31 October 2024
Why the EU Charter Matters
This blog post argues that the most interesting aspect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights at the moment is its impact on remedies in national law. Almost 15 years since its entry into force, it is not unusual to meet domestic lawyers and judges who will voice doubts as to whether the Charter really matters in practice. Yet, through the right to an effective remedy under Article 47, the Charter opens up domestic law for new (or modified) remedies, thus placing national procedural autonomy under greater constraint than it was from the principles of effectiveness and equivalence. Continue reading >>
1 
23 October 2024
Wie die Grundrechte-Charta unbegleitete Minderjährige vor dem europäischen Verschiebebahnhof schützt
Die Anfang Juni 2024 im Amtsblatt veröffentlichten neuen Regelungen über das Gemeinsame Europäische Asylsystem finden ab 2026 Anwendung. Weiterhin zentral bleibt dabei die Frage, welcher Mitgliedstaat für die Bearbeitung des Asylantrags zuständig ist. In Hinblick auf unbegleitete Minderjährige verstößt ein Zuständigkeitsbestimmungsverfahren, das regelhaft die Möglichkeit der Überstellung in den Erstregistrierungsstaat prüft, gegen die kinderrechtlichen Garantien der EU-Grundrechtecharta. Continue reading >>
0
28 May 2024
The Unbearable Lightness of Interfering with the Right to Privacy
The European Court of Justice has once again ruled on national data retention laws. In La Quadrature du Net II, the full court allowed the indiscriminate retention of IP addresses for the purpose of fighting copyright infringement. It seems that the Court is slowly but surely abandoning its role as guardian of the right to privacy, as it now allows member states to collect vast amounts of data on their citizens in order to solve even the most minor of crimes. Continue reading >>
0
29 April 2024
Overcoming Big Tech AI Merger Evasions: Innovating EU Competition Law through the AI Act
To develop AI, computing power and access to data (aka bigness) are crucial. Now, Big Tech companies appear evading EU competition law. Companies like Google and Microsoft evade the EU Merger Regulation by entering partnerships with smaller AI labs that fall short of shifting ownership but nevertheless increase the monopolistic power of Big Tech. These quasi-mergers are particularly problematic in the context of generative AI, which relies even more than many other services on incredibly vast computing power. That is a dire state from an economic as well as a more fundamental and democratic perspective, as concentrating economic might in the hands of very few companies may cause problems down the road. Continue reading >>22 March 2024
Europe’s Judicial Narratives
Through the representations of Europe that it conjures up and conveys, the European Court of Justice significantly influences the EU’s self-perceived identity. In that sense, it contributes to the shaping of a European polity, i.e. a European political community united by shared representations about its history and identity. Continue reading >>
0
29 February 2024
Pushing Back
The CJEU has pending before it a crucial case on the criminalisation of seeking asylum and assistance to those seeking protection. At this critical juncture, this blog post highlights a sample of important decisions in which courts, giving effect to constitutional and international legal principles, set legal limits on this form of criminalisation. These cases reflect not only the appropriate legal limits, but also acknowledge the character of irregular migration and smuggling. Rather than framing individuals as dangerous illegal migrants and exploitative smugglers, they reassert the humanity of both those in search of refuge and opportunity, and those that assist them. Continue reading >>
0
28 February 2024
The Future of Legal Struggles
The year 2023 was not a good year for the rights of asylum seekers. The decision about a new legal framework for the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) was described as a "historic moment" (Ylva Johansson), but in fact works as a programme of disenfranchisement. If the pursuit of progressive positions are blocked in the political arena, actors shift their strategies to the judicial field. Even before the summer of migration 2015, successful legal struggles had a significant impact on European migration policy. Push-backs on the high sea were prohibited and transfers of asylum seekers to inhumane conditions under the Dublin system were prevented. The draft for the new CEAS are characterised by attempts to circumvent the consequences of these judgements. In this blogpost, I will discuss what the future of legal struggles within the framework of the new CEAS might look like. Continue reading >>
0
26 February 2024
On Citing Van Gend & Citing it Correctly
There are multiple common misunderstandings that have, over time, taken on the status of established truths. For example, to Sherlock Holmes is often attributed the quote “Elementary, my dear Watson”, which never appears in the Conan Doyle novels. Neither did Voltaire ever confide to anyone that he “disagreed with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it”. In EU law, there exists a similar widespread misconception, albeit tiny in nature. Simultaneously, it does concern the probably most famous ruling ever delivered by the European Court of Justice, so the comparative weight is substantial. Continue reading >>
0
20 February 2024
The CJEU’s Feminist Turn?
In Case C-621/21, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that women in general and women facing domestic violence in their country of origin in particular, qualify as a protected ‘social group’ under EU Directive 2011/95 and thus avail themselves for refugee status or subsidiary protection in the Common European Asylum System. This contribution applies the perspective of feminist approaches to international law to critically analyze what this decision means for women and victims of gender-based violence – in- and outside of the European Union. Continue reading >>
0
30 January 2024
Shielding Frontex 2.0
In Hamoudi v Frontex, the General Court dismissed another action that could have clarified if, when, and how independent or joint human rights responsibility would arise when Frontex is engaged in shared operational conduct with the Member States. This time not on the basis of an obscure re-interpretation of the Applicant’s claim, but instead, on the basis of an unattainably high and unrealistic burden, standard and method of proof. In doing so, the General Court again eschews from clarifying the nature, conditions and consequences of both independent and joint human rights responsibility of Frontex. Taken together, these cases raise the question whether there are any viable forms of judicial recourse for fundamental rights violations committed or contributed to by the EU’s Border and Coastguard Agency. Continue reading >>
0