07 May 2024
3½ Myths about EU law on Citizenship for Sale
The sale of national and European Union citizenship understandably remains highly controversial. It seems arbitrary, perhaps even abject, to grant nationality in exchange for a monetary investment, when most people must wait years and overcome considerable hurdles before they can naturalize. As evidenced by three recent posts on the Verfassungsblog by Joseph H.H. Weiler, Merijn Chamon, and Lorin-Johannes Wagner, this question continues to divide EU law scholars. It is also a question that is still plagued by several myths about how EU law and, relatedly, international law, apply to CBI practices. This post discusses 3½ such myths. Continue reading >>
0 
07 June 2023
An Inconvenient Constraint
On 1 July 2024, Hungary is set to take over the Presidency of the Council of Ministers. The European Parliament and the Meijers Committee issued reports questioning whether Hungary should be blocked from doing that. These proposals raise questions of political feasibility, however, especially as one may doubt if a Hungarian Council Presidency can do much practical damage to the EU. In addition, they also raise questions of legal feasibility. A logical prerequisite for preventing Hungary from holding the Presidency as long as it breaches the rule of law is that doing so is consistent with the EU’s own rule of law. I doubt it is. Continue reading >>09 December 2022
An early Christmas Gift from Karlsruhe?
The 6 December Karlsruhe ruling on the constitutional complaints against the ‘Act Ratifying the EU Own Resources Decision’ will be received by many as a Saint Nicholas present. This time, the Federal Constitutional Court avoided the head-on collision with the EU it caused with its PSPP judgment two and a half years ago. Instead, it opted for a seemingly constructive assessment of the EU’s pandemic recovery instrument. In particular, it found that the ORD did not manifestly exceed the competences conferred on the EU – i.e., it was not ultra vires – and did not affect the constitutional identity of the Basic Law. While the ruling is not as constraining as some might have feared, it does not give card blanche for a more permanent EU fiscal capacity. Continue reading >>
0
25 February 2022
Claiming “We are out but I am in” post-Brexit
It is not often that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is presented with a case in which the law is so crystal clear, and so overwhelmingly contrary to the applicant’s claims, as in Préfet du Gers. The central question of the case is weather British nationals retain their EU citizenship and EU citizenship rights after Brexit. Given how straightforward the Treaties and the case-law are on this matter, it is unsurprising that AG Collins answered this question in the negative in a well-argued and straightforward Opinion. Continue reading >>
0
20 July 2021
Pride or Prejudice?
The joined cases IX v Wabe and MH Müller Handels GmbH offered the CJEU a second chance to heed the arguments raised against Achbita and reconsider its decision. Hopes that the Court would be willing to revise Achbita diminished significantly after AG Rantos’s disappointing Opinion in the case. Last week's decision in IX v Wabe to largely uphold Achbita was then also unsurprising, but nevertheless disappointing. Continue reading >>01 March 2021
Preserving Prejudice in the Name of Profit
Few CJEU judgments in recent years have received more criticism than the ‘headscarf judgments’, Achbita and Bougnaoui. In particular the decision in Achbita that private employers can legitimately pursue a policy of neutrality and ban expressions of political, religious, or philosophical belief at work, proved contentious. Two other headscarf cases, IX v Wabe and MH Müller, are currently pending before the CJEU and provide it with an excellent opportunity to do so. However, the first signs are not promising: Last week, Advocate General Rantos delivered his Opinion in these cases, which may be even more unpalatable than the Achbita judgment itself. Continue reading >>29 May 2020
Unquestioned supremacy still begs the question
Earlier this week, 32 leading scholars of EU law and politics signed the statement that national courts cannot override CJEU judgments, in response to a demonstration by the BVerfG that it actually can. We share the signatories’ concern that Weiss might (and most probably will) be used as a pretext for refusing to comply with the CJEU’s rulings and the EU rule of law requirements in Member States such as Poland or Hungary. We are also critical of the conclusion to which the BVerfG arrived in its decision, though we accept some of its premises (i.e., that the national disapplication of EU acts may be justified in some rare and exceptional cases). However, even though we are not all constitutional pluralists, we take issue with some aspects of the reasoning behind the original statement and question the doctrinal and empirical arguments it invokes in favour of EU law’s unconditional supremacy. Continue reading >>15 May 2020
Is Egenberger next?
When judges must rely on newspapers to clarify a decision they decided a week before, something seems to have gone wrong. However, while the BVerfG seems to be taken aback by the storm of indignation that burst upon them since last week’s PSPP decision, the judges remain adamant in their criticism of the CJEU. Luxembourg should perhaps even fear another ultra vires decision. Continue reading >>10 June 2018
Is the Reasoning in “Coman” as Good as the Result?
The Court of Justice of the European Union has not always enjoyed the reputation of being particularly LGBT-friendly, but its standing among those pushing for the better protection of rights of same-sex couples is likely to have improved considerably following Coman. While I agree with the substantive result of the decision, I am uncertain if the CJEU’s reasoning is equally convincing. My two main points of critique concern the interpretative techniques applied and the relationship between national identity and fundamental rights. Continue reading >>
0
19 June 2015
The EU’s limited justice capacities
The starting premise behind Europe’s Justice Deficit? is that we have to associate justice not only with the state, but also with sub- and supra-state entities. Considering the depth and breadth of European integration, the EU cannot escape our scrutiny; the EU is, as the editors remark, ‘clearly at the very least a potential agent of (in)justice’. One cannot but wholeheartedly agree with this starting assumption, but we should also acknowledge that it leaves a very important question unanswered: does the EU possess the same capacities for delivering (in)justices as other entities, in particular the state? Can we simply apply our justice vocabulary to the EU without even the slightest modicum of translation that takes into account the context within which the EU is situated? While it is not denied that the EU has the ability to deliver justice, it is suggested that there are limits to the EU’s justice capacities. Continue reading >>
0