Pakistan’s Reluctant Constitutionalism

On 20 April 2017, the Supreme Court of Pakistan ruled in one of the greatest cases in its turbulent history: the impeachment of the prime minister for involvements in shady financial dealings that bubbled up after the Panama Papers. Nothing happened; the court only showed Nawaz Sharif the yellow card. But while Pakistan narrowly missed her constitutional moment by a single judge’s vote, the court’s ruling displayed tremendous democratic maturity.

›We Don’t Need No Constitution‹ – On a Sad EU Membership Anniversary in Romania

These are troubled constitutional times in Romania. The newly elected government led by the corruption-ridden PSD party is pushing for legislative changes to make corruption offences virtually unpunishable by means of dubious Emergency Ordinances. A pending appeal before the Constitutional Court seeks to have legal provisions which prohibit persons with criminal convictions to occupy public positions in the Government declared unconstitutional. These attempts are met with resistance by the President who calls for an anti-corruption referendum.

The Taricco Decision: A Last Attempt to Avoid a Clash between EU Law and the Italian Constitution

Is Italy obliged by EU law to pursue criminal acts longer than provided by Italian law? This question might cause a fundamental clash between the Italian Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice. Unlike the CJEU, the Italian Constitutional Court interprets a retroactive suspension of the limitation period as a matter of principle of legality, and thereby as a matter of a core principle of Italian constitutional law. By referring the case to the CJEU, the Italian Constitutional Court gives the European Court a chance to revisit its jurisdiction while avoiding the identity language of the German Constitutional Court - good news for cooperative constitutionalism in Europe.

Is there Hope for the Right to Hope?

The European Court of Human Rights has overturned its former position that convicts sentenced to life in prison enjoy a "right to hope" to be eventually released. Arguably, in this case we have an instance of interpretation of evolution which lowers rather than heightens human rights protection. In the current climate when there is a growing political appetite to curtail human rights, a Court interpretation towards change in this direction without good reasons may create a dangerous precedent for further reduction of basic human rights guarantees.

Illegal Entry into the Federal Republic of Germany de lege lata et de lege ferenda – a Critical Interjection

Illegal entry into Germany has led to penal proceedings since the first influx of refugees in 2015. Police investigations are opened against anyone entering without a passport or valid entry documents. This means that refugees are liable to prosecution by entering Germany and filing a petition for asylum. The right of residence desperately needs to be reformed. De lege ferenda, it makes sense to eliminate the discriminating legal status provided under Art. 31 I GFK and “de-criminalize” affected refugees.

Geert Wilders‹ »Incitement to Discriminate« Trial

Months before the parliamentary elections in the Netherlands, the leader of the far-right Freedom Party and election favorite Geert Wilders finds himself before a criminal court. He is charged with insulting and inciting discrimination against residents of Moroccan descent by promising his supporters "fewer Moroccans" in 2014. Wilders and his defence seem to invoke the theory of the ‘marketplace of ideas’, which is a common line of thinking in United States First Amendment law. The principal standard for Dutch courts however, the European Convention of Human Rights, takes a somewhat different stance.

Rindfleisch in Karlsruhe: Was er kriminalisieren will, muss uns der Staat schon sagen

Wer Rindfleisch falsch etikettiert, macht sich strafbar - eigentlich einfach, aber vom Gesetzgeber derart obskur konstruiert, dass das BVerfG jetzt einen Verstoß gegen das Bestimmtheitsgebot festgestellt hat. Zu der Frage, ob die Ultima Ratio Strafrecht überhaupt das richtige Mittel ist, um Rindfleischetikettierung zu regulieren, schweigt das Gericht dagegen.

Skandal ohne öffentlichen Aufschrei: Verfassungsschutz hat im NSU-Komplex vorsätzlich Akten vernichtet

Dass ein Mitarbeiter des Verfassungsschutzes angibt, vorsätzlich Akten vernichtet zu haben, um das eigene Amt vor der öffentlichen Aufmerksamkeit zu schützen, ist ein beispielloser Vorgang. Dennoch gab es dazu kaum eine Debatte. Die Bundesrepublik ist nach der EMRK verpflichtet, eine unabhängige Untersuchung in Gang zu setzen, um zu ergründen, ob der Verfassungsschutz Kenntnisse über seine V-Leute von der NSU-Mordserie gehabt hat und nicht für entsprechende Schutzmaßnahmen sorgte.