02 October 2023
The Comeback of the Mixed Chamber
Three years ago, in the wake of the Weiss judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court, we proposed the creation of a “Mixed Chamber” in the Court of Justice of the European Union, to rule in last instance on judicial disputes on points of Union competence. The rationale of a Chamber so composed is not obvious. After all, in a Union in which EU Law has primacy over national law, in which the autonomy of EU law is all-pervasive and where the Court of Justice is the ultimate interpreter of EU law, why should a Mixed Chamber be needed? We believe there are at least three good reasons that make a Mixed Chamber as salient as ever. Continue reading >>
2 
07 October 2020
On the Road to German Hegemony in EU Law?
The influence of the German legal tradition in the European legal community is unquestionable. No other European country has displayed, like Germany has, such an articulate and institutionalized effort of promotion of its own legal system and thinking. The project paid off. EU Law displays an obvious German imprint that is now enforced in twenty-seven Member States. Lawyers throughout the European continent learn German to read the high-quality legal literature produced in German universities and research centers, courts and public institutions. The ultimate sign of intellectual distinction of a European lawyer is to “read the Germans”. No other feature can surpass in pedigree a lawyer’s fluency and ability to dominate German concepts in their very own words. Continue reading >>02 June 2020
The EU Judiciary After Weiss
The damage to the integrity of the EU’s legal order and its rule of law is done, and the toothpaste cannot be pushed back into the tube. So the pressing questions now are two: How to address and mitigate the damage, and how to prevent its repetition. We propose that in the Conference on the Future of Europe serious consideration be given to the establishment of a new appeal jurisdiction within the Court of Justice, strictly and narrowly confined to Weiss type cases, where at issue is the delineation of the jurisdictional line between the Member States and their EU. Continue reading >>26 August 2019
An Offer the EU and UK Cannot Refuse II: FAQ
We have received many comments and questions to our Proposal on avoiding a No-Deal Brexit. The following are the most frequently asked questions with our replies. Continue reading >>22 August 2019
An Offer the EU and UK Cannot Refuse
The EU reasonably expects a guarantee that Brexit will not compromise the integrity of its customs and regulatory territory. Hence its insistence on the Backstop. The UK reasonably expects a guarantee that it will not be locked into a permanent Customs (and regulatory) Union with the EU. Hence its rejection of the Backstop. The resulting deadlock is hurling both parties into a No-Deal Brexit. This proposal, which includes features which have never been discussed, will guarantee the integrity and autonomy of the EU’s and UK’s respective customs and regulatory territories, and will require neither a Customs Union between the two nor a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Continue reading >>04 March 2019
Crossing the Baltic Rubicon
Last week, a constitutional moment took place in the European Union. In a rather technical area of law, the Statute of the European System of Central Banks, the Court of Justice ruled for the first time in a case that ensued in the annulment of a decision of a Member State. The Court did not declare that a Member State had failed to fulfill its obligations under EU Law. What the Court did was much more ambitious. Continue reading >>
0
22 October 2018
Interim Revolutions
With the Order against Poland to suspend its "judicial reform", the European Court of Justice has entered a terra incognita, forcing a sovereign Member State to choose between its membership to the club of European integration, or to walk away and follow the path of authoritarian illiberalism. To do this in an Order of interim measures, is quite a gamble on the part of the Luxembourg court. However, the stakes are so high that the Court was left with hardly any other choices. Continue reading >>11 April 2018
The Strange (German) Case of Mr. Puigdemont’s European Arrest Warrant
The decision by the Oberlandesgericht of Schleswig in the Puigdemont case is a flawed ruling that seriously undermines the effectiveness of the European arrest warrant, and I would even say its future survival. It is also a manifest example of mistrust between courts of Member States, the type of conduct that destroys the foundations of mutual recognition and judicial cooperation. Continue reading >>24 November 2017
Provisional (And Extraordinary) Measures in the Name of the Rule of Law
The showdown was inevitable. At some point, the Court of Justice had to show its teeth and remind the Polish government of its duty to comply with the rule of law and with the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU. For the Member States of the EU, the rule of law is not an option. You either take it or leave it (and thus leave the EU). However, Poland’s late attitude towards EU integration, happily accepting the money from EU funds but showing its back on the fundamental values of the EU, was inevitably going to be confronted, sooner or later, at the Court of Justice. If the showdown was predictable, the surprise has been that it has all happened so quickly, so frontally and… in interim relief procedures in an infringement action against Poland. Continue reading >>08 November 2017