03 July 2025
Constitutional Awakening of Values
On 5 June 2025, AG Ćapeta delivered her opinion in case C-769/22, raising a pivotal question for the EU’s constitutional future: Can Article 2 TEU serve as a standalone provision in infringement proceedings? While the issue has sparked debate – including on this blog – this post defends the Opinion as a constitutionally coherent and necessary step to safeguard the Union’s foundational values. It argues that AG Ćapeta’s approach is firmly rooted in existing case law and offers a compelling legal framework to address democratic backsliding. The post focuses on her use of the “good society” concept and the proposed “negation of values” test, examining their normative grounding and practical significance within EU law. Continue reading >>
0 
20 June 2025
Rethinking Article 2 TEU
The recent Opinion of Advocate General (AG) Ćapeta in Case C 769/22 European Commission v Hungary marks a key moment in the evolving case law on Article 2 TEU. The case concerns Hungary’s controversial 2021 legislation restricting access to content portraying or promoting LGBTI identities. This analysis traces how recent ECJ rulings have prepared the ground for this development and examines the Opinion’s implications for the future enforcement of the EU’s constitutional identity. Continue reading >>
0
10 June 2025
From Dialogue to Discord
Advocate General Ćapeta delivered her Opinion regarding a violation of Article 2 TEU, which lies at the heart of the pending case before the CJEU – a case that bears, quite appropriately, the name “Valeurs de l’Union”. Her opinion is likely to cause a stir. Even though this is not the final judgment, it is unprecedented for Article 2 TEU to be declared justiciable and found to have been infringed. Continue reading >>14 November 2022
Nicht genug geärgert für immateriellen Schadensersatz
Die in Art. 82 Abs. 1 DSGVO vorgesehene Ersatzfähigkeit immaterieller Schäden aus DSGVO-Verletzungen sorgt vor den Gerichten der Mitgliedstaaten für beträchtliche Unsicherheiten, was sich in gegenwärtig neun Vorabentscheidungsersuchen an den EuGH zu dieser Thematik äußert. In dem am weitesten fortgeschritten Verfahren wurden am 06.10.2022 die Schlussanträge von General Generalanwalt Sánchez-Bordona veröffentlicht, die bedauerlich wenig zur Debatte beitragen, teils an der Sache vorbei argumentieren und den Gerichten schlicht keine praktikable Lösung zu den gestellten Vorlagefragen liefern. Continue reading >>09 November 2022
Compensation for non-material damages under the GDPR
On 6 October 2022, Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered his Opinion in case C‑300/21. At stake is the interpretation of Article 82 of the General Data Protection Regulation, which provides compensation for non-material damages. The Opinion opts for a strict interpretation of this provision, but a broader reading is possible, and even desirable, in light of the GDPR’s objectives and the many barriers impeding effective enforcement of data protection rights. Continue reading >>21 October 2022
Towards a data-subject-friendly interpretation of Article 82 GDPR
Under the GDPR, Article 82 is the only instrument to claim compensation resulting from data protection infringements. So far, it has not been interpreted by the CJEU. To date, nine preliminary references on the interpretation of Article 82 have been made by national courts. On 6 October 2022, Advocate General Sánchez-Bordona delivered his Opinion in one of them. Since it will be the first CJEU judgment on this subject, it will have a profound impact on the further development of EU data protection law, in particular, its private enforcement. Continue reading >>18 October 2022
Digital Autonomy in Contractual Relationships
It is rare for two Advocates General of the European Court of Justice to differ on the interpretation of a fundamental legal act of the European Union. This is what recently occurred with regard to the General Data Protection Regulation. Continue reading >>11 October 2021
The Writing is on the Wall
On 6 October 2021, Advocate General (AG) Saugmandsgaard Øe published his Opinion in the joined cases C-368/20 NW v Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark and C-369/20 NW v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Leibnitz. Six Schengen countries (Germany, France, Austria, Denmark, Norway and Sweden) have reintroduced border controls over the past years. If the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) were to follow the AG’s Opinion, they would need to seriously rethink their practices in this regard. New evidence-based procedures and serious reasons, capable of passing a proportionality test, would be necessary to introduce border controls within the Schengen Zone. Continue reading >>
0
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 >>03 September 2020