EU-Verfassungsrecht, verfassungsrechtlicher Rahmen der europäischen Integration und Mehrebenenverfassungsrecht. Umfasst EU-Institutionenrecht, Grundfreiheiten, EU-Grundrechte, verfassungsrechtliche Aspekte der EU-Mitgliedschaft und das Verhältnis zwischen EU-Recht und nationalen Verfassungsordnungen.
On June 1st, Polish voters rendered a fateful decision in the presidential election. Karol Nawrocki narrowly defeated Rafał Trzaskowski, the pro-European mayor of Warsaw. Nawrocki’s victory carries profound implications for Poland’s domestic trajectory. Moreover, despite what some commentators have argued, the new president might also well pose a threat for the European Union.
Advocate General Ćapeta delivered her Opinion regarding a violation of Article 2 TEU, which lies at the heart of the pending case before the CJEU – a case that bears, quite appropriately, the name “Valeurs de l’Union”. Her opinion is likely to cause a stir. Even though this is not the final judgment, it is unprecedented for Article 2 TEU to be declared justiciable and found to have been infringed.
Fünf Fragen an Till Patrik Holterhus
As EU officials arrive in Sofia to celebrate Bulgaria’s readiness for euro adoption, nationalist-fueled protests erupt in the streets. The tensions were triggered by President Rumen Radev’s unexpected call for a referendum on whether the country should join the euro on 1 January 2026 – despite Bulgaria having met all convergence criteria after years of effort. Far from a genuine democratic impulse, the move appears to be a populist gamble, trading legal commitments and European credibility for short-term political gain.
The so-called migrant crisis has been instrumentalized to promote ideas such as “massive invasion” and “the great replacement” – narratives that frame migrants as threats to public security and cultural identity. This rhetoric forms part of a broader phenomenon of othering, in which legal mechanisms are used to exclude and marginalize migrant populations. This text explores how EU migration law actively contributes to this process by reinforcing exclusionary narratives and practices. Drawing on postcolonial scholarship and the concept of borderization, it argues that EU legal frameworks regulate certain groups as undesirable or excessive, echoing colonial patterns of control. These exclusionary dynamics are not merely reflections of societal bias but are structurally embedded in EU law itself.
Since 22 May 2025, a disquieting letter has been circulating: nine leading EU politicians are calling for “a new and open-minded conversation about the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights,” with particular reference to migration. The signatories seek to explore whether “the Court, in some cases, has extended the scope of the Convention on Human Rights too far compared with the original intentions behind the Convention, thus shifting the balance between the interests that should be protected.” The letter raises not only political and ethical questions but also significant legal concerns.
A little-noticed Supreme Court order may pave the way for a dramatic expansion of presidential authority—overturning a 90-year-old precedent and weakening the independence of key regulatory agencies. In the hands of a would-be autocrat, the Supreme Court decision has delivered a serious blow to the constitutional system.
The Court of Justice’s judgment in Commission v Malta has created quite some upheaval. That the judgment has caught so many legal commentators wrong-footed can be attributed to the fact that both sides overwhelmingly come from the premise that Member States are sovereign to decide who their nationals are and that there is no such thing as a genuine link requirement for nationality. This blog takes a closer look at these alleged certainties, and sets out why the judgment is not that surprising at all – lifting the veil of untenable dogmas and mystifications that have surrounded Declaration No 2 and the Court’s Micheletti judgment for too long along the way.
Bulgaria’s civil society has much anticipated a key judgment by the CJEU as concerns over the entrenched capture and politicization of the Inspectorate with the Supreme Judicial Council (JI) continue to cast doubts about judicial independence and accountability in the country. Regrettably, however, the highly formalist ruling will hardly make a difference.
Fears are spreading that Italy, too, may be joining the club of EU Member States dismantling the rule of law. In this post, I will discuss three episodes that indeed lay bare a set of enduring constitutional tensions: the “Striano gate”; the “Paragon affair”; and the enactment of a Security Decree. While the actors involved are not the same in each story, the constitutional stakes are analogous: the proper use of coercive powers in a democracy and the traditional dichotomy between freedom and state authority. So, are we witnessing early signs of democratic regression?
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters