09 October 2015
Safeguarding European Fundamental Rights or Creating a Patchwork of National Data Protection?
On Tuesday, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union declared the Commission’s US Safe Harbour Decision invalid. The Court’s ruling in Case C-362/14 of the Austrian Internet activist Maximillian Schrems v the Irish Data Protection Commissioner is a milestone in the protection of European fundamental rights, but it also preserves space for different national supervisory standards and national discretion on whether data may actually be transferred. Is the ruling opening the way for a patchwork of national data protection? How does this ruling influence the TTIP negotiations? Continue reading >>
0 
07 October 2015
Schrems v. Commissioner: A Biblical Parable of Judicial Power
We might celebrate the Court’s decision in Case C-362/14 as an improbable victory of good (data-privacy) over evil (consumer and intelligence data abuses). But I want to offer some words of caution about god-like judicial power. Continue reading >>
0
06 October 2015
Luxemburg rüttelt an Wohnsitzauflage für Flüchtlinge
Bürgerkriegsflüchtlingen, die internationalen Schutz genießen und Sozialhilfe beziehen, wird in Deutschland von den Behörden ein verbindlicher Wohnsitz zugewiesen. Das, so Generalanwalt Cruz Villalón in seiner wohl letzten Amtshandlung, dürfte so pauschal europarechtswidrig sein: Flüchtlinge dürfen nicht nach ihrem Rechtsstatus diskriminiert werden, und das bloße Ziel, die Belastung der Kommunen besser zu verteilen, rechtfertige eine solche Ungleichbehandlung nicht. Und das ist im Schatten des epochalen "Schrems"-Urteils nur eine von vielen weit reichenden Luxemburger Neuigkeiten dieses denkwürdigen Tages. Continue reading >>29 September 2015
The Proposed TTIP Tribunal and the Court of Justice: What Limits to Investor-State Dispute Settlement under EU Constitutional Law?
In its controversial Opinion 2/13, the European Court of Justice has rejected the accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights. The constitutional hurdles the CJEU has erected in this opinion are not only relevant in the area of human rights, but also require us to think hard about the EU constitutionality of the suggested TTIP Tribunal, or any other mechanism of investor-state dispute settlement under future EU international investment agreements. To reduce this uncertainty it may be advisable to request the CJEU through an advisory opinion. Continue reading >>
0
29 September 2015
The Proposed TTIP Tribunal and the Court of Justice: What Limits to Investor-State Dispute Settlement under EU Constitutional Law?
In its controversial Opinion 2/13, the European Court of Justice has rejected the accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights. The constitutional hurdles the CJEU has erected in this opinion are not only relevant in the area of human rights, but also require us to think hard about the EU constitutionality of the suggested TTIP Tribunal, or any other mechanism of investor-state dispute settlement under future EU international investment agreements. To reduce this uncertainty it may be advisable to request the CJEU through an advisory opinion. Continue reading >>
0
23 September 2015
Where do we stand on the reform of the EU’s Court System? On a reform as short-sighted as the attempts to force through its adoption
Last October, the CJEU has proposed to double the number of judges at the General Court to help tackling its growing workload. The legislative process this proposal is currently undergoing appears to be marred by a pattern of procedural irregularities whose only aim seems to be the speedy adoption of the reform and – more troublingly – may also be construed as a joint advocacy strategy designed to systematically eliminate any opportunity for a public, well informed and evidence-based debate. Should this reform go through (as it appears likely), damaging evidence might yet come to light and the authority and legitimacy of relevant EU institutions will be further undermined at a time where they have little to spare. Continue reading >>
0
23 September 2015
Where do we stand on the reform of the EU’s Court System? On a reform as short-sighted as the attempts to force through its adoption
Last October, the CJEU has proposed to double the number of judges at the General Court to help tackling its growing workload. The legislative process this proposal is currently undergoing appears to be marred by a pattern of procedural irregularities whose only aim seems to be the speedy adoption of the reform and – more troublingly – may also be construed as a joint advocacy strategy designed to systematically eliminate any opportunity for a public, well informed and evidence-based debate. Should this reform go through (as it appears likely), damaging evidence might yet come to light and the authority and legitimacy of relevant EU institutions will be further undermined at a time where they have little to spare. Continue reading >>
0