Of Asymmetries, Aspirations and…Values, too

How are the transnational legal order (“TLO”) and transnational governance affected by the democratic backsliding, authoritarianism and populism? As painfully evidenced by the Polish and Hungarian cases, the system of governance and constitutional design of the European TLO have been in error of “normative asymmetry”: transnational authority to ensure that the states remain liberal democracies has not been effectively translated into the transnational law and remedies. In order to make the TLO more responsive to the democratic threats, however, it is crucial to take on the challenges that go beyond institutional and procedural tinkering.

A Draft is no Infringement

In the last few weeks, little more has been said about the infringement action launched by the Commission against the UK at the beginning of October for failure to fulfil obligations under EU law in relation to the Withdrawal Agreement.  However, not only has this not gone away, but the recent ratcheting up of ‘no deal’ tensions means that a claim may soon be made on the so-called insurance policy (the controversial clauses in the UK Internal Market Bill), turning the threatened breach into an actual one.  After the Bill becomes law, and assuming that the controversial clauses remain, a minister may use those clauses to pass a statutory instrument, for example, forbidding any checks to be carried out on goods travelling from Great Britain into Northern Ireland.  Some would argue that the threat is bad enough and itself justifies an infringement action.  That may be so.  However, the Commission’s action is still premature.

Towards a European Court of Fundamental Rights

With its judgments on bulk data retention issued at the beginning of this month, the European Court of Justice has entitled itself to examine virtually all surveillance measures in the digital sphere. In doing so, it has once more clarified its positioning as the decisive Fundamental Rights Court in Europe. In the midst of the ultra vires-storm caused by the PSPP-judgement of the Bundesverfassungsgericht – and questions arising with regard to German Legal Hegemony in Europe – a true shift of power to the ECJ can be spotted which is, surprisingly, supported by the national constitutional courts.

Constitutionalising the EU Foreign and Security Policy

In the appeal case of Bank Refah Kargaran v Council (C-134/19 P), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has held that the EU Courts have jurisdiction over claims for damages in the area of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). This is coherent with the rationale of the exceptional exclusion of jurisdiction under CFSP and confirms that the Union’s commitment to the rule of law extends to CFSP.

Rule of (German) Law?

As I see it, the central question is whether Germany, just as it is an economic and a political power in the EU, is also a legal power. This would, of course, beg the question whether this notion makes sense by itself. Is it permitted to speak of legal power in the way it is preached for other forms of power? And supposing the notion applies to Germany as a Member State of the EU, may this national condition be aptly described as hegemonic? The ultimate question behind the questions just mentioned would be ‘How can this problem be tackled?’, assuming that it indeed turns out to be a problem.

Goodbye Vorratsdaten­speicherung

Der Europäische Gerichtshof (EuGH) ist standhaft geblieben: Eine anlasslose Massenüberwachung der EU-Bürgerinnen und Bürger kann es nicht geben. Zum bereits dritten Mal haben die Luxemburger Richter klargestellt, dass eine allgemeine und unterschiedslose Vorratsdatenspeicherung (VDS) aller Kommunikationsdaten der EU-Bürgerinnen und Bürger mit den europäischen Grundrechten nicht vereinbar ist. Sie erklärten einige nationale Regelungen vor allem in Frankreich und Großbritannien für unvereinbar mit der Europäischen Grundrechtecharta und der E-Privacy-Richtlinie.

Finally: The CJEU Defends Academic Freedom

The CJEU’s judgment against Hungary in the CEU case is the first major judicial pronouncement by a European court on the institutional dimension of academic freedom as a fundamental human right. Infringement action has become the surprise weapon in the Commission’s rule of law toolbox. The initial surprise is a thing of the past: over the years the Hungarian government has built some defenses of its own, using familiar components of the European constitutional architecture in service of illiberal democracy.