When Will the EU Commission Act?

When can we expect the European Commission to launch an infringement action against the “muzzle law”? When will the European Commission act to sanction Polish authorities’ refusal to comply with the Court of Justice’s A. K. preliminary ruling of 19 November 2019? When will the European Commission apply for financial sanctions following Polish authorities’ public refusal to immediately and fully comply with the Court of Justice’s interim relief order of 8 April 2020 in respect of the so-called “disciplinary chamber”? When will the European Commission launch an infringement action in respect of the unlawful actions of the so-called “Constitutional Tribunal”?

On Doctrinal Contortions and Legal Fetishes

There seems to be a belief – especially persistent among some EU legal scholars – that even the largest political problems can be solved through the law. It suggests that any balance of authority and legitimacy between the EU and the Member States is, in fact, a mere technicality of institutional configuration, and a mere doctrinal sleight of hand would suffice to tip the scale of authority one way or another. This belief also seems to be underlying a recent blogpost by Christophe Hillion.

Corona Constitutional #16: Scheidung auf Europäisch

Wenn Polen und Ungarn sich erkennbar nicht mehr an das EU-Recht gebunden fühlen - was ist das dann anderes als eine Erklärung, nicht mehr Mitglied in der Europäischen Union sein zu wollen? Der Weg zum Polexit bzw. Hungrexit geht über Artikel 50 des EU-Vertrags, und CHRISTOPHE HILLION schlägt dem Rat vor, diesen Weg notfalls auch ohne das Einverständnis von Polen und Ungarn zu beschreiten. Ob und wie das europarechtlich genau funktionieren würde, bespricht Max Steinbeis mit dem Professor für EU-Recht in unserer heutigen Podcast-Folge.

It’s not about Bathroom Policies, it’s about Constitutional Principles

The United States Supreme Court is expected to soon deliver its judgment in the first transgender rights case before it. In the absence of federal laws protecting transgender persons from discrimination, the case revolves around the question whether the prohibition of discrimination ‘because of … sex’ transgender discrimination. The US Supreme Court appears to turn this into a question of political deliberation, bathroom policies and dress codes. The ECJ, on the other hand, instead of getting lost in policy discussions, has already in 1996 recognized the protection of transgender persons against discrimination based on the core constitutional principle of equality. The ECJ’s approach does in fact have a foothold under US case law and the US Supreme Court could seize the opportunity to bring transgender persons closer to enjoying the same rights as the general population.

A »Marshall Plan« for Rule of Law in Europe

In the past weeks, the European judges have been confronted in multiple ways by the Covid19 crisis. The challenges for judiciary were exceptional: the willingness to serve our fellow citizens, providing solidarity and support, in times of plague; the duty to supervise, as broadly as permitted by political authorities, the lawfulness of emergency measures; the emergent call to deal with the negative consequences of judicial lockdowns for the efficiency of courts and, moreover, the anxiety arising from the need to look after one’s own health and that of others, in particular witnesses, litigants or other citizens present in court.

Domestic Courts Pushing for a Workable Test to Protect the Rule of Law in the EU

On 17 February 2020, the Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe passed a decision in a surrender case that we expect to shape the future of the LM-test. Its decision can be seen not only as a result of Luxembourg’s unworkable LM test but also as an acknowledgement of the effect of Poland’s muzzle law on the independence of its judiciary. Shortly after, Rechtbank Amsterdam engaged with this decision, thus making it more likely that the CJEU will have to move forward and develop its test into a more meaningful one.

Europa als Haftungsunion – Europa scheitert an deutschen »Juristen«

Die aktuelle Diskussion um Coronabonds basiert auf der falschen Vorstellung, dass nationale Regierungen ihre Ausgaben durch den Verkauf von Anleihen an „die Märkte“ finanzieren. Während emotional „Solidarität“ eingefordert wird, haben EZB und EU die Weichen schon gestellt, damit sich eine Eurokrise mit Austeritätspolitik nicht wiederholt. Dies wird allerdings mittelfristig nicht ausreichen. Der Euro wird scheitern, wenn die Deutschen nicht einsehen, dass ihre „Juristen“ das Problem völlig verkennen – es geht nicht um Haftung.