Der Intransparenz-Balken im Auge des Europäischen Gerichtshofs

Rechtlich ist das EuGH-Urteil Breyer nicht überraschend: Der Gerichtshof bestätigt darin seine ständige Rechtsprechung, nach der die Kommission zur Herausgabe auch solcher Schriftstücke und Informationen verpflichtet sein kann, die im Rahmen eines vor der Unionsgerichtsbarkeit geführten Rechtsstreits entstanden sind. Das Verfahren unterstreicht aber, dass endlich eine unmittelbare Transparenz des EU-Gerichtsverfahrens eingeführt werden muss. Der Zugang zu den beim EuGH eingereichten Schriftsätzen und zu sonstigen die Verfahren betreffenden Informationen muss durch den Gerichtshof selbst gewährleistet werden.

Continue Reading →

Normality and Exception: The Advocate General’s Opinion in A.S. and Jafari

On 8 June 2017, Advocate General Eleanor Sharpston delivered her Opinion in a case that goes to the core of what (infamously) came to be known as ‘refugee crisis’. On a broader, more systemic, level, the Opinion could be read as a history of the present bringing to the fore issues of geographical hierarchies and injustice and solidarity inscribed into the structure of EU law.

Continue Reading →

Schengen schlägt zurück!?

Die Rechtsgrundlagen für verdachtsunabhängige Personenkontrollen im Bundespolizeigesetz genügen für sich genommen nicht den Vorgaben des EU-Rechts. Sie sind zu unbestimmt und drohen daher zu einer Kontrollpraxis zu führen, die in ihrer Wirkung im Schengenraum verbotenen Grenzkontrollen gleichkommt, so der EuGH gestern Vormittag. Doch auf den zweiten Blick ist die Entscheidung weit weniger mutig als sie scheint.

Continue Reading →

Mixity after Opinion 2/15: Judicial Confusion over Shared Competences

In its momentous opinion about the Singapore free trade agreement, the ECJ seemed to have eliminated the option of ‘facultative’ EU-only agreements which do not embrace ISDS. It seems to me that this overlooks an important novelty of Opinion 2/15, which gave explicit judicial blessing to the option of ‘facultative’ EU-only agreements, although the Court hides the innovation behind an inconsistent use of the notion of ‘shared’ powers.

Continue Reading →

EuG-Urteil zur Europäischen Bürgerinitiative: Gut für Bürgerbeteiligung, zu spät für "Stop TTIP"

Am 10. Mai 2017 hat das Europäische Gericht (EuG) eine Entscheidung zur Europäischen Bürgerinitiative (EBI) getroffen, die Grundsatzcharakter hat. Das Urteil stärkt die Bedeutung der EBI und sichert eine weite Auslegung. Und es ermöglicht die frühe Anwendung einer EBI, die bei internationalen Vertragsverhandlungen eine Einflussnahme noch in diesem Stadium gestattet.

Continue Reading →

How Could the ECJ Escape from the Taricco Quagmire?

The Taricco saga shows how difficult has become the coexistence between the doctrines that have been developed so far by the ECJ on one side and the national Constitutional or Supreme Courts on the other side. The ECJ and the Constitutional Courts, in all their isolated splendour (or splendid isolation), preferred so far to follow parallel lines, whose meeting could only take place ad infinitum. However, if the parallelism collapses, the two lines are doomed to crash.

Continue Reading →

Judicial Review of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy: Lessons from the Rosneft case

On 28 March 2017, the Grand Chamber of the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) decided in a preliminary ruling that the restrictive measures adopted by the Council against Russian undertakings, including oil company Rosneft, are valid. The judgment is of constitutional significance. It clarifies the scope of the CJEU’s jurisdiction with respect to acts adopted in the sphere of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). In particular, it reveals that the EU system of judicial protection fully applies in relation to restrictive measures against natural and legal persons (so-called ‘targeted sanctions’).

Continue Reading →

Protection with Hesitation: on the recent CJEU Decisions on Religious Headscarves at Work

The CJEU’s Achbita and Bougnaoui decisions on workplace bans of Islamic headscarves are disappointing as they are not providing enough guidance to the national courts concerning the criteria that they need to take into consideration in their attempts to find a balance between the rights in conflict. The judgments do not provide any criteria for the admissibility of dress codes other than that they should be neutral and objectively justified. Even those terms though are not analysed by the court in a sufficient manner.

Continue Reading →

The CJEU’s headscarf decisions: Melloni behind the veil?

On 14 March 2017, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice (CJEU) handed down two landmark judgments on the Islamic headscarf at work. The twin decisions, Achbita and Bougnaoui, were eagerly awaited, not only because of the importance and delicacy of the legal issues the cases raised, but also because the Advocates General had reached different conclusions on those issues in their Opinions.

Continue Reading →

The CJEU on Humanitarian Visa: Discovering ‘Un-Chartered’ Waters of EU Law

Limiting the scope of EU law vis-à-vis national legislative measures is one thing but creating un-Chartered territory in EU law is another. It is understandable why the Court would want to stay away from the currently toxic migration politics. But it is worrying that it is willing to further limit the scope of the Charter when it might be needed the most.

Continue Reading →