamentary elections with a referendum vote on not one, but four issues. This provides the governing powers with an additional electoral campaign just for them – misnamed as the referendum – to draw public attention to the questions asked. After all, they were drafted by those seeking reelection and focus on matters most used in their political agenda.

Fremdkörper im Strafprozess

Nach der Vorstellung des Lagebildes „Clankriminalität Berlin 2022“ fordert die Berliner Innensenatorin Iris Spranger öffentlichkeitswirksam eine Beweislastumkehr im Recht der Vermögensabschöpfung für Fälle mit Bezug zur sog. Clankriminalität. Damit erlangt die Entwicklung der vermögensabschöpfungsrechtlichen Debatte ihren vorläufigen, allerdings keineswegs überraschenden Tiefpunkt. Neben erheblichen verfassungsrechtlichen und strafprozessrechts-dogmatischen Bedenken, die gegen diesen Vorstoß sprechen, stellt sich die Frage, ob das Abschöpfungsbesteck des geltenden Rechts nicht gleichermaßen in der Lage wäre, diese Operation durchzuführen.

On the State of Academia in India

The Economics Department at India’s Ashoka University received an unexpected visit from the Federal Intelligence Bureau. The reason for this visit was a paper titled ‘Democratic Backsliding in the World’s Largest Democracy’ by Sabyasachi Das, an economist. In his research, Das meticulously examined 11 contested seats during India’s 2019 general elections and uncovered imbalanced outcomes that favored the ruling party, BJP. Das noted that ‘the results point to strategic and targeted electoral discrimination against Muslims, in the form of deletion of names from voter lists and suppression of their votes during election, in part facilitated by weak monitoring by election observers.’ The subsequent visit by the Federal Intelligence Bureau is just one among several incidents that highlight the precarious state of academic freedom in India.

Not With a Bang But a Whimper

The European Union’s smallest Member State saw a significant decree delivered on primacy last month. Yet, even domestically, this bomb exploded in the middle of a desert; little to no noise came of it nationally or at the EU level. On the face of it, this is undoubtedly a major legal development – the first of its kind since Malta’s EU accession in 2004. The flawed interpretation offered by the Court says much about the fundamental importance of constitutional reform and is not, as such, a sign of institutional anti-EU sentiment… yet. However, as the main (and practically only) media report on the case concluded, what happens next is anyone’s guess. Constitutional reform in Malta must be put squarely back on the table before it’s too late.