Search
Generic filters
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
17 March 2017

The CJEU’s headscarf decisions: Melloni behind the veil?

On 14 March 2017, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice (CJEU) handed down two landmark judgments on the Islamic headscarf at work. The twin decisions, Achbita and Bougnaoui, were eagerly awaited, not only because of the importance and delicacy of the legal issues the cases raised, but also because the Advocates General had reached different conclusions on those issues in their Opinions. Continue reading >>
2
07 April 2016

Mit den eigenen Waffen geschlagen: Die Reaktion des EuGH auf den unbedingten Vorrang der Menschenwürde vor dem Unionsrecht nach dem BVerfG

Der EuGH bewegt sich – aber er gibt dabei klar die Richtung vor. Das ist das Fazit zu seinem Urteil von vorgestern zum europäischen Haftbefehl. Die Antwort auf eine Vorlage des OLG Bremen, in der es um die Auslieferung aufgrund eines europäischen Haftbefehls bei der Gefahr menschenrechtswidriger Haftbedingungen im ersuchenden Staat ging, war zuletzt mit besonderer Spannung erwartet worden. Denn das BVerfG hatte vor kurzem einen Auslieferungsfall nach Italien zum Anlass genommen, nach Jahrzehnten die Solange-Rechtsprechung für den Anwendungsbereich der Menschenwürde in den Ruhestand zu verabschieden: Künftig hat Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG über den Hebel der Identitätskontrolle, und zwar ungeachtet des generellen Grundrechtsschutzstandards in der EU, immer Vorrang vor kollidierenden unionsrechtlichen Verpflichtungen. Dies konnte von europäischer Seite kaum unwidersprochen bleiben. Continue reading >>
0
16 October 2015

What Schrems, Delvigne and Celaj tell us about the state of fundamental rights in the EU

The overall message looks puzzling. First, privacy is a super-fundamental right that reigns supreme above all other rights after the Court’s decision in Schrems. Second, national electoral rules governing the right to vote in elections to the European Parliament come under the scope of application of the Charter, but Member States can restrict such a right as long they do so in a proportionate way, says the Court in Delvigne. And third, illegal immigrants who have already been ordered to abandon the territory of the EU can be subject to criminal prosecution if they ever return, according to the Court in Celaj. In sum, Privacy is a super-fundamental right. The right to vote is quite super, but not as much. The rights to liberty and free movement are not super at all, at least when they concern third country nationals. Is this the kind of case-law one would expect from a fundamental rights court? Does this make any sense at all? Maybe it does. Continue reading >>
1
Go to Top