Shying Away from Strasbourg


Last week, the Italian Constitutional Court published its reasoning on a judgment regarding the so-called ergastolo ostativo (life sentence without parole). The challenged provision excludes persons convicted of serious crimes – primarily mafia-type – from a series of benefits (for example, permits and conditional release) in the event that they do not want to collaborate with the authorities. Italy’s Constitutional Court now held that this provision is not in line with the constitution but missed a chance to give full effect to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

Continue Reading →

Anachronisms by Law


In an ongoing effort to combat online hate speech, the German Minister of Justice recently announced to examine the re-introduction of section 88a of the German Penal Code. This law sanctioned the ‘anti-constitutional endorsement of crime’ and was only in force during a brief period between 1976 and 1981. It was supposed to counteract the spread of aggressive opinions and calls for violence. While politicians today are struggling with the issue of harmful online speech, one should refrain from re-introducing a law that was not only controversial back then but also ineffective. Apart from that, resurrecting the law in today’s digital world raises numerous questions.

Continue Reading →

Eurofederalists under Threat: The Latvian Supreme Court’s Ruling on Independence


On 10 April 2019, Latvia’s highest criminal court confirmed a judgment of the Riga Regional Court which convicted the accused for publicly inviting to take action against the national independence of the Republic of Latvia. This decision of the Senate not only contradicts European and international human rights law but is also inconsistent with the case law of Latvia’s Constitutional Court.

Continue Reading →

A Bridge over Troubled Water – a Criminal Lawyers’ Response to Taricco II 

,

The recent CJEU judgment in M.A.S., M.B. (hereinafter Taricco II) raises more questions than it answers on when Member States can apply higher standards of rights in criminal proceedings. Previous case law, i.e. Taricco I and Melloni, pervaded the primacy of EU law, but from Jeremy F. we also know that Member States enjoy a […]

Continue Reading →

The Taricco Decision: A Last Attempt to Avoid a Clash between EU Law and the Italian Constitution

,

Is Italy obliged by EU law to pursue criminal acts longer than provided by Italian law? This question might cause a fundamental clash between the Italian Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice. Unlike the CJEU, the Italian Constitutional Court interprets a retroactive suspension of the limitation period as a matter of principle of legality, and thereby as a matter of a core principle of Italian constitutional law. By referring the case to the CJEU, the Italian Constitutional Court gives the European Court a chance to revisit its jurisdiction while avoiding the identity language of the German Constitutional Court – good news for cooperative constitutionalism in Europe.

Continue Reading →

Illegal Entry into the Federal Republic of Germany de lege lata et de lege ferenda – a Critical Interjection


Illegal entry into Germany has led to penal proceedings since the first influx of refugees in 2015. Police investigations are opened against anyone entering without a passport or valid entry documents. This means that refugees are liable to prosecution by entering Germany and filing a petition for asylum. The right of residence desperately needs to be reformed. De lege ferenda, it makes sense to eliminate the discriminating legal status provided under Art. 31 I GFK and “de-criminalize” affected refugees.

Continue Reading →
↑ Top of Page