25 November 2024
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
In its recent decision in ST v Frontex the CJEU missed once again an opportunity to review Frontex's conduct in light of human rights standards. The decision is the latest in a series of key decisions concerning EU human rights responsibility over the course of the past year, including WS and Others v. Frontex, Hamoudi v. Frontex, Sea Watch v Frontex, as well as Kočner and KS and KD. This contribution explains how some of these cases perpetuate the shortcomings of the EU’s human rights responsibility regime, while others show the Court’s willingness and ability to redress these. Continue reading >>
0 
25 April 2023
Investing Immobilized Russian Assets, Monetarizing the Common Foreign and Security Policy
Again, the Commission and EU Member States are talking about new sanctions against Russia. The focus, according to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, should be on tackling sanctions circumvention and loopholes. In a scoop, however, it was also uncovered that the Commission has drawn up a non-paper “on the generation of resources to support Ukraine from immobilized Russian assets”. The idea behind this non-paper is to invest the immobilized assets of the Russian Central Bank in EU Member States’ bonds and bills and use the proceeds to support the reconstruction of Ukraine. The plan, as the non-paper indicates, is fraught with a number of legal and technical issues. These do not only relate to the question of whether or not such an investment of immobilized assets is compatible with international law and EU law, but also to the question of who should undertake and oversee these investments. Continue reading >>
0
19 October 2022
EU Military Mission Is Coming Home
On 10 October 2022, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs, Josep Borrell, delivered a remarkably clear speech (for a diplomat) at the EU Ambassadors Annual Conference 2022, in which he drew conclusions about the current state of the Union’s foreign policy. A few days later, on 17 October 2022, the Council for Foreign Affairs agreed on establishing the European Union Military Assistance Mission in support of Ukraine (‘EUMAM Ukraine’). Normally, such EU military operations are carried out overseas. However, this does not seem to be the case here, raising legal questions as to whether this action has a sufficient legal basis in the EU Treaties. Continue reading >>18 October 2020
Constitutionalising the EU Foreign and Security Policy
In the appeal case of Bank Refah Kargaran v Council (C-134/19 P), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has held that the EU Courts have jurisdiction over claims for damages in the area of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). This is coherent with the rationale of the exceptional exclusion of jurisdiction under CFSP and confirms that the Union’s commitment to the rule of law extends to CFSP. Continue reading >>02 March 2018
A Line in the Sand: The ‘Strict Observance’ of International Law in the Western Sahara Case
When the EU makes international agreements and implements them, its scope is not only limited by the competence allocation and procedures in its own primary law but also by fundamental features of the international legal order. In the Western Sahara judgment, the CJEU has drawn lines in the sand not only geographically but also constitutionally. Continue reading >>06 April 2017
Judicial Review of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy: Lessons from the Rosneft case
On 28 March 2017, the Grand Chamber of the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) decided in a preliminary ruling that the restrictive measures adopted by the Council against Russian undertakings, including oil company Rosneft, are valid. The judgment is of constitutional significance. It clarifies the scope of the CJEU’s jurisdiction with respect to acts adopted in the sphere of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). In particular, it reveals that the EU system of judicial protection fully applies in relation to restrictive measures against natural and legal persons (so-called ‘targeted sanctions’). Continue reading >>13 June 2016
Jurisdiction, legislation, and creative interpretations in the Opinion of AG Wathelet in C-72/15 Rosneft
The frequent legal challenges to the European Union’s economic sanctions regimes have resulted in several judgments chiseling out key issues of EU law. Case C-72/15 Rosneft, which will be decided in the coming months, provides the European Court of Justice (ECJ) yet another opportunity to do so. In particular, the Rosneft case invites the ECJ to clarify its jurisdiction and power of judicial review over decisions taken by the Council under the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) – in the context of a reference for preliminary ruling. Continue reading >>
0
18 November 2015
Der Europäische Beistandsfall als Katalysator für eine Militarisierung der Europäischen Außenpolitik?
Wenn ein EU-Mitgliedsstaat angegriffen wird, dann schulden ihm alle anderen Mitgliedsstaaten „alle in ihrer Macht stehende Hilfe und Unterstützung“. Dieser so genannte Beistandsfall war bisher bloße Theorie – doch jetzt hat Frankreich ihn erstmals aktiviert. Die anderen Mitgliedsstaaten, u.a. Deutschland, reagierten zwar im Wortlaut vage, aber im Grunde zustimmend. Frankreich schwebt dabei insbesondere (zumindest mittelbare) militärische Unterstützung im Kampf gegen IS vor. Dies könnte die Union tiefgreifend verändern, wenn die Aktivierung der Beistandsklausel die Gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik (GASP) der Europäischen Union militarisiert. Continue reading >>
0