Protecting the Fairness of European Parliament Elections via Preliminary Ruling
Supreme or constitutional courts regularly step in to protect the democratic process by deciding election disputes. It is remarkable that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has so far barely been engaged concerning the European Parliament (EP) elections. Using Hungary as an example, I will argue in the following that the CJEU is institutionally well-positioned to help protect the integrity of the 2024 EP elections via preliminary ruling procedures. Hungarian democracy has been in decline, according to the EP, the Commission and various democracy indices. The problems include the lack of a level playing field, targeted action by authorities against opposition parties, overlaps between the activities of the government and the governing party, state funding of campaigning and party financing in general, lack of media pluralism, and the different means of voting for citizens living abroad (postal vote for some and not for others). I argue that the CJEU could and should be engaged to protect the fairness of the EP elections in Hungary.
Continue reading >>Beating a Dead Horse
With the view of potentially revising how the EU Council’s Annual Rule of Law, the Spanish Presidency of the Council had sent out a “questionnaire for the Member States on the evaluation of the Council’s annual rule of law dialogue. The provided answers will inform conclusions to be adopted following the General Affairs Council scheduled for 12 December 2023. Following the disclosure of the MS’ answers to this questionnaire, this post will discuss the added value of this discursive and secretive tool to address systemic threats to or violations of the rule of law. I argue that the answers reveal the dialogue to be an ultimately toothless and partially incoherent exercise that relies excessively on the good faith of its participants and lacks accountability by design.
Continue reading >>Daten und Werte
Grundsätzliche Fragen zum Verhältnis von Künstlicher Intelligenz und Datenschutz sind noch immer ungeklärt. Die geplante KI-Verordnung wird diese Probleme nicht lösen, sondern weiter vertiefen. Denn der europäische Gesetzgeber hat bislang davon abgesehen, das Verhältnis von KI- und Datenschutz-Grundverordnung eindeutig zu regeln. Die dort formulierten Pflichten für die Entwicklung und den Einsatz sogenannter Hochrisiko-KI-Systeme sollen bereits bestehende Regelungen ergänzen, nicht ersetzen. Nun zeichnet sich - paradoxerweise im Rahmen unionaler Bemühungen Recht zu setzen - ein Trend weg von positiv gesetzten, bestimmbaren Recht an. Regulatoren, Wissenschaft und Lobby reden stattdessen naturrechtlichen Ideen und einer 'KI-Ethik' das Wort, die letztlich vor allem auf eines hinausläuft: bloß keine strengen Regeln.
Continue reading >>Europe and the Global Race to Regulate AI
The EU wants to set the global rule book for AI. This blog explains the complex “risk hierarchy” that pervades the proposed AI Act, currently in the final stages of trilogue negotiation. This contrasts with the US focus on “national security risks”. We point out shortcomings of the EU approach requiring comprehensive risk assessments (ex ante), at the level of technology development. Using economic analysis, we distinguish exogenous and endogenous sources of potential AI harm arising from input data. We are sceptical that legislators can anticipate the future of a general purpose technology, such as AI. We propose that from the perspective of encouraging ongoing innovation, (ex post) liability rules can provide the right incentives to improve data quality and AI safety.
Continue reading >>We Don’t Need No Education?
Artificial Intelligence doesn't know what's 'true'. Especially, generative AI models like chatbots veer from the truth, i.e. “hallucinate”, quite regularly. Chatbots simply invent information at least 3 percent of the time and sometimes as high as 27 percent. Given the (future) use of such systems in nearly all domains, we might want such systems to follow more stringent rules of accuracy. And those truth-related rules are not the only rules for AI systems that warrant societal scrutiny. How those systems are trained will be crucial. In this blog post, we argue that a new perspective is key to tackle this challenge: “Hybrid Speech Governance”.
Continue reading >>Defusing an Atomic Bomb
The sigh of relief was audible throughout Europe. In Brussels and other European capitals, the victory of the opposition bloc in the Polish elections sparked hope that the imminent change in government would end the illiberal course of the past. While years of democratic backsliding have left lasting marks on Poland’s political and legal landscape, the newly elected government is clearly committed to leading Poland back onto the path of democracy and the rule of law. However, one pertinent institutional issue remains to be resolved: the still pending procedure against Poland under Art 7 TEU.
Continue reading >>The Right To Die Like The Trees: Standing
My name is dr. Dániel András Karsai. I am a human rights attorney. I am also terminally ill. In August 2022, I was diagnosed with ALS. ALS is a so-called motor neurone disease. ALS leads to an extremely humiliating life situation, increasingly depriving you of independence. For reasons unknown to medical science, this disease causes nerve cells that move the muscles to deteriorate, leading to muscle atrophy and ultimately complete paralysis. At the end of the disease, respiratory functions also cease, resulting in death by asphyxiation. The final stage of the disease is virtually a vegetative existence, without any possibility of conscious activity or communication. For me, this form of existence is devoid of all meaning and dignity. In this situation, I firmly believe in the arguable claim to demand the right to end my life with dignity instead of enduring meaningless suffering.
Continue reading >>Fighting Impunity Through Intermediaries
The 24th of February 2022 lastingly altered Europe’s security architecture. The European Union and its member states have continued to support Ukraine in a multitude of ways, including direct financial assistance, political support in relevant international fora, far-reaching sanctions against Russian citizens and businesses, and massive arms supplies. What has, however, remained ambiguous is within which (legal) framework the EU has provided different means of support towards Ukraine. In other words: what legal principle – that may also be derived from its treaty framework – determined and guided EU support towards Ukraine? This contribution argues that at least certain streams of EU assistance for Ukraine in countering the Russian Federation’s aggression – namely those aimed at ending impunity for international crimes – have been organized within a distinct rule of law context.
Continue reading >>Strasburg Weighs In On Political Persecution In Turkey
In a pivotal judgment delivered by the Grand Chamber, the European Court of Human Rights held that the conviction of a former teacher Yüksel Yalcinkaya violated Articles 6,7 and 11 of the Convention. The applicant Yalcinkaya was a teacher who was dismissed with an emergency decree enacted during the state of emergency rule between 2016 and 2018 and was subsequently prosecuted and convicted for his use of the ByLock app and for his membership in a teachers’ union and an association which were also closed down with an emergency decree. In Erdogan’s ever more repressive Turkey, usage of said app or membership in organizations and unions may lead to arrest. Especially anything that appears remotely related to the oppositional Gulen movement carries the risk of persecution.
Continue reading >>To Hell, on a White Horse
Slovakia voted on the final day of September 2023. The electoral rhetoric, results and subsequent coalition-building give grounds to expect illiberal constitutional changes. More attention is needed towards the Constitutional Court’s capacity to resist such illiberalization, as Slovakia may join Hungary in a revamped illiberal Visegrad alliance.
Continue reading >>Politisches Microtargeting vs. Rechtsaufsicht
In der letzten Woche ist bekannt geworden, dass die EU-Kommission, konkret der amtliche Account der Kommissarin für Inneres, Microtargeting auf X (vormals Twitter) nutzte, um Schwung in ein festgefahrenes Gesetzgebungsvorhaben zu bringen. Es handelt sich um eine gezielte Beeinflussung der gesellschaftlichen Debatte rund um die sogenannte „Kinderschutzverordnung“, auch bekannt als „Chatkontrolle“ durch datenbasierte Zielgruppenansprache (zur Berichterstattung und Analyse). Diese Posts sollten Druck auf mitgliedsstaatliche Regierungen ausüben, um doch noch eine Mehrheit für das Vorhaben zu beschaffen. Dieser Vorgang ist auch abseits der inhaltlichen Debatte um die „Chatkontrolle“ bemerkenswert, schließlich zeigt er neben den systemischen Risiken von Plattformen und dem Bedürfnis nach effektiver Durchsetzung von Plattformregulierung auf, dass die Kommission sich in einem Spannungsverhältnis der Funktionen als Aufsichtsbehörde und als politische Akteurin befindet und somit das systeminhärente Risiko besteht, dass sie ihre Funktion als Aufsichtsbehörde zugunsten politischer Ziele vernachlässigt.
Continue reading >>Who Decides What Counts as Disinformation in the EU?
Who decides what counts as “disinformation” in the EU? Not public authorities, because disinformation is not directly sanctioned in the Digital Service Act (DSA) or other secondary legislation. Nor Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) and Very Large Online Search Engines (VLOSes), which avoid editorial decisions to maintain their legal status as intermediaries with limited liability. Instead, the delicate task of identifying disinformation is being undertaken by other private organisations whose place of administration and activity, purpose, funding and organizational structure appear problematic in terms of the legitimacy and even legality of the fight against disinformation. This blog post maps out the relevant (private) actors, namely the ad industry, fact checking organizations and so-called source-raters.
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 >>Post-populist Populism
Good news for democracy from Poland? It appears that in the recent general elections, the right-wing populist Law and Justice party (PiS), won most seats but not enough to allow it to form a coalition. Donald Tusk's Civic Coalition has a better chance of forming a coalition, which might put an end to PiS' eight years of rule. This, prima facie, seems like a victory of democracy over populism. While this is certainly true, in this post we wish to flag certain warning signs that this possible democratic rotation is not the end of the struggle for democracy but merely the beginning of this process. This is because even when populists are voted out of office, their legacy - at least partially - persists.
Continue reading >>At a Snail’s Pace
By 1 April 2018, member states had to transpose an EU Directive on ‘the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings’. Bulgaria has not fully transposed it to this day, and consistently undermines it. Now, finally, the Commission has launched infringement proceecings. Preceding the announcement, the Commission rejected Rasosveta Vassileva's reasoned complaints on the same issue, as late as 2022. Her odyssey is a concerning tale on how EU institutions handle citizen alerts.
Continue reading >>A Step Forward in Fighting Online Antisemitism
Online antisemitism is on the rise. Especially since the recent terror attack by Hamas in Southern Israel, platforms like X are (mis)used to propel antisemitism. Against this backdrop, this blog post analyses the legal framework for combatting online antisemitism in the EU and the regulatory approaches taken so far. It addresses the new Digital Services Act (DSA), highlighting some of the provisions that might become particularly important in the fight against antisemitism. The DSA improves protection against online hate speech in general and antisemitism in particular by introducing procedural and transparency obligations. However, it does not provide any substantive standards against which the illegality of such manifestations can be assessed. In order to effectively reduce online antisemitism in Europe, we need to think further, as outlined in the following blog post.
Continue reading >>The Great Yes or the Great No
As we gear up for the most consequential elections in Poland since 1989, the situation on the ground after 8 years of the paranoid polarizing and no-holds-barred politics, forces all those concerned about the future, to ask where Poland is heading. On 14 October 2023, we must understand that POLEXIT is much more than a mere dispute over institutions, rule of law, judicial independence, etc. What is at stake now is incomparably greater. It is the defense of a certain way of life, values and belonging to a community of law and values, a civic Poland in Europe and Europe in civic Poland and finally of “Me and You” as part of Europe.
Continue reading >>Obstinate Choices
Denmark is currently going through a full-blown intelligence scandal. It includes charges of illegal activity lodged by the Danish Intelligence Oversight Board (TET) against the Danish foreign intelligence service (FE), as well as a range of criminal cases brought against the former head of FE, a former minister of defence, and a former intelligence officer on charges of leaking classified information. In this post, I argue that these scandals can best be understood through the lens of a series of obstinate choices made by the Danish government and its representatives. Seemingly, because key decision-makers lacked trust and got fed up with leaks, the situation was handled aggressively from the start, as a matter of principle. I explain the complex scandal but focus on specifics only in the case against former minister of defence, Claus Hjort Frederiksen, as his case is the most clear-cut and observable for outsiders.
Continue reading >>A Hidden Success
Following the EU General Court’s dismissal of the complaint of WS and other asylum seekers against Frontex in its ruling on September 6, 2023, scholarly commentary has largely expressed disappointment. However, a more optimistic way of reading the judgement is also possible. By declaring the lawsuit admissible, the court confirmed that factual misconduct by Frontex can be addressed with action for damages claims – and this in itself is a major step forward in the system of fundamental rights protection in the European Union.
Continue reading >>Automated Decision-Making and the Challenge of Implementing Existing Laws
Who loves the latest shiny thing? Children maybe? Depends on the kid. Cats and dogs perhaps? Again, probably depends. What about funders, publishers, and researchers? Now that is an easier question to answer. Whether in talks provided by the tax-exempt ‘cult of TED’, or in open letters calling for a moratorium, the atten