<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/simpledc20021212.xsd">
  <dc:identifier>http://dx.doi.org/10.59704/d480d633a4f0e6a2</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>https://verfassungsblog.de/alace-ruling-cjeu/</dc:identifier>
  <dc:title>Disapplication Unbound - The Alace Ruling on Safe Countries of Origin</dc:title>
  <dc:creator>Savino, Mario</dc:creator>
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:date>2025-09-04</dc:date>
  <dc:type>electronic resource</dc:type>
  <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
  <dc:subject>ddc:342</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Direct Effect</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>EU Law</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Europäischer Gerichtshof | Luxemburg (Stadt)</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Migration</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Populism</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>asylum</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>liberal Democracy</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Europäischer Gerichtshof | Luxemburg (Stadt)</dc:subject>
  <dc:publisher>Verfassungsblog</dc:publisher>
  <dc:relation>Verfassungsblog--2366-7044</dc:relation>
  <dc:rights>CC BY-SA 4.0</dc:rights>
  <dc:description>Legal scholars welcomed the Apace ruling by the CJEU as a “total victory” for liberals supporting human rights and the independence of the judiciary. But the ruling has two central faut lines: it fails to acknowledge that Article 37 APD is not unconditional: its direct effect is, at best, dubious. Second, in Member States like Italy, where the judiciary makes extensive use of disapplication in asylum matters, the laissez-faire approach of the CJEU paves the way for legal uncertainty and exposes judges to populist attacks.</dc:description>
</dc>
