Das EU-Recht in der Krise – ein schwieriges Verhältnis

Seit Jahren wird darüber diskutiert, ob sich das EU-Primärrecht mit Blick auf die Euro-Krisenbewältigungsmaßnahmen angemessen biegungsfest zeigt. Nach der Entscheidung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs vom 6. September 2017, in der die Klagen der Slowakei und Ungarns gegen die vorläufige obligatorische Regelung zur Umsiedlung von Asylbewerbern abgewiesen wurde, stellt sich diese Frage im Bereich der Flüchtlingskrisenbewältigung nunmehr auch. In der Entscheidung nimmt der EuGH den Bindungsanspruch des Rechts weit – vielleicht zu weit – zurück. In dem Bemühen, der Politik effizientes und sicherlich auch weithin gefälliges Handeln zu ermöglichen, nimmt der EuGH schwere Legitimationsprobleme hin.

Continue Reading →

Reconciling Religion: Lessons Learned from the Triple Talaq Case for Comparative Constitutional Governance

The recent case of Shayara Bano v Union of India heard before the Supreme Court of India provide helpful guidance for how a secular democratic regime with a multiplicity of religious, ethnic, and cultural communities can manage constitutional governance with an increasing number of seemingly irreconcilable tensions. Pluralist societies such as Canada and the United States grapple with a variety of delicate balancing acts: in such instance, the need to reconcile accommodation for religious and cultural minorities with the protection of gender rights on the other.

Continue Reading →

Hungarian Constitutional Identity and the ECJ Decision on Refugee Quota

The outcome of the lawsuit launched by the Hungarian Government against the EU Council’s decision on compulsory relocation of asylum seekers before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) took no-one by surprise, neither in Budapest nor elsewhere. Some may have hoped that the complaint would succeed legally, but nevertheless it has always been primarily a part of a well-devised political strategy based on the idea of national identity as a concept of constitutional and EU law.

Continue Reading →

The EU as the Appropriate Locus of Power for Tackling Crises: Interpretation of Article 78(3) TFEU in the case Slovakia and Hungary v Council

The CJEU’s judgment in Slovakia and Hungary v Council of 6 September 2017 raises important instutional questions. As the Court implicitly recognises the EU as the appropriate forum for taking effective action to address the emergency situation created by a sudden inflow of third country nationals, it adopts its tendency towards purposive and effectiveness-oriented jurisprudence to asylum law.

Continue Reading →

Grenzenlose Freiheit – staatlich gefördert? Zum Verbot der Sonderung der Schülerinnen und Schüler an privaten Ersatzschulen

Das Grundgesetz fordert eine allgemeine Zugänglichkeit zu privaten Ersatzschulen unabhängig von den Besitzverhältnissen der Eltern. Doch der seit Jahren zu beobachtende Boom der Privatschulen geht an sozioökonomisch schwachen Familien vorbei. Ein wegweisender Gesetzesentwurf im baden-württembergischen Landtag könnte dies nun ändern.

Continue Reading →

Summer of Love: Karlsruhe Refers the QE Case to Luxembourg

It seems that the BVerfG has learned a lesson. Yesterday’s referral about the the European Central Bank’s policy of Quantitative Easing (QE) sets a completely different tone. It reads like a modest and balanced plea for judicial dialogue, rather than an indictment. Fifty years after the original event, a new Summer of Love seems to thrive between the highest judicial bodies. It shows no traces of the aplomb with which Karlsruhe presented its stance to Luxembourg three years ago.

Continue Reading →

Linking Efficiency with Fundamental Rights in the Dublin System: the Case of Mengesteab

The recent CJEU decision "Mengesteab" has two significant consequences for Member States. First, applicants have a right to challenge the procedural steps by which Member States arrive at decisions regarding responsibility for protection applications to insure their fidelity to the rules prescribed in the Dublin Regulation. Second, the duty of Member States to begin assessing which state holds this responsibility engages as soon as the competent authority identified pursuant to article 35(1) of the regulation becomes aware of a request for international protection.

Continue Reading →