29 February 2024
Pushing Back
The CJEU has pending before it a crucial case on the criminalisation of seeking asylum and assistance to those seeking protection. At this critical juncture, this blog post highlights a sample of important decisions in which courts, giving effect to constitutional and international legal principles, set legal limits on this form of criminalisation. These cases reflect not only the appropriate legal limits, but also acknowledge the character of irregular migration and smuggling. Rather than framing individuals as dangerous illegal migrants and exploitative smugglers, they reassert the humanity of both those in search of refuge and opportunity, and those that assist them. Continue reading >>
0 
29 February 2024
No Benefit
On January 18, 2024, the German federal parliament (Bundestag) passed the controversial Repatriation Improvement Act which de facto criminalises humanitarian support for entry by land as well as entry of minors by sea, land, and air. The German provision resembles both in wording and substance Article 12 of the Italian Consolidated Immigration Act (TUI) whose compatibility with EU law the CJEU is set to rule on, following a preliminary reference procedure initiated in July 2023. While the effect of a pending referral is uncertain, in the current case, the German government should have suspended its legislative process. Continue reading >>
0
12 February 2024
Consolidating Group-Based Refugee Protection
Two pending cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) provide an opportunity for the CJEU to consolidate group-based refugee protection. At the heart of the cases is a concern with granting refugee protection to groups of persons based on their inherent characteristics, in this case women and girls from Afghanistan. However, as the joined cases of AH and FN highlight, this is often due to an apprehension amongst asylum decision makers over the grant of protection to large groups of persons based on sex and misconceptions surrounding gender-based violence and discrimination. Continue reading >>
0
12 October 2021
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 >>26 March 2020
The Court gives with one hand and takes away with the other
On March 26, the CJEU released a surprising – if not to say disappointing – judgment on the Polish system of disciplinary measures against judges. While the Court confirmed the ample material scope of Article 19(1)(2) TEU, it simultaneously restricted the procedural possibilities to remedy infringements via the preliminary reference procedure. Continue reading >>06 March 2019
Countering the Judicial Silencing of Critics: Novel Ways to Enforce European Values
The Polish government is stepping up its repression. The freedom of political speech is a main target. A national judge has not just the right but an outright duty to refer a case to the CJEU whenever the common value basis is in danger. Thus, a Polish judge faced with a case concerning the silencing of critics, must refer the matter to the CJEU and request an interpretation of Article 2 TEU in light of the rights at stake. Continue reading >>17 October 2018
Will Poland, With Its Own Constitution Ablaze, Now Set Fire to EU Law?
The Polish justice minister and Prosecutor-General Zbigniew Ziobro has asked the Constitutional Court to declare Art. 267 TFEU unconstitutional "to the extent that it allows referring to the Court [of Justice] a preliminary question … in matters pertaining to the design, shape, and organisation of the judiciary as well as proceedings before the judicial organs of a member state". If the Court adopts Ziobro's arguments, that will have drastic implications for the integrity of EU law. Continue reading >>11 September 2017
Das Bundesverfassungsgericht und die „Direktionskraft“ der Normen?
Mit seiner Vorlage zum EuGH in Sachen Quantitative Easing zeigt das Bundesverfassungsgericht einmal mehr, dass es bei der Beurteilung ökonomischer Zusammenhänge fundamental schief liegt. Weiterbildung ist angesagt. Continue reading >>16 August 2017
Summer of Love: Karlsruhe Refers the QE Case to Luxembourg
It seems that the BVerfG has learned a lesson. Yesterday’s referral about the the European Central Bank’s policy of Quantitative Easing (QE) sets a completely different tone. It reads like a modest and balanced plea for judicial dialogue, rather than an indictment. Fifty years after the original event, a new Summer of Love seems to thrive between the highest judicial bodies. It shows no traces of the aplomb with which Karlsruhe presented its stance to Luxembourg three years ago. Continue reading >>08 November 2016