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 →

The Taming of Control – the Great Repeal Bill

Brexit is underway. For voters who wanted the UK to remain in the EU, the risk was how much would change after the UK leaves. For those who wanted the UK to leave the EU, the hope was that, indeed, much would change. Both sets of voters may be surprised at the efforts being placed on seeking continuity in governance. For Remain voters, while this may afford some comfort, it will simply reinforce the view that the better way of keeping things the same was for the UK to remain a Member State of the EU. For Leave voters, the outcome may be more ambiguous.

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 →

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 →

Blutige Nase im Endspiel oder im Freundschaftsspiel? Eindrücke von der zweiten Karlsruher Verhandlung im OMT-Verfahren

Was ist von der Entscheidung des BVerfG in Sachen OMT zu erwarten? Auch wenn man sich dafür ein wenig aus dem Fenster lehnen muss, so scheint doch vorstellbar, dass das Gericht seine Rechtsprechung zur Integrationsverantwortung um ein weiteres Element bereichern wird: eine als Minderheitenrecht ausgestaltete Befugnis des Bundestages, über Art. 23 Ia GG hinaus Nichtigkeitsklagen nach Art. 263 I, II AEUV vor dem Gerichtshof wegen Kompetenzverletzungen zu erheben. Andere mögliche Urteilsaussprüche wie z.B. eine Befassungspflicht des Bundestages mit behaupteten Kompetenzüberschreitungen blieben dann doch eher symbolhaft, auch wenn der Senat einen gewissen Glauben in die legitimatorische Kraft solcher Debatten erkennen ließ. Wie auch immer die Lösung des Gerichts aussehen wird: sie wird sich voraussichtlich auf den Maßstabsteil beschränken.

Continue Reading →

The Force awakens – The Schrems case from a German perspective

Just like Star Wars, the "Solange" saga about German constitutional order’s approach to fundamental rights protection in the context of European integration appeared as a story told and settled. But now there are rumours that in Germany Solange Episode III is in the making, with a release date around 2016. The ECJ’s Schrems decision will bring some turmoil to the Solange Episode III production in Germany.

Continue Reading →

Could the Schrems decision trigger a regulatory "race to the top"?

By and large the possibility of challenging mass surveillance worldwide can be strengthened by two factors. Perhaps counter-intuitively, the first should be the support of the business community. The second is democracy.

Continue Reading →

Safeguarding European Fundamental Rights or Creating a Patchwork of National Data Protection?

On Tuesday, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union declared the Commission’s US Safe Harbour Decision invalid. The Court’s ruling in Case C-362/14 of the Austrian Internet activist Maximillian Schrems v the Irish Data Protection Commissioner is a milestone in the protection of European fundamental rights, but it also preserves space for different national supervisory standards and national discretion on whether data may actually be transferred. Is the ruling opening the way for a patchwork of national data protection? How does this ruling influence the TTIP negotiations?

Continue Reading →

Schrems v. Commissioner: A Biblical Parable of Judicial Power

We might celebrate the Court’s decision in Case C-362/14 as an improbable victory of good (data-privacy) over evil (consumer and intelligence data abuses). But I want to offer some words of caution about god-like judicial power.

Continue Reading →

Luxemburg rüttelt an Wohnsitzauflage für Flüchtlinge

Bürgerkriegsflüchtlingen, die internationalen Schutz genießen und Sozialhilfe beziehen, wird in Deutschland von den Behörden ein verbindlicher Wohnsitz zugewiesen. Das, so Generalanwalt Cruz Villalón in seiner wohl letzten Amtshandlung, dürfte so pauschal europarechtswidrig sein: Flüchtlinge dürfen nicht nach ihrem Rechtsstatus diskriminiert werden, und das bloße Ziel, die Belastung der Kommunen besser zu verteilen, rechtfertige eine solche Ungleichbehandlung nicht. Und das ist im Schatten des epochalen "Schrems"-Urteils nur eine von vielen weit reichenden Luxemburger Neuigkeiten dieses denkwürdigen Tages.

Continue Reading →