Historic and Unprecedented
The three much-awaited judgments rendered by the European Court of Human Rights on 9 April 2024 are truly historic and unprecedented. In Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, the Grand Chamber established that climate change is 'one of the most pressing issues of our times' and poses a threat to human rights. With this ruling, the Court confirmed that States have a positive obligation to adopt measures to mitigate climate change under Article 8 ECHR, the right to family and private life. The judgments will undeniably set the tone for climate litigation in the years to come. It will impact both litigation and other procedures before other international courts.
Continue reading >>
Moderation Made in Europe
The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) has been fully applicable for a little more than a month now. The conditions are thus in place for the emergence of the out-of-court dispute settlement (ODS) ecosystem envisaged in Article 21 DSA, arguably the DSA’s most original contribution to securing digital platform users’ rights. In this post, we try to envision the shape such an ecosystem might take over the next few years in the key area of social media content moderation (SMCM). We argue that the DSA may create an adjudication system dominated by a few ODS providers backed by public-private partnerships and ready to work in concert with the complaint-handling mechanisms set up by the platforms themselves.
Continue reading >>
CILFIT in Strasbourg
On 19 February 2024, the European Court of Human Rights decided not to answer the Estonian Supreme Court’s request for an advisory opinion on the basis of Protocol 16 (P16). For the first time, it dismissed a request because it did not concern a question of principle concerning the interpretation and application of ECHR rights. The decision is significant because the ECtHR provides clear contours as to what types of questions courts should (not) ask.
Continue reading >>
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 >>
Team Europe’s Deal
On 16 July 2023, the European Commissioner for Neighbourhood and Enlargement and Tunisia’s Secretary of State of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Migration and Tunisians Abroad signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on a ‘strategic and global partnership’ between the European Union (EU) and Tunisia. The signing followed a meeting in Tunisia between Tunisian President Kais Saied and ‘Team Europe’ (European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte). The deal is part of the growing trend to externalise migration control. Against this background, this blog post first clarifies what was agreed before explaining why the agreement is problematic both in terms of substance and form.
Continue reading >>
The Slippery Slope of a Snooping Strasbourg
Last week, the ECtHR ruled in Spasov, for the first time, that there was a 'denial of justice' and thus a violation of Article 6(1) ECHR due to a manifest error of law by a national court regarding the interpretation and application of EU law. A Romanian court had convicted Mr Spasov, the owner and captain of a Bulgarian-flagged vessel, of illegal fishing inside Romania’s exclusive economic zone. Spasov is an important principled judgment that further intertwines the EU and ECHR legal systems.
Continue reading >>Picking Primacy over Procedural Autonomy
On 8 November, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the Court’) decided that national courts are required to ascertain of their own motion whether detention of an illegally staying foreign national or asylum seeker is lawful. This judgment is an example of the ever-growing impact of EU law on national procedural rules, especially in the migration law area. The judgment is also noteworthy because of the difference in approach between, on the one hand, the Court and, on the other hand, the Dutch referring courts and AG Richard de la Tour.
Continue reading >>
European Oversight on Frontex
The scandals about the complicity of Frontex in human rights violations in autumn 2020 exposed weaknesses in the accountability system. In this blog, I will elaborate on this by presenting the rules governing democratic accountability, followed by an analysis of the lessons learned during the parliamentary inquiry on Frontex’ human rights-related performances, in the light of their obligations. I will conclude with ideas on how to strengthen democratic accountability, and how to expand it to the much-needed public accountability of Frontex.
Continue reading >>
What’s in a Name?
The available non-judicial forms of accountability are insufficient to ensure the accountability of the agency. Neither their combination nor the respective parts can constitute effective non-judicial remedy in the meaning of Article 13 of the European Convention for Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, while their pre-emptive functionality is not deemed adequate to prevent violations. Therefore, the need for legal accountability in the form of judicial remedies becomes all the more essential.
Continue reading >>
In the Courts the CJEU does not Trust?
In last week’s long-awaited judgment, the CJEU had the opportunity to revisit its case law concerning the national courts’ obligation to refer preliminary questions. The Court largely maintained its strict approach and thereby, at first sight, admits of little trust in the national courts’ handling of EU law. Upon closer inspection, however, an alternative reading of the judgment seems possible.
Continue reading >>