The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
In its recent decision in ST v Frontex the CJEU missed once again an opportunity to review Frontex's conduct in light of human rights standards. The decision is the latest in a series of key decisions concerning EU human rights responsibility over the course of the past year, including WS and Others v. Frontex, Hamoudi v. Frontex, Sea Watch v Frontex, as well as Kočner and KS and KD. This contribution explains how some of these cases perpetuate the shortcomings of the EU’s human rights responsibility regime, while others show the Court’s willingness and ability to redress these.
Continue reading >>
A Leap Forward for Biodiversity Litigation
On 23 October, 2024, BUND (Friends of the Earth Germany) and several individuals filed a constitutional complaint mirroring the Neubauer case, but directed at the biodiversity crisis. The claimants seek a declaration from the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) that the lack of a coherent scheme for the protection of biodiversity infringes fundamental rights and seek an order from the court for the legislature to take the necessary measures to adopt an appropriate, legally binding protection scheme within a clear timeline. This case presents a significant development in the field of strategic biodiversity litigation as the first systemic government framework case. It can be seen as the Urgenda of biodiversity litigation.
Continue reading >>
When Words Really Matter
It has been over 900 days since Russia launched its so-called ‘three-day crusade’ to capture Kyiv. The way we talk about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has far-reaching implications, not only for public perception but also for international policy and accountability. How we label this conflict—whether we call it the ‘war in Ukraine’ or ‘Russia’s war against Ukraine’—influences how we understand responsibility, justice, and the path to peace.
Continue reading >>
Relationalizing the EU’s Fundamental Rights Responsibility
Human rights law traditionally governs a three-part relationship which connects the individual, the state, and its territory. The design of the EU’s Integrated Border Management (IBM) governance model eschews the applicability and enforceability of international and European human (fundamental) rights law by significantly reconfiguring the relationship between each of these three prongs. This contribution maps how these three traditional triggers for the applicability of human rights law are increasingly evaded in EU IBM policies, the responses to these evasion techniques and how a relational turn in the determination of human rights responsibility may be inevitable.
Continue reading >>
Common but Differentiated Responsibility in Climate and Genocide Cases
The search for a more equitable and legally binding responsibility distribution mechanism in global refugee protection starts with the question what responsibility states bear for the protection of refugees and other forced migrants outside of their territory. Here I discuss two potential avenues within international law: the operationalised international law principles of cooperation and solidarity, based on their application in climate cases; and the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) doctrine from international humanitarian law. The distribution mechanism they both apply might be useful to establish and define extraterritorial protection obligations of states towards refugees.
Continue reading >>
Due Diligence in International Law
This contribution determines to what extent the international law obligations of due diligence, the no harm principle or the principle sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas can be relied upon today to advance extraterritorial obligations of states towards migrants. Crucially for this purpose, the due diligence obligation is not limited to individuals within the jurisdiction of a State. Rather, States must ensure that activities within their jurisdiction do not cause serious harm to individuals in the territory of another State or to common interests of the international community.
Continue reading >>
Beyond Borders
The question of extraterritoriality has found a very particular application in contexts of migration. This renders the questions of which state has to fulfill human rights obligations while a migrant is on the move and to what extent very pressing ones. This symposium examines what the existing criteria for attribution exactly mean for states’ extraterritorial obligations and responsibility in a migration context and whether arguments from other fields of law could either inspire or be implemented beyond their respective borders.
Continue reading >>
How Viktor Orbán Challenges the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy
Since the start of the Hungarian Presidency of the Council of the European Union (EU), the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán pursued an active foreign policy. He went to Kyiv for a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, made a surprise visit to Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, attended an informal summit of the Organisation of Turkic States hosted by Ilham Aliyev, President of Azerbaijan, and then flew to Beijing for a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Orbán’s self-declared ‘peace diplomacy’ illustrates – once more – the challenges surrounding the EU’s external representation. His visits are nothing else than an expression of Hungarian national foreign policy. Also in that capacity, however, his actions are problematic in view of Hungary’s obligations under the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy.
Continue reading >>The EU Association Agreement with Andorra and San Marino
On 26 April 2024, the European Commission put forward a proposal for the Council to conclude the Association Agreement (AA) between the European Union and Andorra and San Marino. The AA with Andorra and San Marino goes another step further and introduces in an unprecedented manner the supervision and jurisdiction of the European Commission and the Court of Justice (CJEU) in the context of an association agreement. Accordingly, the Union may now have fully exhausted its association competence when it comes to the depth of integration it may offer third countries.
Continue reading >>
Understanding European Border Management
This contribution highlights how European border management disrupts conventional state-centric understandings thereof, while fostering impunity for human rights violations in its enforcement. EU borders are increasingly controlled in a supranational fashion by a panoply of different actors with different legal mandates and obligations, expanding within and beyond the physical frontiers of Member States. In addition, new technologies and the political turn to the logic of ‘crisis governance’ are contributing to changing the traditional practice of border controls, with a multiplicy of actors being involved in a complex dynamic of securitization. The actors, practices and the legal framework governing European border controls are rapidly changing; yet underlying linear and territorial assumptions and liability regimes remain unchanged perpetuating serious human rights shortcomings.
Continue reading >>
How the EU Death Machine Works
Since 2015, more than 27.500 innocent people died or ‘went missing’ in the Mediterranean. They drowned by themselves thanks to villain smugglers, the Council submits; accountability for the death toll is a complex matter, the Court of Justice finds; besides the geopolitical times are complex – the Commission is right. But what an accident: mare nostrum, a great thoroughfare, turned itself into a racialized grave. Yet, these deaths at EU borders, just as mass abuse and kidnappings by EU-funded and equipped thugs in Libya do not happen by chance. The EU-Belarus border is another locus of torture and violence. All this is a successful implementation of well-designed lawless policies by the Union in collusion with the Member States. In this post, we map key legal techniques deployed by the designers of the EU’s death machine.
Continue reading >>
Shielding Frontex 2.0
In Hamoudi v Frontex, the General Court dismissed another action that could have clarified if, when, and how independent or joint human rights responsibility would arise when Frontex is engaged in shared operational conduct with the Member States. This time not on the basis of an obscure re-interpretation of the Applicant’s claim, but instead, on the basis of an unattainably high and unrealistic burden, standard and method of proof. In doing so, the General Court again eschews from clarifying the nature, conditions and consequences of both independent and joint human rights responsibility of Frontex. Taken together, these cases raise the question whether there are any viable forms of judicial recourse for fundamental rights violations committed or contributed to by the EU’s Border and Coastguard Agency.
Continue reading >>
Rule of Law Abnegated
This year is the second winter that thousands of asylum seekers will spend on the cold streets of Brussels. More than 2700 of them are still without any material assistance and shelter. 869 of them have a domestic court order recognising their right to reception, yet the Belgian government has consistently refused to implement them. This deliberate refusal to secure the human rights of migrants, especially where these are single males, is not only creating a humanitarian disaster in Belgium’s streets but also undermines the raison d’être of Belgian democracy. While the government’s actions have been condemned by human rights experts and courts alike, we argue it is arguably reflective of a worrying wider trend in the EU of the impotence of the law to secure human rights for migrants.
Continue reading >>
Who Speaks on Behalf of the European Union?
“It’s a cacophony. It’s ridiculous”. This is how an EU diplomat described the flow of EU statements following the outbreak of the war between Israel and Hamas. The divergent reactions reveal the existence of institutional tensions about the Union’s external representation, which undermine the coherence and credibility of the EU’s external action. The war between Israel and Hamas concerns issues of foreign and security policy. Whether one likes it or not, this is an area where the Commission has a more limited role – also with respect to external representation. A certain restraint or, at the very least, closer coordination with the Member States and the European External Action Service could have been expected.
Continue reading >>
Shielding Frontex
In a landmark case, the EU General Court ruled this week on liability claims against Frontex for human rights violations - and rejected the damage claims. The case was the first of its kind concerning human rights responsibility of Frontex and had all the ingredients to prompt the General Court to finally clarify a number of pervasive and urgent questions concerning Frontex responsibility for complicity in unlawful human rights conduct. Instead, by conflating the wrongful conduct under scrutiny, the Court prevents a critical examination of Frontex’s conduct altogether. The significance of the case thus lies in the adopted approach by the Court, which, in effect, contributes to the systematic shielding of Frontex from any responsibility for contributions to human rights harms.
Continue reading >>The EFTA Court vs Liechtenstein’s Constitutional Court
On July 4 2023, the Court of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) issued its advisory opinion in RS v Steuerverwaltung des Fürstentums Liechtenstein. Liechtenstein’s Constitutional Court had already found in 2020 that a difference in tax rate on income for resident and non-resident employees was incompatible with the free movement of workers. Nonetheless, the Administrative Court of Liechtenstein found it necessary to refer the exact same issue to the EFTA Court, upon which the EFTA Court came to a similar conclusion as the Constitutional Court. The reason thereto? The Constitutional Court had suspended the annulment of the national law for reasons of legal certainty. The question consequently arose of how the national court should further proceed. Should it immediately give full effect to the law of the European Economic Area (EEA) by following the EFTA Court and disapplying the national legislation, or should it give priority to the findings of its own Constitutional Court and nonetheless apply the national legislation, even if that legislation breaches EEA law? How should the national court deal with this conflict of allegiance?
Continue reading >>
Ecuador’s Mutual Death Clause
On May 17, Ecuadorian President, Guillermo Lasso, dissolved the National Assembly by activating a unique constitutional clause known as ‘mutual death’ [muerte cruzada]. Under this provision, added to Ecuador’s Constitution in 2008 but never before used, the President can dissolve the Legislative, call general elections, and rule by decree until a new Legislative and President are elected. This post details the significance of these recent events and the decision of the Constitutional Court to render the clause non-reviewable.
Continue reading >>
The Ukrainian Grain Imports Saga
Poland and Hungary, later joined by Bulgaria, Slovakia and Romania, decided to unilaterally halt the imports of grain and other food products from Ukraine to protect their domestic farmers. The European Commission quickly announced that “trade policy is of EU exclusive competence and, therefore, unilateral actions are not acceptable”. At the same, however, the Commission’s spokesperson also considered that it was “too early” to comment on the legal implications of the Member States’ actions. Instead, the Commission adopted a pragmatic approach. It quickly announced a new support package for EU farmers affected by the increased supply of Ukrainian agricultural products and proposed additional measures to ensure the transit of Ukrainian grain exports to destinations outside of the Union. Significantly, it also added that this package “is subject to Member States lifting their unilateral measures”. This creates a very cynical situation, in the sense that an infringement of EU law may be instrumental to reach a better deal.
Continue reading >>
Why Restricting Tourist Visas to Russians is Legitimate
In the aftermath of Ukrainian President Zelenski’s call on the EU to introduce a ban on short-term ‘tourist’ visas for Russians wishing to travel the Schengen area, a lively debate on the issue erupted, featuring important interventions not last on this website. For instance, Sarah Ganty argues that an EU tourist visa ban would be ethically wrong and unlawful. However, there is no absolute right to travel through the EU.
Continue reading >>Why Banning Russians from Schengen Is Unlawful
Volodymyr Zelensky, the Prime Minister of Finland and others have been calling for an EU-wide ban of Russian citizens from Schengen visas. Unquestionably, the horrible crimes perpetrated by the Russian state should be punished. But Russians are citizens of a totalitarian state, they are not Putin. And whether we like it or not, there is no legal way under current EU law to adopt a blanket citizenship-based ban against Russians acquiring Schengen visas. Even more: political attention paid to it by persons in leadership positions is deeply surprising, if not irresponsible.
Continue reading >>Ecuador’s June 2022 Multi-pronged Social Outburst
For 18 days in June, the Ecuadorian society has descended into chaos. What started as a strike led by indigenous communities mutated into a multi-pronged social outburst that threatened the constitutional order as a whole. While the core reason for the widespread discontent lies in the systematic exclusion of a vast majority of the Ecuadorian population from basic social systems, the resent crisis in Ecuador posts a more comprehensive alert.
Continue reading >>
Avoiding the Elephant in the Room Once Again
In its long-awaited Grand Chamber judgment, the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) dealt with the question how the effective functioning of the instrument of the European arrest warrant (EAW), built upon the principle of mutual trust between the judicial authorities of all the Member States, can be safeguarded against the backdrop of the deficiencies in the Polish judicial system. The judgment specifies the conditions under which the national judicial authorities of Member States executing a European arrest warrant may refuse to surrender the requested persons, but still fails to reach its full potential.
Continue reading >>
The Los Cedros Forest has Rights
Last week, the Ecuadorian Constitutional Court published its judgment in the case of the Los Cedros forest, a protected cloud forest of great biodiversity in the Andean mountains of Ecuador. This judgment revokes environmental permits previously granted to two mining concessions in the Bosque Protector Los Cedros reserve. The Court ruled that the mining permits in question had not only violated several constitutional rights of communities in the area but also – most remarkably – the rights of mother nature (Pacha Mama). It specifically granted these rights to the Los Cedros Reserve. But there is still some uncertainty regarding future applications of this unusual, non-anthropocentric legal standard set by the Court to protect the rights of mother nature.
Continue reading >>
(Il-)Legal Gymnastics by Poland and Hungary in EU Border Procedures
This week, Poland has made headlines yet again for dispatching 12,000 guards to the border between Poland and Belarus and the use of tear gas to prevent third country nationals (TCNs), including children, from crossing into Polish territory. It is acutely problematic that Poland has foregone any semblance of conformity with EU law at all in the adoption of its domestic legislation on border procedures.
Continue reading >>Smothered by Russia’s Brotherly Embrace
On 12 July 2021, Putin’s article ‘On historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians’ was published on the official website of the Kremlin, followed by a video to explain the article’s main ideas. Russia’s president repeatedly refers to the past, making use of historical narratives to frame and legitimize Russia’s security policy and geopolitics.
Continue reading >>