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.
Jetzt ist es also tatsächlich passiert: Das polnische Verfassungsgericht verneint in einem zentralen Bereich die Bindung an Entscheidungen des EuGH. Mit dem prinzipiellen Vorrang des Europarechts steht damit eine der fundamentalen Säulen der europäischen Integration in Frage. Ist der Vorgang vergleichbar mit dem, was das deutsche Bundesverfassungsgericht im PSPP-Urteil getan hat?
Nachdem nun die Europäische Kommission angekündigt hat, sie werde das Urteil des BVerfG zum Gegenstand eines Vertragsverletzungsverfahrens machen, hat der frühere Gerichtspräsident Andreas Vosskuhle die Vermutung geäußert, dass die Europäische Kommission und der EuGH in einem kollusiven Zusammenwirken danach strebten, die Europäische Union unter der Hand in einen europäischen Bundesstaat zu verwandeln. Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen den beiden höchsten Gerichten entwickelt sich damit zu einem subkutan ausgetragenen Verfassungsdrama, das allmählich auch eine breitere Öffentlichkeit beunruhigen muss.
On 21 April 2021, the European Commission proposed the world’s first Artificial Intelligence Act, with the intention to explicitly protect the rule of law against the “rule of technology”. Despite this expressed goal, the normative power of the regulation raises serious concerns from the perspective of fundamental rights protection.
One might wonder whether the Commission’s attack on its “friends” in Germany is designed simply to detract attention away from its impotence in the face of growingly-explicit authoritarianism in the Orbán and Kaczyński orbits. We might dismiss the matter with a wry smile were it not for that fact that the Commission is also attacking honest efforts to solve the rule of law dilemmas posed by the original sin of the construction of Economic Union, as well as the well-meaning judicial search for solution to the impossible supremacy-sovereignty conundrum. The PSPP Judgment is far from perfect and has unleashed sometimes rough controversies; however, the tacit approval given to the Commission by so many in their silence about the new proceedings can surely only act to shore up authoritarian egos, concomitantly foreclosing creative judicial responses to our on-going European dilemma of how to maintain and strengthen the rule of law in integration.
Judges are prominent actors with a significant impact on European integration. Yet, no references to them appear in the Joint Declaration on the Conference on the Future of Europe. This corresponds to a view, unsustainable in the age of extensive access to information, that judges sit in ivory towers and speak exclusively through their decisions that other actors then explain to the broader public.
What limits does European Union (EU) law impose on Member States invoking national security to temporarily re-introduce border controls within the Schengen Area? This question will be answered soon by the European court of Justice (ECJ) in the joined cases C-368/20 NW v Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark and C-369/20 NW v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Leibnitz.
UEFA's stance on the rainbow flag has generated attention around the world. The disciplinary proceedings against Manuel Neuer by UEFA show: sport governing bodies still massively limit the freedom of political expressions by the athletes during big sporting events.
On 16 June, by two parallel orders, the EU Court of Justice said the last word on the legality of advocate general Sharpston’s divestment. In the end, the Court did little more than reiterate the press statement it made in response to the member states’ declaration on the subject. The member states made a legitimate decision based on an old custom, and the Court could do nothing but oblige.
Five years after the Brexit referendum, the legal stalemate on the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland the impasse between the UK and the EU continues, despite the conclusion of the Withdrawal Agreement and the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. While the concept of “state civil disobedience” could be applied to the UK government’s actions since, this is an inappropriate means to conceptualise the conflict. Instead, the more familiar concept of legally justified exceptions to obligations would have been a more appropriate means of pre-empting the dispute during the creation of the Protocol.
Most EU lawyers have already seen it looming on the horizon: On 16 June 2021, former Advocate General Eleanor Sharpston lost the legal dispute against her former employer, the European Court of Justice. Although the outcome in this regard was predictable, the decision is overall somewhat unsatisfying. The CJEU seems to be of that opinion in finding that Sharpston’s mandate ended automatically with the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU. The Court does so without revealing its legal considerations and interpretation of EU primary law in its reasoning.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters