Travel Bans in Europe: A Legal Appraisal

This blogpost presents a legal assessment in eight steps that concentrates on borders controls and the extraordinary travel restrictions for the internal and the external borders of the Schengen area. It will be argued that unprecedented travel bans and border closures for Union citizens are legally problematic. The Commission and the Member States should strive to establish uniform and proportional practices that enhance legal certainty.

Das Virus im Unionsrecht – in der Not kein Gebot?

Die Nachrichten dieser Tage erwecken den Eindruck, dass das Unionsrecht in der Coronakrise ausgedient hat. Nationale Alleingänge, staatliche Egoismen und Grenzabschottungen sind an die Stelle des Binnenmarktes und des „Raums der Sicherheit, der Freiheit und des Rechts“ getreten. Vollzieht sich vor unser aller Augen ein historischer Bruch mit der EU als Rechtsgemeinschaft? Schaut eine ins home office geschickte und kompetenziell gelähmte Kommission dem Zusammenbruch ihrer Existenzgrundlage wehrlos zu? Oder ist in Wahrheit von Rechtsbruch keine Rede, weil diese Rechtsgemeinschaft genügend Instrumente vorsieht, mit denen die Mitgliedstaaten angemessen auf die Gesundheits-, Wirtschafts- und Finanzkrise reagieren können?

Open Letter to the President of the European Commission regarding Poland’s »Muzzle Law«

The current procrastination is akin to dereliction of duty: Waiting to bring infringement actions and to fail to simultaneously seek interim measures when the rule of law in a Member State is so obviously and blatantly deteriorating on an industrial scale only means that the Commission faces a far more serious and intractable problem to deal with later.

Could there be a Rule of Law Problem at the EU Court of Justice?

The Member States’ current plan of replacing the sitting U.K. Advocate General at the Court of Justice Eleanor Sharpston before the end of her six-year term raises a serious question whether doing so may violate the European Treaties. If yes, this would be a troubling intrusion on the independence of the Court and the constitutional structure of the Union – just when the EU should be setting an example for the Member States (both current and former).

A Painful Slap from the ECtHR and an Urgent Opportunity for Spain

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights shockingly endorses a practice which opposes the core principles of International Law and the protection of fundamental rights. This decision repeals a previous ECtHR judgement of 2017 which had condemned push-backs and which Spain had asked to be referred to the Grand Chamber. But all hope is not lost: The Spanish Constitutional Court will rule on the “rejections at the border” provision in the near future and has the chance to uphold Spain’s international legal obligations.

»Unlawful« may not mean rightless.

Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 ECHR is short. Its title reads “Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens”, its text reads: “Collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited.” It comes as a historical disappointment that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in its decision in the case N.D. and N.T. v. Spain from 13 February 2020 distorts this clear guarantee to exclude apparently “unlawful” migrants from its protection. The decision is a shock for the effective protection of rights in Europe and at its external borders.

Kolevi: Bulgaria’s 10-Year Cat-and-Mouse Game with the Council of Europe and the Venice Commission

A cat-and-mouse game perfectly describes Bulgaria’s stubborn refusal to comply with Kolevi v Bulgaria, which requires a reform of Bulgaria’s Prosecutor’s Office, and it has been going on for a decade. The latest trick pulled out of the bag is quite original – Bulgaria’s government essentially asked Bulgaria’s Constitutional Court to clarify if some of the concerns raised by the Venice Commission were reasonable, and this court deemed the question admissible.