Die Würde der Schwangeren ist unantastbar

Nachdem in der letzten Legislatur die Entkriminalisierung des Schwangerschaftsabbruchs gescheitert war, könnte die Debatte nun wieder Auftrieb bekommen: Vor wenigen Wochen hat der Deutsche Ärztetag eine Entkriminalisierung gefordert, und auch das britische Unterhaus stimmte endlich dafür. Der aktuelle Koalitionsvertrag sieht dazu zwar konkret nichts vor. Doch der deutsche Gesetzgeber ist verpflichtet, den Schwangerschaftsabbruch neu zu regeln, weil er die Würde von Schwangeren zu achten hat – und es sich dabei um eine absolute Achtungspflicht handelt.

Remonstration an der Grenze

Da Innenminister Dobrindt trotz der Entscheidung des VG Berlin weiter Zurückweisungen an den deutschen Binnengrenzen durchführen lässt, könnte nunmehr ein Institut des Dienstrechts relevant werden, das lange ein „Schattendasein“ fristete: die Remonstration. Dabei geht es hier insbesondere um die Frage, ob Bundespolizist:innen verpflichtet sind, hinsichtlich der Zurückweisungen zu remonstrieren (§ 63 Abs. 2 S. 1 BBG). Die Rechtsprechung von BVerfG und BGH spricht indes eher gegen diese Pflicht. Ein Recht zur Remonstration besteht aufgrund der Zweifel an der Rechtmäßigkeit der aktuellen Praxis indes bereits jetzt.

The Antagonistic Unity of Copyright and Freedom of the Arts

On 17 June 2025, Advocate General Emiliou delivered his opinion in the second referral of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) to the CJEU in the case “Pelham” – also known as “Metall auf Metall” (Case C-590/23). He defines “pastiche” – currently the most controversial concept of European copyright law – and makes a fundamental statement on EU copyright law and its relationship to freedom of the arts as guaranteed by Art. 13 CFR.The InfoSoc Directive, which is at the heart of EU copyright law, is too restrictive with regard to the artistic use of copyright-protected works and therefore not compatible with the Charter’s freedom of the arts. Emiliou’s opinion is a breakthrough. It grounds copyright in freedom of the arts and paves the way for a new perspective on the relationship between copyright and artistic freedom.

Rights for Non-Humans in EU Law

The recognition of animals and nature as potential rights holders has long been a controversial proposition within European legal discourse. However, we believe that the EU legal order is more hospitable to such recognition than one might expect. In a recent article, we argued for a rights-based reinterpretation of EU animal welfare and environmental protection laws. EU constitutional and secondary laws can be construed as entailing legal rights for non-human entities – even if these rights are not explicit the texts. We consider how the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and other EU legal acts may support a post-anthropocentric vision of Union law.

Animals and the EU Charter

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights remains silent on animal rights, even as a growing number of constitutions worldwide now explicitly protect animals. While the EU already recognises animals as sentient beings under Article 13 TFEU, this recognition has yet to translate into meaningful constitutional safeguards. Embedding animal welfare into the Charter would align the Union with global developments and help move its integration project beyond an overly anthropocentric model.

A Wolf’s Right to the Surface of the Earth

The European Union recently changed the legal status of the wolf from “strictly protected” to “protected”. In this contribution, I advocate a different response to the problem that wolves prey on animals kept by humans: the further development of the European ecological network called Natura 2000. The premise of my argument, based on animal rights theory and Kant’s philosophy of law, is that wolves have the right to be on Earth. In the past, humans have tried to eradicate wolves, which is a clear violation of this right. I argue that this historical injustice generates the duty to restore the habitats and natural infrastructure used by wolves.

A Child’s Right to Non-Anthropocentric Education

The European Charter on Fundamental Human Rights is not concerned about animal rights. Although the Charter is silent about animals, it is possible to connect certain human rights it enshrines to animals in a manner that can foment animal rights. The protection of a healthy environment in Article 37 is an obvious choice. A lesser theorized human right in the Charter similarly has considerable potential to benefit animals: the right to education under Article 14.

The Legal Form of Animals in Global Value Chain Law

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union makes no mention of animals—a silence that reflects a broader pattern across EU law, including in Global Value Chain Law (GVC Law), which governs the legal infrastructures of global economic activity. Animals hold no particular legal status in this domain, revealing striking parallels in how law has historically shaped and domesticated both human and animal life. Rethinking this shared legal trajectory sheds new light on the social condition underpinning the fundamental values of EU law.

A European Charter of Fundamental Human Obligations

The effort to anchor animal rights in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights has gained relevance in light of the widespread commodification of animals within the EU’s market-driven integration process. While commendable in principle, incorporating animal rights into the Charter risks serving a largely symbolic function if it diverts attention from the more pressing task of reconfiguring what I take to be the six foundational institutions of private law in capitalist political economy: property, contract, corporation, tort, labor, and consumption. These institutions reinforce the binary between the human subject and the other-than-human object, a division that enables the commodification of non-human beings.

Animal Law Jurisprudence in the EU and Beyond

Animals have largely been left out in EU law scholarship and environmental law studies. The role of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights has not been discussed to any greater extent. In this symposium, we discuss the pros and cons of the EU Charter for securing sufficient animal protection in the Member States. More specifically, the contributions in this symposium explore a number of questions such as that of the legal standing of animals and animal rights in the context of the EU, and reflecting on the relationship between animal rights and the EU.