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 →

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 →

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.

Continue Reading →

The Article 50 Litigation and the Court of Justice: Why the Supreme Court must NOT refer

Is the UK Supreme Court in the current Brexit case obliged to refer to the Luxembourg Court? If that were the case, the conformity of any Member State’s EU exit with its own constitutional requirements would be open to review by the CJEU – and hence could no longer be qualified as an act of self-determination since a EU institution would have the final say on it.

Continue Reading →

The Article 50 Litigation and the Court of Justice: Why the Supreme Court must refer

Article 50 TEU says that member states decide to withdraw from the Union "according to their own constitutional requirements". It is for the Luxembourg Court to clarify what this means. Thus, in the current case on Brexit the UK Supreme Court is obliged to refer to the European Court of Justice. One could argue that this should never have been made a Union problem. But it was, and, like it or not, that makes it the Court of Justice’s problem too.

Continue Reading →

EU Judge Dehousse’s Farewell Address, with a short introduction by Professors Alemanno & Pech

Readers of this blog will find here the English translation of Judge Franklin Dehousse’s farewell address, which he had hoped to give on the occasion of his departure from the EU General Court last month. In an apparent break with tradition, no public ceremony was organised for the departing EU judges, and an internal meeting was arranged instead. While regrettable, this is perhaps not surprising. Indeed, Judge Dehousse has been among one of the most outspoken critics of the controversial reform of the EU’s court system.

Continue Reading →

ESM and Protection of Fundamental Rights: Towards the End of Impunity?

The CJEU has sent a strong signal to EU institutions: whether they act in the framework of EU law or at its margins, under the screen of international agreements, the Commission and the ECB should duly take fundamental rights into account, and be ready to be held liable if they fail to do so.

Continue Reading →