30 June 2025
In the End… Who Cares?
On 3 June 2025, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment on the Kinsa-Case. At the core of the matter were the criminal charges of a third-country national for the facilitation of unauthorized entry of two minors in the territory of an EU Member State. With this ruling, the Court takes an important step towards the de-criminalization of care for migrant children who are seeking international protection. However, the Grand Chamber’s reasoning offers limited considerations on the relevant links between “actual care”, humanitarian assistance, and migrant children’s rights. This shortcoming may ultimately curb protection standards of migrant children in future cases Continue reading >>
0 
16 June 2025
Whose Values?
Value-based reasoning features prominently in CJEU case law, most recently in AG Ćapeta’s opinion in Commission v. Hungary. However, what is treated as absolute within the Union turns flexible and conditional in cases concerning asylum, integration, as well as anti-discrimination. A closer look at the “feminist” cases (WS, K and L, and AH and FN) reveals how “Western values”-centred reasoning is deployed at the Member State level and re-elaborated by the CJEU as the fundamental value of gender equality – opening the door to ideological reinterpretations. Continue reading >>
0
11 June 2025
Somewhere Over The Rainbow
On 5 June 2025, Advocate General Ćapeta issued her Opinion in Commission v. Hungary, a landmark ECJ case on Hungary’s “anti-LGBTIQ” law. While the law is overtly discriminatory, the Commission framed its case around internal market rules, Charter rights, and Article 2 TEU values. While this might seem curious, I argue this reflects a strategic “camouflaging” of non-discrimination claims to better protect LGBTIQ rights within the limits of current EU anti-discrimination and equality law. Continue reading >>
0
07 May 2025
Longing for Safety before the European Court of Justice
On 10 April 2025, Advocate General de la Tour delivered his Advisory Opinion in the joined cases Alace and Canpelli dealing with the powers of Italy – and, by extension, other EU Member States – to legislate on what constitutes a “safe third country” and a “safe country of origin”. The AG confirmed that Italy can list a third country as “safe” when it is “generally” deemed as such, provided that this designation is compliant with EU law. This piece discusses how the human rights of applicants seeking international protection are likely to be hindered by this approach. Continue reading >>
0
19 December 2024
Schrödinger’s Judges
What happens when judges are both legitimate and illegitimate at the same time? In post-2023 Poland, tension arises between ‘old judges’ (pre-2018), accusing ‘neo-judges’ of ethical compromise, and the new government, which aims to maintain judicial continuity. As a result, neo-judges find themselves in a state akin to Schrödinger's cat, their legitimacy simultaneously affirmed and denied. This paradox encapsulates the broader struggle over judicial authority and political influence in the country. Continue reading >>
0
04 March 2024
Re-Imagining the European (Political) Community through Migration Law
The constant portrayal of migration as an exceptional and problematic phenomenon fuels public anxieties and makes deterrence and harshness seem like the only effective political approaches to managing global migration. By contrast, positive visions of how a society of immigration needs to look like for all members of society to benefit are scarce. Yet to counter apocalyptic scenarios, we need not only such a positive vision but also a theory of societal action that helps to realize it. This blog post offers such a vision and theory that is grounded in the normative and legal framework of the European Union. It argues that we should conceptualize the European society as an inclusive, participatory, and self-reflexive community that is based on constitutional principles as enshrined in Art. 2 TEU. To realize this vision, we must understand practices of claiming and defending human rights not as an overreach into the political latitude of the legislator but as a joint practice of (political) community-building. Continue reading >>11 June 2023
Doing Justice to Poland’s Muzzle Law
On 5 June 2023, the Court of Justice issued its fourth infringement judgment in relation to yet another Polish piece of legislation – informally known as the muzzle law – which aimed to dissuade or punish Polish judges for applying and upholding EU rule of law requirements. As anyone with any basic understanding of EU law could have predicted, the law rushed into force by Poland’s ruling coalition in December 2019 did not survive judicial scrutiny in Luxembourg. As long as the Commission fails to demand full compliance with CJEU case law and decisively address the issue of judicial usurpers, however, just chipping away at the arbitrary disciplinary changes Polish authorities have made will always fail to solve Poland’s fundamental and systemic issues. Continue reading >>31 January 2023
Battling the hydra in EU anti-discrimination law
Can a company refuse to conclude or renew a contract with a self-employed person because he is gay? And may contractual freedom prevail over the prohibition of discrimination in such a situation? A short answer stemming from the recent ECJ judgment in J.K. v. TP would be a resounding no. Yet, a further analysis is in order because the judgment also brings a significant shift in the ECJ’s anti-discrimination case law. Continue reading >>
0
26 November 2021
The Sanctity of Preliminary References
A national supreme court must not declare a request for a preliminary ruling by a lower court unlawful on the ground that the referred questions are irrelevant and unnecessary for the original case. This has been held by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in its important decision C-564/19 IS. In addition, the CJEU held that EU law also precludes disciplinary proceedings from being brought against national judges on the ground that they made a reference for a preliminary ruling. The case also raises important questions to what extent preliminary rulings can be effective against rule-of-law decline and make up for political EU institutions’ failure to use adequate EU tools of supervision and enforcement. Continue reading >>17 November 2021
A Tale of Primacy, part III
The third act, but not the end, of the ongoing „game of Courts” between the Romanian Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice came on 9 November 2021, with a letter by the Romanian Constitutional Court to assist the acting minister of justice with a reply to the EU Commission's concern about primacy of EU law. I will not comment again on the arguments, already developed by the Constitutional Court in its decision, but I will try to emphasize, through relevant quotes, the disregard of the rule of law requirements stated in the CJEU judgment as well as the absence of the capacity of a true dialogue with the European Court. Continue reading >>
0