Dublin-Transfers: Wann kann abgeschoben werden und wann nicht?

Die Entscheidung C.K. des EuGH zur Menschenrechtskonformität von Dublin-Transfers letzte Woche hat einiges Aufsehen erregt. Zu kurz kommt bei der Debatte aber eine wichtige Unterscheidung: die zwischen zielstaatsbezogenen und inlandsbezogenen Transferhindernissen.

Continue Reading →

Klare Worte vom EuGH: bei Abschiebungen darf keine unmenschliche Behandlung drohen

Wenn im Dublin-System ein Flüchtling abgeschoben werden soll, muss sichergestellt sein, dass ihn keine unmenschliche Behandlung erwartet – im Einzelfall, nicht nur im Großen und Ganzen. So sieht man das nicht nur in Straßburg, sondern auch in Luxemburg. Das hat der Europäische Gerichtshof jetzt klargestellt und damit allen, die eine Absetzbewegung vom EGMR vermutet hatten, eine grundrechtliche Lehrstunde erteilt.

Continue Reading →

A Polish Marbury v. Madison?

Has the new President of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal been lawfully appointed? This question is at the core of the latest act of the ongoing judicial drama in Poland. The Warsaw Court of Appeals has now referred this question to the Polish Supreme Court. Civil courts are called upon to at least partially fill the gap left by the subjugated Constitutional Tribunal in safeguarding the rule of law in Poland.

Continue Reading →

Visa für Aleppo

Mit einem dramatischen Appell an die Verantwortung Europas will der Generalanwalt am Europäischen Gerichtshof Paolo Mengozzi dem Versagen der EU-Mitgliedsstaaten in der Flüchtlingskrise abhelfen. Nach seinem Verständnis sind sie europarechtlich verpflichtet, akut von Folter oder unmenschlicher Behandlung bedrohten Flüchtlingen aus Aleppo Visa auszustellen.

Continue Reading →

An Instruction Manual to Stop a Judicial Rebellion (before it is too late, of course)

2016 was not a good year for the EU. Among many other things, one of the EU’s proudest achievements, its judiciary, has shown the first signs of worrying instability: In Germany, Denmark and Italy, high-level courts have openly and harshly declared their dissatisfaction with rulings by the European Court of Justice. I would not say that these are nationalist overreactions. These are worrying (and I would add justified) signs of something going wrong.

Continue Reading →

The Italian Constitutional Court in re Taricco: “Gauweiler in the Roman Campagna”

The Italian Constitutional Court’s Tarrico judgement is worded in apparently much milder terms than the BVerfG’s preliminary reference in Gauweiler. The content of the ICC’s decision, though, seems loaded with much more dynamite. In Gauweiler, the CJEU was called to interpret an act of another EU institution. In Taricco, the CJEU is called to reinterpret its own decision, after the ICC essentially asked “please, say it again?”

Continue Reading →

Legal Disintegration? The Ruling of the Danish Supreme Court in AJOS

On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court of Denmark (SCDK) ruled in the Ajos case. The ruling will be read, remembered and taught as an example of defiance of clear guidelines from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) by the highest court in Denmark. EU law is an exterior phenomenon but part and parcel of Danish law. It follows that switching it off, as in Ajos, necessarily entails applying one law by breaking another. That is not a viable path for any legal system taking supranational obligations seriously.

Continue Reading →