Medienfreiheit als europäische Tradition

Über den Entwurf des Europäischen Medienfreiheitsgesetzes (EMFA) und seine Auswirkungen auf die Unabhängigkeit der Nationalstaaten im Bereich der Medien wird derzeit lebhaft diskutiert. Ein Vorwurf war besonders häufig zu hören: Der Entwurf des EMFA sei der neuste Versuch Brüssels, die Souveränität östlicher Mitgliedstaaten mit Rechtsstaatlichkeit-Defizitzu unterminieren. Dieser Beitrag stellt sich diesem Vorwurf entgegen. Oft wird nämlich vergessen, dass die Regulierung europäischer Medien zwecks Sicherung des Medienpluralismus weder eine neue Forderung ist, noch historisch einen engen Bezug zu den östlichen Mitgliedstaaten aufweist. Im Gegenteil, das Streben nach einer Harmonisierung des Medienpluralismus und der Medienfreiheit ist ein seit Jahrzehnten immer wiederkehrendes Vorhaben in der EU. Die EMFA als ‚neuesten‘ Versuch Brüsseler Einflussnahme auf Osteuropa darzustellen ist daher schlicht ahistorisch.

Strawberry Fields Forever

Reading the brilliant blog post of my colleague Teresa Navarro, one may get the impression that the situation in Doñana is principally the epitome of an ongoing electoral process. However, the threats to the ecological integrity of that unique natural space emanate from the very origins that justified its protection. The current crisis is but the culmination of the constant and serious threats, caused by the proposed bill to legalize new irrigation and aggravated by incompetence and lack of responsibility of the state, regional and local authorities ignoring the requirements of EU law.

The National Case for Reforming the EU Treaties

Four arguments of either explicit or implicit importance in encouraging states to engage in Treaty reform in this ‘reform period’ are of decisive importance again now. Many of these arguments have already found their way into political discourse (for example into the cautious opening of the German government to Treaty reform) while others have not. The key to making the national case for Treaty reform may therefore lie in demonstrating to the Member States that these factors make opening-up the Treaties in their national interest.

Europas Werk und Deutschlands Beitrag

Menschenrechte werden in stürmischen Zeiten erkämpft. Und bleiben umkämpft. Wir sind aktuell Zeug:innen davon, wie in der Flüchtlingspolitik – wieder einmal - menschenrechtlich erkämpfte Prinzipien in rasanter Geschwindigkeit offen infrage gestellt werden. Als SPD, Grüne und FDP 2021 ihren Koalitionsvertrag unterzeichneten, wollten sie das »Leid an den Außengrenzen« beenden. Nichts weniger als einen »Paradigmenwechsel« versprach die Ampel. Seit kurzer Zeit ist nun bekannt, dass die Bundesregierung von diesem Vorhaben entschieden abgerückt ist. In einem ersten Schritt hat sie eine äußerst restriktive Verhandlungsposition zur Reform des Gemeinsamen Europäischen Asylsystems (GEAS) eingenommen, die Anfang Juni im Rat der Europäischen Union debattiert wird.

Trading Rights for Responsibility

The newly published compromise text of the Asylum Procedures Regulation (APR) suggests to render border procedures mandatory in some cases, while also permitting first-entry states to derogate from them once their “adequate capacity” is reached. This adaptable approach to the use of border procedures seeks to resolve a long-standing disagreement between central EU countries and first-entry states. While the former consider the obligatory use of border procedures necessary to prevent onwards or  ‘secondary’ movement of asylum-seekers, southern EU states argue that their mandatory use would place a further strain on their resources and overburden their capacities for processing asylum claims. This blogpost first explains the problems with border procedures, reviews their role in increasing responsibility of first-entry states, and explains why the new compromise Draft is unlikely to resolve the disagreement between first-entry states and other Members States.

Automated predictive threat detection after Ligue des Droits Humains

The Ligue des droits humains ruling regarding automated predictive threat detection has implications for the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) Regulation and the EU Commission’s proposal for a Regulation on combating online child sexual abuse material (CSAM). Both legal instruments entail the use of potentially self-learning algorithms, and are spiritual successors to the PNR Directive (the subject of Ligue des droits humains).

The UK vs the ECtHR

In recent months, the UK government has tabled two Bills - the Bill of Rights Bill and the Illegal Migration Bill - before Parliament which would have the consequence - and almost certainly have the intention - of setting the UK on a collision course with the Council of Europe, and especially the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). This post details how these Bills serve to undermine the UK’s obligations under the ECHR and explains their significance within the larger debate surrounding the UK’s possible withdrawal from the Convention. It places this debate in the context of the rarely-convened Council of Europe summit of heads of state and government in Reykjavik in May 2023, whose ambitious agenda is to protect the ‘common heritage’ of respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law in the face of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and other existential threats.

Flexible Responsibility or the End of Asylum Law as We Know It?

On March 21 2023, the Council released a revised draft proposal for an Asylum and Migration Management Regulation (AMMR). It reintroduces the concept of ‘flexible responsibility’ — or ‘adaptable responsibility’ — into the EU’s migration management. Already included in the controversial Instrumentalisation Regulation of 14 December 2021, flexible responsibility is the idea that Member States should be allowed to derogate from normally applicable asylum standards when faced with sudden migratory pressures. While the Instrumentalisation Regulation was rejected in December 2022, this post will detail how the new AMMR draft threatens to reintroduce the idea of flexible/adaptable derogations — including, potentially, those originally foreseen in the Instrumentalisation Regulation — into the EU’s asylum framework and why we should reject it.

Cannabis-Legalisierung light in Deutschland

Kurz nach Ostern 2023 hat der Bundesgesundheitsminister Karl Lauterbach die Pläne zur Cannabis-Legalisierung der Regierungskoalition vorgestellt. Von der im Koalitionsvertrag vereinbarten Total-Legalisierung ist nicht viel übriggeblieben. Waren die Legalisierungsdebatte und die entsprechenden Konzepte bis dahin durch eine bemerkenswerte Ignoranz gegenüber der EU und ihren Vorgaben geprägt, wurden die neuen Pläne einem europarechtlichen Realitätscheck unterzogen. Das ist gut so. Trotzdem ist Lauterbachs Konzept weiterhin extrem ambitioniert und unionsrechtlich auf Kante genäht.

Closure and Continuity

Trade, sovereignty, rights and freedoms, courts, and constitutional change are lenses through which we can examine how two politically, culturally, and linguistically inextricably linked common law countries have defined their diverging relationship with the EU. 50 years on the divergence is complete. The UK is now a third country, charting a future outside the EU, while Ireland remains one of 27 Member States reporting high levels of trust and support for the EU. Hence 50 years on we have both the desire for closure (for the UK) and continuity (for Ireland). In fact, we argue that closure and continuity are necessary for the relations between both states and their relationship with the EU now and in the next half century.