Challenging Safe Access

Safe Access Zones (SAZ) in Great Britain, in force since autumn 2024, establish protective areas around abortion service providers and criminalise specific behaviours within these zones. However, ongoing anti-abortion protests raise questions about the practical enforceability of the new laws. This article examines whether SAZ laws can withstand these challenges and argues that they succeed in striking a fair balance between the rights of anti-abortion demonstrators and pregnant persons seeking access to lawful abortion services under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

We the Bugs

On April 14, 2025, the Hungarian parliament passed the 15th Amendment to the Fundamental Law, triggering mass protest across Budapest. Amongst its most far-reaching provisions is the constitutional entrenchment of binary sex. Read alongside a reworded Article XVI, which affirms that “every child has the right to the protection and care necessary for his or her proper physical, mental, and moral development”, these provisions establish a new hierarchy of fundamental rights, placing child protection above all others, including the right to peaceful assembly. These changes may now lend formal constitutional legitimacy to discriminatory legislation seeking to ban Pride Parades. 

Legality Over Accountability?

On April 23, 2025, public prosecutors in Guatemala executed an arrest warrant against Luis Pacheco, the Deputy Energy Minister. This case is only the latest in a series of politically motivated prosecutions that place the Attorney General at the center of Guatemala’s democratic backsliding. She has systematically targeted journalists, public officials and civil society actors, undermining democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental rights. What can be done when legal mechanisms to hold public officials accountable are effectively blocked? When there are credible grounds to believe that a public official is abusing their mandate, accountability must take precedence in legal and political debate.

Tilting the Scales

On April 10 2025 AG Norkus delivered his Opinion in the appeal of Hamoudi v Frontex (Case C-136/24). In it, he tackles a question that is pivotal not only for Mr. Hamoudi’s right to compensation but also for the evolution of the EU legal system: how should the CJEU address stark power imbalances in evidentiary matters? In formulating EU procedural rules for cases involving collective expulsions, the CJEU should take into account the blatant asymmetry in accessing evidence existing between asylum seekers adrift at sea and an EU Agency equipped with cutting-edge surveillance technology. Yet, the reasoning of the AG on the allocation of the burden of proof misfires in some crucial respects.

The Dark Side of Humor

On March 3, 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) released its final judgment in Yevstifeyev and others v. Russia. The decision concerned two applications against the Russian government, claiming that the domestic authorities had failed to comply with their obligation to “respond adequately” to homophobic messages and thus violated the applicants’ right to private life under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention. This ruling offers an excellent illustration of the Court’s flawed understanding of the role of humor and satire in the protection of free speech.

The Nationality Lottery

On 24 March 2025, the Amsterdam District Court issued a consequential judgement on deprivation of nationality after a terrorist conviction. The ruling stated that the Dutch government could not revoke the nationality of a person convicted of terrorism-related crimes, declaring it a violation of the prohibition of discrimination based on ethnic origin. The judgement marks a departure from previous case law established by the Council of State – the highest administrative court in the Netherlands – as it reconceptualizes the issue of deprivation of nationality as one of direct discrimination based on ethnic origin. However, it fails to provide a clear explanation for its reasoning and seems to conflate nationality with ethnicity.

Falsches Vertrauen

Die Rechtstaatlichkeit der Türkei ist in den letzten Wochen erneut unter starken Beschuss gekommen. Aus Deutschland folgen jedoch weiterhin keine Konsequenzen. Wenn der Grundsatz des gegenseitigen Vertrauens im Auslieferungsrecht nicht ständig überprüft wird, gefährdet dies die Integrität der Justiz. Eine Aussetzung von Auslieferungen in die Türkei könnte dem Rechtsstaatsbedürfnis beider Länder dienen und eine längst überfällige Neubewertung der justiziellen Bedingungen anstoßen.

Back to Binary Basics

On April 16 2025, the UK Supreme Court delivered its decision on a fundamental question regarding the interpretation of the terms “sex” and “woman” under the Equality Act. The Court unanimously held that, under the Equaliy Act, the meaning of the word “woman” must be restricted to “biological” women, and does not include trans women, even those who have legally changed their gender under the Gender Recognition Act. The decision risks undermining the UK’s equality law framework and marks a troubling regression in gender rights.

Unverhoffte Profiteure

Nachdem die Union das IFG „in seiner bisherigen Form“ abschaffen wollte, steht nun im Koalitionsvertrag, das Gesetz solle „mit einem Mehrwert für Bürgerinnen und Bürger und Verwaltung“ reformiert werden. Diese vage Formulierung lässt jedoch auch grundlegende Reformen zu, solange diese einen – wie auch immer definierten – „Mehrwert“ bieten. Doch gerade in wenig öffentlichkeitswirksamen politischen Bereichen ist das IFG von herausragender Bedeutung und sollte vor Reformen bewahrt werden – etwa in der deutschen Entwicklungspolitik.

Exekutive Brecheisen

Das Landesamt für Einwanderung Berlin (LEA) hat nach übereinstimmenden Presseberichten drei Unionsbürger:innen wegen Straftaten im Zusammenhang mit der Teilnahme an der Besetzung des Präsidiums der Freien Universität Berlin im Oktober 2024 (unter anderem der Verwendung von „Äxten, Sägen und Brecheisen“) des Landes verwiesen, also den Verlust ihrer Freizügigkeit festgestellt. Ob diese Vorwürfe stimmen, kann jedenfalls dahinstehen, da die Maßnahme für sie als Unionsbürger:innen auch dann rechtswidrig sein dürfte.