Thema: Migration & Staatsangehörigkeit

Verfassungsrecht zur Staatsangehörigkeit und Migration im verfassungsrechtlichen Rahmen, verfassungsrechtliche Aspekte des Einwanderungsrechts, staatsbürgerliche Rechte und Pflichten sowie verfassungsrechtliche Regulierung der Migrationspolitik. Umfasst verfassungsrechtliche Staatsangehörigkeitskonzepte und verfassungsrechtliche Grenzen der Migrationsregulierung.

Why Banning Russian Tourists from Schengen Might not Be Unlawful

Recently, politicians in different EU countries have suggested barring Russian tourists from visiting the EU. Such a ban would be in retaliation for the war waged by Russia against Ukraine. From a legal perspective, these suggestions raise the interesting question whether such a blanket ban would be lawful. From a legal perspective, the question is precisely whether there is a possibility to amend the existing acquis, in order to ban Russians from obtaining short term visas for the purpose of visiting Europe as tourists. It seems hardly tenable to argue that the EU (secondary) legislature is somehow bound by the ratio legis of the current Schengen visa system.

17. August 2022

, , ,

Why Banning Russians from Schengen Is Unlawful

Volodymyr Zelensky, the Prime Minister of Finland and others have been calling for an EU-wide ban of Russian citizens from Schengen visas. Unquestionably, the horrible crimes perpetrated by the Russian state should be punished. But Russians are citizens of a totalitarian state, they are not Putin. And whether we like it or not, there is no legal way under current EU law to adopt a blanket citizenship-based ban against Russians acquiring Schengen visas. Even more: political attention paid to it by persons in leadership positions is deeply surprising, if not irresponsible.

12. August 2022

, , , ,

Law must be enforceable

The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on 01.08.2022 that administrative decisions refusing family reunification must be open to judicial review with a legal remedy. The decision had been long awaited. The underlying article only provided for a legal remedy “against”, not “for” a transfer decision. The CJEU clearly rejects this view and emphasizes that administrative decisions must generally be subject to judicial review, which is a hindrance to the EU Commission's plans to significantly reduce the number of legal remedies in the revised EU legislation.

10. August 2022

, , ,

Citizenship Imposition is the New Non-Discrimination Standard

Never before has the failure to naturalize been used by the Court against discriminated permanent residents, just as it would be unthinkable to greenlight the humiliation of Muslims by an Islamophobic government for failure to convert. The meaning of ‘discrimination’ in ECHR law has become less clear as a result of Savickis.

22. Juli 2022

, , , , , ,

Deregulierung des deutschen Arbeitsmarktes durch Migration

Pünktlich zum Beginn der Sommerferien in vielen Bundesländern ist das Phänomen eines Arbeitskräftemangels an einer besonders schmerzhaften Stelle zu Tage getreten. An deutschen Flughäfen kam es bei Gepäckabfertigung und Sicherheitskontrolle zu langen Staus und Wartezeiten. Entsprechend schnell erschallten Rufe nach einem vermehrten Einsatz ausländischer Arbeitskräfte als Abhilfe und dabei vor allem solchen aus der Türkei. Bewerkstelligt werden soll dies dabei über eine rechtlich interessante Konstruktion.

13. Juli 2022

, , , ,

The Selective Nature of a pan-European Willkommenskultur

Four months into Russia’s war on Ukraine, there has been a tremendous show of support for Ukrainians fleeing violence and the atrocities of war – in Europe and elsewhere in the world. As is well-known, European states have hammered out pragmatic administrative solutions to accommodate large numbers of incoming person, going to great lengths to provide for beneficial welfare arrangements. Against this backdrop, it may not be unreasonable to present the crisis in Ukraine as a tipping point for humanitarian protection more generally.

12. Juli 2022

, , , , ,

Fundamental Rights at the Digital Border

We are witnessing the emergence of the EU’s ‘digital border’: an ecosystem of interoperable databases to expand the surveillance and control of the movement of third-country nationals. In this blog post, we discuss one of the latest additions to this ecosystem - the European Travel Information and Authorisation System, or ETIAS in short - and argue that the system as it is currently set up violates the right to data protection laid down in Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, especially in light of the CJEU’s PNR judgment earlier this week. In many ways, we consider ETIAS to be a test case for a much wider roll-out of such often AI-powered technologies in the field of border control.

24. Juni 2022

,

Schengen Restored

On 26 April 2022, the Court of Justice of the EU rendered a ruling in joined cases C-368/20 and C-369/20 stating that Member States of the European Union can re-introduce border controls within the Schengen Zone only under strict conditions. The Court has stepped up as a guardian of the Treaties protecting free movement of people without controls at the internal borders of the EU. At the same time, it has left room for the European and national executives to exercise their function and fill in the blanks.

5. Mai 2022

, , ,

Trapped in a Lawless Zone

The treatment of asylum-seekers – predominantly from the Middle East – crossing the Latvian border from Belarus is in sharp contrast with the recent decision of the Latvian government to support at least 23,000 people who have arrived in the country from war-torn Ukraine. Those who have paid the highest price for this policy are people who have been forced to remain in the forest for months under inhuman conditions just to be ultimately returned to their country of origin, an experience that has left most of them severely traumatised.

2. Mai 2022

, ,

Anything Goes?

Last month, the ECtHR ruled in the case of Johansen v. Denmark on the deprivation of nationality and expulsion for terrorist offenses. It rejected the applicant’s complaint of an infringement of Art. 8 ECHR. The decision underlines the Court’s reluctance to engage with issues raised by deprivations of nationality in terrorism cases. Instead of setting out clear limits on such measures based on the rights guaranteed by the Convention, the Court does not seem to be willing to interfere with measures related to national security, no matter how drastic the consequences for the individual.

12. April 2022

, , , ,