05 February 2024
Heightening the Repressive Dynamic
The new French Immigration Act was promulgated and published on 26th January 2024, the day after the Conseil Constitutionnel decision which censored 35 provisions in one of its longest decisions to date. The Conseil chose to emphasize the Constitution’s procedural requirements, while largely avoiding substantive analysis of the Act’s drastic reduction of foreigners’ rights. Indeed, it asserted the constitutionality or remained silent on many provisions that undercut foreigner’s rights. The Act as promulgated thereby constitutes the most repressive text since 1945 and heightens a migration restrictive dynamic. Continue reading >>
0
22 September 2022
Whispers of Change
Until recently, a debate on Mexico’s Supreme Court's power to scrutinize the constitutionality of constitutional provisions seemed largely distant. But for the first time in its history, the Supreme Court discussed a draft opinion of one of its members calling for the inapplicability of Article 19 of the Mexican Constitution, which provides the so-called mandatory preventive imprisonment as an automatic measure when investigating specific felonies. With the future of Mexican constitutionalism pending from this decision, the stakes are as high as they have ever been. Continue reading >>
0
09 June 2022
How the Data Retention Legislation Led to a National Constitutional Crisis in Portugal
Some weeks ago, the Portuguese Constitutional Court (PCC) triggered a heated political debate on the need to amend the Constitution to grant criminal investigative authorities access to metadata on personal communications. Whilst disagreements between the political branches and the constitutional jurisdiction are common, this conflict is located at a wider critical juncture that intersects EU and national constitutional law, the CJEU, the domestic constitutional court, and ordinary courts. Continue reading >>
0
25 October 2021
Constitutional Review in Sight?
On 18 October, the Venice Commission published its first ever opinion on the Netherlands dealing with the Childcare Allowance Scandal. It includes a list of rather detailed recommendations for the legislator, the executive and the judicial branch, also pointing at the prohibition of constitutional review which is one of the hallmarks of the Dutch Constitution. While its conclusions are not groundbreaking, the opinion of the Venice Commission must be welcomed for highlighting the crucial connection between individual justice, proportionality and fundamental rights. Continue reading >>03 December 2020
On Collision Course with the Material Core of the Slovak Constitution
Last week on Tuesday, the Constitutional Committee of the Slovak Parliament discussed the most extraordinary subject in a meeting attended by a most extraordinary guest. The Committee was reviewing a draft constitutional amendment on judicial reform that would, among other things, take away the power of the Constitutional Court to review constitutional amendments. At the meeting, the Minister of Justice and MPs discussed potential benefits and drawbacks of stripping the Court of the jurisdiction to review constitutional amendments, with the President of the Court seated next to them. The proposal represents the last escalation in the conflict about who has the final word on the contents of the Constitution. Continue reading >>18 June 2020
Who is ultra vires now?
For decades, and until a few weeks ago, Article 310 TFEU has been seen as prohibiting the EU from borrowing to finance its expenditure. The Commission’s Next Generation EU proposal reverses that interpretation and raises fundamental questions of EU law and its dynamic interpretation. With such a sudden change of heart, are the Member States under a duty to follow? What constitutional limits remain to their membership obligations? Continue reading >>26 March 2019
Lithuania Introduces Individual Constitutional Complaint
On 21 March 2019, the draft constitutional amendment introducing individual constitutional complaint to the Lithuanian legal system passed the second vote in the Parliament of Lithuania (Seimas) and was finally adopted. As of 1 September 2019, individuals (natural and legal persons) will have the right to directly apply to the Constitutional Court of Lithuania claiming that a law or other legal act of the Parliament, the President, or the Government are not in line with the Constitution and is breaching their rights. Continue reading >>01 March 2019
Karlsruhe ist kein Schiedsrichter: Warum der Normenkontrollantrag gegen § 219a StGB ein Fehler ist
Der Bundestag hat sich auf eine Reform des § 219a StGB geeinigt. Anstatt den Kompromiss und die partielle politische Niederlage zu akzeptieren, wollen die allesamt für eine Abschaffung eintretenden Oppositionsparteien (FDP, Grüne und Linke) nun das Bundesverfassungsgericht anrufen. Das Grundgesetz ermöglicht dies. Gleichwohl zeugt der Schritt von einem verfehlten Verständnis parlamentarischer Prozesse und trägt zudem zu einem weit verbreiteten Misstrauen gegen das Parlament bei. Continue reading >>15 May 2018
The Israeli Override Clause and the Future of Israeli Democracy
The recent proposals to enact an override clause to the Israeli Basic Law; Human Dignity and Liberty has triggered a fierce public debate in Israeli legal and political circles. Under this proposal, the Knesset could reenact a statute that was declared void by the courts. As is characteristic of such debates, the proponents and opponents of the override clause claim to defend democracy, strengthen the protection of rights and defend restore the proper balance between different branches of government. The purpose of this post is to explain the background of this debate and evaluate the pros and cons of the override clause in the Israeli context. Continue reading >>
0
08 March 2018