30 May 2021
Good European Neighbours
On 21 May 2021 the Vice-President of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), Ms Rosario Silva de Lapuerta granted interim measures in the case of Czech Republic v Poland, ordering Poland to immediately cease lignite extraction activities in the Turów mine. An action against a Member State which might have breached an EU directive – in this case by extending a lignite mining permit without carrying out an environmental impact assessment – may seem like an ordinary environmental case falling under the remit of EU law. The Czech Republic v Poland case, however, is anything but ordinary for at least two reasons. Continue reading >>
0 
28 May 2021
Borders
On Zittau, environmental impact and what we can get used to and what not Continue reading >>
0
28 April 2021
Solving the Copenhagen Dilemma
By proclaiming an entirely new ‘non-regression’ principle in EU law based on the connection between Articles 49 TEU (EU Enlargement) and 2 TEU (EU values, referred to from Art. 49), the Court of Justice achieved huge progress in addressing a well-known lacuna undermining the EU legal order. The ‘non-regression’ principle is a new important direction in the notable fight for the EU rule of law started with the discovery of EU competence in, in particular, the area of judicial independence and the organization of the judiciaries in the EU Member States. Continue reading >>
0
25 April 2021
A Securitarian Solange
There is sigh of relief across Europe after the BVerfG has rejected the injunction order by the plaintiffs against the Own Resources Decision. But a decision by the French Conseil d’Etat taken on the same day might be the far more important political decision. Indeed, the French Court goes further than the BVerfG by openly resisting the application of EU law. In this case, the French Government will indeed reject EU law for an extended (and potentially unlimited) period of time. Continue reading >>24 April 2021
The Conseil d’Etat refuses to follow the Pied Piper of Karlsruhe
The Conseil d’Etat categorically rejected the proposal that the courts of the member states, in particular their supreme (or constitutional) courts, would be entitled to review an "ultra vires" of the European institutions. The wording of the judgment is an implicit acknowledgement that there is a monopoly of the EU Court of Justice in the authentic interpretation of the Treaty - unlike the German Federal Constitutional Court in the Weiss case and the doctrine of constitutional identity and protection of national security. Continue reading >>04 December 2020
LawRules #11: We need to talk about the European Court of Justice
The European Court of Justice has been in the middle of the European rule of law crisis for the last couple of years – and it has called out rule of law violations especially in Hungary and Poland multiple times. But the Court can’t defend the rule of law in the European Union on its own, and it needs institutional partners in this struggle. For example, it needs someone to file cases and to follow up on the Court's orders. Does the European Commission do enough on their part? Who is the guardian of the Treaties – the Commission, the Court, none of the two? The European Council is able to decide on sanctions against member states using the procedure of Article 7 TEU. But that tool has not been effective so far. Does that mean that we witness the juridification of a political conflict that puts too much of a burden on the Court? Continue reading >>
0
19 October 2020
Towards a European Court of Fundamental Rights
With its judgments on bulk data retention issued at the beginning of this month, the European Court of Justice has entitled itself to examine virtually all surveillance measures in the digital sphere. In doing so, it has once more clarified its positioning as the decisive Fundamental Rights Court in Europe. In the midst of the ultra vires-storm caused by the PSPP-judgement of the Bundesverfassungsgericht – and questions arising with regard to German Legal Hegemony in Europe – a true shift of power to the ECJ can be spotted which is, surprisingly, supported by the national constitutional courts. Continue reading >>
0
01 October 2020
Frequent Recourse to the Principle of ‘Effectiveness’ in ECJ Asylum Jurisprudence
An empirical study of all asylum-related preliminary rulings reveals a disquieting trend: the Court has adopted an administrative, passivist role within the area. Its distinguishing features include an overzealous concern for the technicalities of the legislative instruments before it and sparse to no references to human rights instruments or values in the operative parts of the judgments. In light of the symbolic power carried by the Court’s language, this trend risks sending the wrong signal to national judicial instances; namely, that concerns for the system can legitimately trump concerns for the individuals caught in it. Continue reading >>
0
20 September 2020
Lawful composition – the EFTA Court’s approach
On 10 September 2020, the British Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Union, Eleanor Sharpston, was replaced by the Greek lawyer Athanasios Rantos. Most of the commentators of the incident, which stirred up a great deal of dust, focus on the question whether the termination of Ms. Sharpston’s mandate on 10 September 2020 was lawful. The following considerations, on the other hand, examine the legal situation in the event that her expulsion from the ECJ was after Brexit in line with EU law. A precedent of the EFTA Court in 2016 may be relevant in this context. Continue reading >>06 September 2020