Data Retention in a Cross-Border Perspective
This blog post compares the European and US approach to metadata surveillance and highlights some challenges that arise therefrom. It aims at shedding light on the main legal issues that may arise for the future of global counterterrorism. The essential role of courts in striking and keeping a balance between security and protection of human rights is further examined in light of the judgement in La Quadrature du Net II. Efforts should be made to avoid that the economic power of the US would lower the privacy standards when it comes to metadata surveillance.
Continue reading >>
The Tail That Wags the Dog
In Opinion 2/13 the Court of Justice held that accession to the ECHR must not interfere with the operation of the principle of mutual trust as this would affect the autonomy of EU law. I offer a different reading: mutual trust is not a general principle capable of having autonomous legal effects. Furthermore, mutual trust is acquiring a novel value for the progressive operationalisation of the foundational values ex Article 2 TEU. Read in this way, it has then the potential to enhance fundamental rights protection and is certainly no bar to accession to the ECHR – it is the dog of core values that wags the tail of mutual trust and not vice versa.
Continue reading >>
A Network in Defense of the Rule of European Constitutional Law
In face of the erosion of the role of the judiciary, which is undermining the power and independence of many courts worldwide, European national courts stand in a stronger position. They benefit from the support of a robust network of actors committed to defending shared European values.
Continue reading >>
Challenges to Georgia’s EU Integration: Is the Georgian ‘Russian Law 2.0’ contrary to the Georgian Constitution?
The so-called Euro-Atlantic provisions have been inserted into the Georgian constitution in 2018 and aim “to ensure the full integration of Georgia into the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization“. The Georgian draft law ‘On Transparency of Foreign Influence’, the so-called ‘Russian Law 2.0’, is likely to be contrary to those Euro-Atlantic provisions in the Georgian Constitution. Georgia has EU candidate status since late 2023. According to statements by EU representatives, the law is incompatible with Georgia’s EU aspirations. If the law is passed by Parliament, despite ongoing pro-Western protests in the streets of Tbilisi, it remains to be seen what the constitutional Court will make of it, and whether Russian influence can be contained by the Court, which is itself, under pro-Russian political influence.
Continue reading >>Climate Litigation Reaches Italian Courts
With Giudizio Universale, climate litigation has found its way to Italy. This case has many aspects in common with the general transnational phenomenon, both in terms of the structure and content of the legal arguments used. The case highlights the difficulties that courts face in view of the high social expectations connected to this kind of proceedings.
Continue reading >>
Brazilian Judges Regulate Elections … and AI
Brazil has new regulations on AI and election interference. Also, in Brazil, the judiciary oversees elections. As municipal elections are coming up, we face a quite unique situation of technological challenges, untested laws, and unusual institutional arrangements. Although innovative, these regulations are constrained in their effectiveness and indifference to broader regulatory debates concerning the regulation of AI, showcasing an uncomfortable relationship between judicial and legislative powers regarding digital policy in Brazil. Disregarding the complexity of AI, the regulations legitimise the expansion of the judicial branch's power to deal with digital threats to democracy while not fully engaging with how these threats materialise through the development and use of AI.
Continue reading >>
Shortcomings of the AI Act
After the much-awaited vote of the 13th March 2024 by the European Parliament, it is time to begin evaluating the state of fundamental rights in light of the AI Act. In this blog post, three areas of potential inconsistencies and risks are examined: differentiation of provider and deployer, biometrics used in real-time and post-factum, and the standards of biometric recognition in the areas of immigration.
Continue reading >>
Escaping Jurisdictional Blackholes
There is a lack of effective judicial protection in the field of EU Common Foreign and Security Policy. In a recent opinion, AG Ćapeta has suggested that the solution rests with asserting the possibility of establishing the non-contractual liability of the EU for breach of fundamental rights in CFSP cases, regardless of whether the measure imposes restrictions. However, the Council also has a positive duty stemming from the Charter to include a jurisdictional clause in all CFSP measures indicating the national court which has jurisdiction in those cases.
Continue reading >>
Judicial scrutiny and EU Sanctions against individuals
On February 21, the eve of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the EU adopted sanctions against five individuals linked to the “so-called elections” in Crimea. Two days later, following Russia’s deployment of troops to the Donbas region of Ukraine, the EU adopted a far-reaching sanctions package that, inter alia, expanded the list of sanctioned individuals to include all 351 members of the Russian Duma and 27 others. This post considers EU law on sanctions against individuals and how it has been applied in response to the war in Ukraine.
Continue reading >>
Articulating Legitimacy through Policy Recommendations
On 6 December, Meta's Oversight Board issued a policy advisory opinion on 'cross-check', a content moderation system used by the company to avoid the erroneous removal of content shared by highly influential users on its platforms. Despite the opinion’s directness in calling Meta out for the disproportionate attention paid to corporate interests to the detriment of its human rights commitments, the OB’s decision presents an underlying duplicity, as it criticises policy and design choices replicated in the OB’s own architecture. This curtails the institution's capacity to enhance accountability and legitimacy.
Continue reading >>