24 January 2026
Case C‑19/23 on the Minimum Wage Directive
The Decision on the validity of the “Minimum Wage Directive” from November 2025 was analysed from several aspects, but in the present commentary, I focus on the Court’s interpretation of the limit set by Article 153(5) TFEU to the Union’s legislative competence. The latter excludes the adoption of measures relating to […] “pay”. Arguably, the Court’s reasoning shrinks the contours of the exclusion of “pay”, thereby limiting the practical reach of Article 153(5) TFEU in a way that invites consideration of whether the retained national competences are taken seriously. Continue reading >>
0 
23 December 2025
From Security to Economics
Last week, by adopting Regulation 2025/2600, the Council effectively froze Russian state assets permanently. They had already been frozen under the EU sanctions regime which required unanimous renewal every six months. In our view, this permanent freezing under Article 122(1) TFEU remains primarily designed to address matters of foreign policy and violates the conferral of competence. In the long term, given that the frozen assets also serve as a security for the newly agreed loan of EUR 90 billion for Ukraine, this will also jeopardize the enforceability of the said collateral. Continue reading >>
0
02 October 2023
The Comeback of the Mixed Chamber
Three years ago, in the wake of the Weiss judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court, we proposed the creation of a “Mixed Chamber” in the Court of Justice of the European Union, to rule in last instance on judicial disputes on points of Union competence. The rationale of a Chamber so composed is not obvious. After all, in a Union in which EU Law has primacy over national law, in which the autonomy of EU law is all-pervasive and where the Court of Justice is the ultimate interpreter of EU law, why should a Mixed Chamber be needed? We believe there are at least three good reasons that make a Mixed Chamber as salient as ever. Continue reading >>01 September 2019