Fury and Surprise Anchored in Dogmas and Myths
The Court of Justice’s judgment in Commission v Malta has created quite some upheaval. That the judgment has caught so many legal commentators wrong-footed can be attributed to the fact that both sides overwhelmingly come from the premise that Member States are sovereign to decide who their nationals are and that there is no such thing as a genuine link requirement for nationality. This blog takes a closer look at these alleged certainties, and sets out why the judgment is not that surprising at all – lifting the veil of untenable dogmas and mystifications that have surrounded Declaration No 2 and the Court’s Micheletti judgment for too long along the way.
Continue reading >>
Unleashing Horizontal State Liability
The Common European Asylum System (CEAS) is under attack. In a recent Judgment against Hungary, the European Court of Justice has unambiguously stated that non-compliance with the rules of the CEAS undermines solidarity between Member States and strikes at the very heart of EU law. Traditional means of enforcement, however, seem insufficient to foster compliance with these rules. Against this backdrop, this blogpost argues for the unexplored avenue for enforcing the CEAS via horizontal state liability.
Continue reading >>Long Live Nottebohm
Next year, Nottebohm will be turning 70. Only very recently, Weiler, on this blog, made the point that the argument of a genuine link – underpinning the case of the Commission against the Maltese golden passport scheme – is unconvincing and rests on a “tendentious reading of Nottebohm”. Yet, in Commission v Malta, the CJEU may well reinvigorate a European debate about the genuine links that bind us. I, for once, would argue it is high time to make the point that nationality is not just anything a State makes of it.
Continue reading >>