Towards a European Court of Fundamental Rights

With its judgments on bulk data retention issued at the beginning of this month, the European Court of Justice has entitled itself to examine virtually all surveillance measures in the digital sphere. In doing so, it has once more clarified its positioning as the decisive Fundamental Rights Court in Europe. In the midst of the ultra vires-storm caused by the PSPP-judgement of the Bundesverfassungsgericht – and questions arising with regard to German Legal Hegemony in Europe – a true shift of power to the ECJ can be spotted which is, surprisingly, supported by the national constitutional courts.

Reinstating Corruption

Since he was elected in 2014, Indonesia’s President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo has incrementally used constitutional and legal mechanisms to undermine democratic values. Last year, on 17 September 2019, the Jokowi administration and the House issued the biggest move to weaken the law enforcement institutions: an amendment to the law of the Anti-Corruption Commission (KPK). The KPK used to be the most trusted law enforcement institution in Indonesia, but the past year has demonstrated clearly that it is no longer able to exercise its authority to effectively prosecute and investigate corruption cases.

Ashen Sunset

Seven years ago today, Pavlos Fyssas was murdered by members of Greece’s Neonazi party Golden Dawn. It was only then, after the death of an ethnic Greek, that the authorities finally took action against the party and its members, having ignored violent acts against migrants, ethnic minorities, disabled persons, LGBT persons and others committed by party members for several years. On 7 October 2020, five and a half years and 453 hearings after the trial against 69 members of Golden Dawn began, judgment will be finally passed.

Juridifizierung von Symbolpolitik

Am 14. August veröffentlichte das Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG) einen Beschluss, der eine Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen das Verbot der Verwendung von Kennzeichen verbotener Vereine nicht zur Entscheidung zuließ (Beschluss der 3. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 9. Juli 2020 - 1 BvR 2067/17, 1 BvR 424/18, 1 BvR 423/18). Damit bestätigte die Kammer, dass die Mitglieder nicht verbotener Chapter eines Vereins Kennzeichen eines verbotenen Chapters wie die Kutte oder eine Tätowierung nicht mehr tragen dürfen. Der Kern der Begründung des BVerfG: Wenn ein legaler Verein das Logo eines verbotenen Vereins benutze, identifiziert er sich auch mit dessen strafbaren Aktivitäten. Bei näherer Betrachtung erweist sich die Begründung als realitätsfremd und nicht stichhaltig.

Beredtes Schweigen

Die Antwort ist da, die eingehende Erklärung fehlt. Containern zu kriminalisieren, verstößt nicht gegen das Grundgesetz, so das Bundesverfassungsgericht. Doch wer gehofft hatte, dass Karlsruhe Licht ins Dunkel der juristischen Unklarheiten beim Thema Containern bringen und sich dazu positionieren würde, der hoffte vergeblich.

Neutrale Straf­verfolgung und demokratische Struktur­verantwortung

Kürzlich hat die Generalstaatsanwältin des Landes Berlin die Ermittlungen wegen einer Anschlagsserie in Neukölln gegen Linke und Sozialdemokraten an sich gezogen, weil die bisherige Ermittlungsführung Anlass geben könnte, an der Unbefangenheit eines befassten Staatsanwalts zu zweifeln. Der Fall demonstriert in besonderer Weise, warum es notwendig ist, Staatsanwältinnen und Staatsanwälte weiterhin sowohl dem internen als auch dem externen Weisungsrecht zu unterstellen.

Black Lives and German Exceptionalism

Racism is not limited to anti-blackness nor restricted to the context of policing; however, I use policing and blackness as touchstones for this commentary precisely because this constellation of race and law is consistently thought to present a problem exceptional to the United States. It is not. This article examines the case of police brutality. The nature of policing, not only in the United States but in many places in the world, and certainly in Europe, is such that holding police to account for the deaths of innocent people is not only statistically improbable, but it is designed to be legally impractical.

Hacking Back and International Law: An Irreconcilable Pair?

Imagine you‘re at the onset of a global pandemic, and one of the nation‘s leading hospitals falls victim to a debilitating cyberattack, crippling its medical infrastructure for days. This is exactly what happened to Brno University Hospital on March 13, then home to one of the largest COVID-19 testing facilities in the Czech Republic. Now imagine further that your national security authorities identify a command and control server through which the attackers execute the malicious cyber operation, which would end immediately if you were to hack “back” into that system to render it inoperative (this part is fiction). Technically, that would be feasible. Alas, you realise that the server is located abroad. Shouldn't you be allowed to go ahead and heroically save the nation?