Skip to content
  • Verfassungs
    blog
  • Verfassungs
    debate
  • Verfassungs
    podcast
  • Verfassungs
    editorial
  • Support ♥︎
  • About
    • What we do
    • Who we are
    • Authors
    • Funding
  • Submissions
  • Projects
    • OZOR
    • 9/119/11 jährt sich zum 20. Mal. Welche Spuren hat dieses Ereignis in der globalen und nationalen Verfassungs- und Menschenrechtsarchitektur hinterlassen? Dieser Frage wollen wir in einer Folge von Online-Symposien nachgehen. Gefördert von der Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung bringen wir Rechtswissenschaftler_innen aus verschiedenen Regionen und Rechtskulturen darüber ins Gespräch, was aus den Erfahrungen der vergangenen zwei Jahrzehnte in Hinblick auf Völkerrecht und internationale Menschenrechte, Asyl und Migration, Überwachung im öffentlichen und privaten Raum, Presse- und Informationsfreiheit, Menschenwürde sowie Rechtsstaatlichkeit und Justiz zu lernen ist.
    • Journal
    • Books

Search

Search

Results for {phrase} ({results_count} of {results_count_total})

Displaying {results_count} results of {results_count_total}

Generic filters
Support us ♥︎
  • About
    • Who we are
    • What we do
    • Authors
    • Funding
  • Submissions
  • Projects
    • OZOR
    • 9/11
    • Journal
    • Books
Search

Results for {phrase} ({results_count} of {results_count_total})

Displaying {results_count} results of {results_count_total}

Generic filters
20 März 2021
Marie-Christine Fuchs, Jenny Zamora

Strasbourg and San José Close Ranks

Both in Latin America and in Europe, judicial independence is under increasing attack. What has been the position of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and of the European Court of Human Rights in combatting undue interference in the work of judges and prosecutors? And does their jurisprudence “cross-fertilize” each other? This article provides a glimpse of some of the judgments on illegitimate restrictions and destitutions of judges issued by the sister courts. This jurisprudence is evidence of an increasingly profound and structural exchange between the I/A Court and the ECHR. Continue reading >>
0
22 Mai 2020
Oliver Garner

Squaring the PSPP Circle

The PSPP judgment made a core problem of the European Union painfully visible as the supremacy of EU law clashed with national constitutional identity. There is, however, a possibility to square this circle: national apex courts could be empowered to issue ‘declarations of incompatibility’ under Article 4(2) TEU as an alternative to the disapplication of EU law. Continue reading >>
1
20 Mai 2020
Stefan Braum

From Dialogue to Trialogue

The current clash between the Federal Constitutional Court and the ECJ should not obscure the fact that none of the two courts fits the cliché they are often turned into. A view at some ECJ decisions regarding criminal law makes this clear. Nonetheless, the dynamic between the courts must change – maybe the European citizen can step in and offer help. Continue reading >>
0
19 April 2020
Petra Bárd, John Morijn

Domestic Courts Pushing for a Workable Test to Protect the Rule of Law in the EU

On 17 February 2020, the Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe passed a decision in a surrender case that we expect to shape the future of the LM-test. Its decision can be seen not only as a result of Luxembourg’s unworkable LM test but also as an acknowledgement of the effect of Poland’s muzzle law on the independence of its judiciary. Shortly after, Rechtbank Amsterdam engaged with this decision, thus making it more likely that the CJEU will have to move forward and develop its test into a more meaningful one. Continue reading >>
1
18 April 2020
Petra Bárd, John Morijn

Luxembourg’s Unworkable Test to Protect the Rule of Law in the EU

A key rule of law case illustrating the conversation taking place between national judges and the Court of Justice about the how-to of rule of law protection is the CJEU’s LM ruling dealing with the implementation of the European Arrest Warrant. In it the CJEU developed a test to balance mutual trust and individual rights, particularly the right to a fair trial. The Rechtbank Amsterdam and the Karlsruhe Oberlandesgericht applied Luxembourg’s LM test with respect to Polish suspects in a series of recent (interlocutory) rulings. This national case-law is interesting both for its immediate outcome (suspension of surrenders) and its implicit message to Luxembourg: “Sorry, we tried, but your test is unworkable.” Continue reading >>
0
19 Januar 2020
Germán M. Teruel Lozano

Junqueras’ Immunity: An Example of Judicial Dialogue

There is no doubt that the criminal prosecution of the "Catalan question" is a stress test for Spanish Justice. One of the last episodes, now with a European dimension, has been the "euro-immunity" of Junqueras. And, in this respect, the political and journalistic readings of the judicial decisions issued by the Spanish Supreme Court and by the Court of Justice of the European Union emphasize the confrontation. However, in my modest opinion, I believe that these decisions are an example of dialogue between courts, necessary to manage the current pluralism where legal orders are intertwined without clear hierarchies. Continue reading >>
2
21 August 2019
Luc von Danwitz

In Rights We Trust

Cases concerning the execution of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) provide seemingly endless material for new questions of fundamental importance to the relationship of the multiple constitutional layers in Europe. In a barely noted judgment in the case of Romeo Castaño v. Belgium, the European Court of Human Rights has now added an important piece to this puzzle. The judgment indicates that, in the light of other recent jurisprudence of both the Court of Justice of the EU and the ECtHR, both Courts are on their way to find a workable framework to address some of the issues in this field. Continue reading >>
1
27 Mai 2019
Barbara Seeling

Ein Rückschritt im Dialog der Gerichte: Der BGH übergeht den EGMR

Der Dialog zwischen dem BGH in Karlsruhe und dem EGMR hat spätestens seit den Caroline-Urteilen aus Straßburg gut funktioniert. In einem Urteil aus dem letzten Monat scheint der III. Zivilsenat des BGH dagegen den Blick über den Rhein zu scheuen. Bei der Frage, ob ein Verstoß gegen die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention vorliegt, verlässt er sich ausschließlich auf seine eigene Rechtsprechung und übergeht den EGMR. Continue reading >>
0
07 September 2018
Cillian Bracken

Talk to me like Lawyers do – Celmer returns to the High Court of Ireland

The Celmer case is back before the High Court of Ireland, which gave a further judgment on 01 August 2018. The decision provides a first insight into the practical application of the CJEU's ruling, most notably its encouragement of executing judicial authorities to enter into dialogue. Continue reading >>
0

Verfassungsblog is a journalistic and academic forum of debate on topical events and developments in constitutional law and politics in Germany, the emerging common European constitutional space and beyond.

Newsletter

Email
GE EN I hereby subscribe to receive information about new articles and services of verfassungsblog.de. I know that I may withdraw my consent at any time. More information in the privacy policy.
Imprint Privacy