On illegal push-backs into the EU

On 29 December 2020, the Constitutional Court of Serbia (CCS) adopted a decision (Už-1823/2017) upholding the constitutional appeal filed on behalf of 17 Afghani migrants, who were expelled into Bulgaria although they had expressed the intention to seek asylum in the Republic of Serbia (RS) in 2017. It found that the Ministry of the Interior (Police Directorate - Gradina Border Police Station (BPS)) violated the prohibition of expulsion and inhuman treatment – both guaranteed in the Serbian Constitution.

Tailoring the Jurisdiction of the ECHR

On 16 February 2021, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled in the case Hanan v. Germany concerning a 2009 NATO-Kunduz airstrike resulting in deaths of civilians in Afghanistan in favor of Germany. The primary allegation before the Court was that Germany violated its procedural obligation under Article 2 by failing to conduct a prompt, effective and impartial investigation into a lethal use of force. Although the Court unconvincingly decided that there was no violation of the procedural duty to investigate, the majority opinion held that there was a clear jurisdictional link obliging Germany to conduct the investigation of airstrikes in Afghanistan.

Pinochet reloaded

Das britische House of Lords hat im Jahr 1998 mit seiner Pinochet-Entscheidung einen Stein ins Wasser geworfen. Die Ausläufer der hierdurch ausgelösten Welle haben jetzt auch den Bundesgerichtshof erreicht (Urteil vom 28. Januar 2021 - 3 StR 564/19). Die beiden Verfahren stimmen darin überein, dass es jeweils um die strafrechtliche Immunität bei im Ausland verübter Folter ging. Sie unterscheiden sich allerdings insofern, als im BGH-Verfahren nicht ein ehemaliges Staatsoberhaupt, sondern ein „einfacher“ Staatsbediensteter (der Angeklagte war Oberleutnant der afghanischen Armee) strafrechtlich belangt wurde.

Between Rule of Law and Reputation

On 27 January, Frontex announced the unprecedented decision to suspend its activities in Hungary. The choice to withdraw the Agency from Hungary is not a clear, serious, and meditated move in the Commission’s action for the rule of law. Nor is it a sign of a coherent and firm intention to put an end to the Agency’s engagement in human rights violations at EU borders, since it keeps operating in other frontline Member States with equally problematic issues. It rather represents an attempt to remedy the already compromised reputation of Frontex.

Die wahre Herrschaft des Unrechts

An den europäischen Grenzen herrscht das Unrecht. Im Mittelmeer sterben Menschen, weil die Seenotrettung versagt oder weil sie vom Grenzschutz zurückgedrängt werden. In Bosnien und Herzegowina hausen Schutzsuchende im Schnee, weil Kroatien ihnen den Weg in die EU versperrt. Ungarn interniert Flüchtlinge oder schiebt sie nach Serbien ab, ohne ein ordentliches Verfahren durchzuführen. Der EuGH hat die ungarische Asylpolitik wiederholt gerügt, so zuletzt in einer Entscheidung vom 17. Dezember 2020. Diese Rechtsprechung ist nicht nur für Ungarn bedeutsam – im Raum der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts verpflichtet sie die EU als solche und jeden einzelnen Mitgliedstaat. Solange die Bundesregierung davor die Augen verschließt, stellt sie die Herrschaft des Rechts in Frage.

Defining the Modern Family

In November 2020, the Constitutional Court of Latvia recognised that the Constitution of Latvia (Satversme) obliges the state to protect all families, including those established by same-sex couples. The judgement was met with considerable political backlash and at the beginning of January prompted the right‑wing party Nacionālā Apvienība to submit an initiative to amend the Satversme with a new, excluding definition of family. Perhaps more worrisome is how the amendment and the associated campaign openly attack the authority of the Constitutional Court.

The French Habeas Corpus and Covid-19

In January 2021, the French Constitutional Council published an important decision on the protection of the right to liberty during the state of sanitary emergency. The Constitutional Council decided that extending the duration of pre-trial detention without a decision made by a judge was contrary to article 66 of the Constitution. The decision implies that while authorities can resort to exceptional powers during a pandemic, they must still respect basic human rights.

Mediterranean Responsibilities

This week, the UN Human Rights committee issued a long-awaited decision concerning a distress case in the Mediterranean back in 2013. 400 migrants were on board of a vessel which sunk within the Maltese Search and Rescue zone but in vicinity of the Italian island of Lampedusa. At least 200 persons died. The decision of the Committee is somewhat of a milestone. This blog post depicts the most important legal aspects of the Committee’s decision, with special regard to the broader setting of maritime migration and States’ responsibilities.

Does Twitter trump Trump?

Some of the biggest social media platforms recently decided to suspend the accounts of former US President Donald Trump. Even though such bans are not unprecedented, the fact that it concerned the then-still US President has triggered quite some controversy. But what about the European perspective - would the doctrine of positive obligations under Article 10 ECHR mean that Donald Trump’s right to freedom of expression was violated?

The Honor of the Spanish Flag

In a controversial decision dated 15 December 2020 and published one month later, the Spanish Constitutional Court has rejected the appeal of a member of an independentist trade union condemned for desecrating the Spanish flag during a labor protest. The ruling denies constitutional protection to such expressions even in the context of political activism. It challenges the case law of the ECHR and reduces the room for freely expressing political opinions in Spain. The ruling shows that the freedom of expression is increasingly at risk in Spain.