magnify
Home International Organisations Archive for category "Court of Justice of the European Union"

To Forget, But Not Forgive: Why the CJEU’s Latest Ruling on Google and the ‘Right to Be Forgotten’ is Not at All a Win for US Tech Giants

Published on November 29, 2019        Author: 

 

Google has recently triumphed in the fight against a worldwide application of the European “right to be forgotten” following the European Court of Justice’s ruling that Google does not have to take down search results revealing sensitive personal information of EU citizens worldwide, rejecting demands by the French Data Protection Authority. The long anticipated judgment by Europe’s top Court in Google v CNIL, delivered on 24th September 2019, was a test of the ‘right to be forgotten’, which allows EU citizens to request, among other things, the removal of search engine results that reveal their personal information. This right is now explicitly recognised in Article 17 of the influential EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The ruling has been welcomed by US tech giants as an iconic curb of what they see as a ‘European overreach’- extension of its laws beyond borders.  However, not many have noticed that the Court intentionally left a glaring loophole – an opportunity for EU countries to force worldwide de-listing if they deem so fit. In other words, EU countries could still compel Google to de-list beyond Europe, and this decision comes as no surprise in light of the broader context of EU’s pushback against US tech giants.

In the wake of Edward Snowden’s 2013 mass-surveillance revelations about US spying on ordinary citizens and world leaders alike, Europe’s top Court demonstrated leadership by taking a hard line stance on the enforcement of data privacy law, even against other EU bodies. Although many have perceived the latest judgment as a restraint on the Court’s expansive interpretation of EU law, the CJEU  has in fact continued its hard line data privacy crusade with this judgment, which has significant implications for data privacy law, US tech companies, and Internet users. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

Brexit Means Brexit: Does It so When It Comes to EU Citizenship?

Published on March 15, 2019        Author: 

Following a dramatic referendum, the United Kingdom triggered Art. 50 of the TEU in March 2017 officially commencing its withdrawal from the EU. At first glance, one of the many consequences of the move is the loss of EU citizenship for all British citizens as they will no longer be ‘holding the nationality of a Member State’ (TFEU, Art. 20(1)). This means losing all the perks that go with an EU passport, among them the freedom of movement, residence, and employment across the Union (id., Art. 20(2)).

A broader question of fairness and justice arises when ca. sixteen million people who have not voted in favour of leaving the bloc and have not committed any fraud or deceit are going to be stripped of their EU citizenship, and all of the privileges associated therewith. Not surprisingly, there have been some speculations on whether (and how) EU citizenship can be preserved by the Brits.

EU Citizenship

In its contemporary form, EU citizenship was established by the TEU back in 1992 providing that an EU citizen is ‘[e]very national of a Member State’ (Art. 9). The drafters of the Treaties could easily avoid using the term ‘citizenship’ and simply assign all the rights to nationals of the Member States but did not do that (William Thomas Worster, Brexit and the International Law Prohibitions on the Loss of EU Citizenship 15 International Organizations Law Review 341, 348 (2018)). However, the true roots of EU citizenship can be found in the Treaty of Paris signed in 1951. The Treaty virtually denounced any restrictions in the employment of professionals ‘in the coal and steel industries’ (Art. 69). Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

The Commission’s Proposals to Correct EU-Morocco Relations and the EU’s Obligation Not to Recognise as Lawful the ‘Illegal Situation’ in Western Sahara

Published on July 13, 2018        Author:  and

On 11 June 2018, the EU Commission adopted two proposals (here and here) for Council Decisions to amend the EU-Morocco Association Agreement so that “[p]roducts originating in Western Sahara subject to controls by the Moroccan customs authorities shall benefit from the same trade preferences” as products from Morocco (Annex of the Proposals, para 1). The proposals come on the back of the judicial proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) that challenged the de facto extension of EU-Morocco agreements to Western Sahara over the last few years (covered here and here). Yet, they concern the trade liberalisation agreement and not the EU’s fishing rights, which is a matter to be addressed separately. Their purpose is to provide cover for the extension of the agreements on three grounds: consultation with “interested parties”; positive indirect impact on human rights; and, a contribution to Western Sahara’s economic development.

Whereas the Commission’s proposals do not engage with any relevant questions of international law, in this post, we consider whether the Commission’s recent proposals accord with international law, with particular reference to the obligation not to recognise as lawful a situation created by a serious breach of a peremptory norm (Article 42(2) DARIO and Article 41(2) ARSIWA). We argue that the proposals violate the EU and its Member States’ obligation of non-recognition of Morocco’s jus cogens breaches: the right to self-determination of people, the prohibition on aggression (acquisition of territory by force), and some of the intransgressible rules’ of international humanitarian law (IHL); insofar as the latter are a part of jus cogens (Wall AO, para. 157; Nuclear Weapons AO, para. 79). We further consider whether wrongfulness can be precluded by the consultation or consent of the Sahrawi people as a third party to the agreement, and whether the benefit provided under the agreements justifies an exception to third parties’ obligation of non-recognition. We conclude that neither of the exceptions apply and that the EU is precluded from extending the agreements to Western Sahara as a matter of international law. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 
Tags: ,

De-humanisation? CJEU, Liga van Moskeeën en islamitische Organisaties Provincie Antwerpen on Religious Slaughter

Published on June 26, 2018        Author: 

Introduction

In Case C-426/16, Liga van Moskeeën en islamitische Organisaties Provincie Antwerpen et al v. Vlaams Gewest, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber) in its judgment of 29th May 2018 decided that the EU law provision allowing religious slaughter without stunning the animal only in slaughterhouses (Art. 4(4) of Regulation No 1099/2009) is valid. It does not violate primary law: neither the freedom of religion as guaranteed in Art. 10 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, nor the animal welfare mainstreaming clause of Art. 13 TFEU.

Two weeks earlier, US President Donald Trump spoke about migrants:

We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in — and we’re stopping a lot of them — but we’re taking people out of the country. You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people. These are animals. And we’re taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that’s never happened before. And because of the weak laws, they come in fast, we get them, we release them, we get them again, we bring them out. It’s crazy. (The White House, Remarks by President Trump at a California Sanctuary State Roundtable, May 16, 2018 (emphasis added)).

Do both incidents have something in common? Both concern migrants, directly or at least indirectly. While President Trump’s statement is openly humiliating and racist, the EU regulation and its strict application by Flemish authorities that led to the CJEU judgment is not. Still, we might ask (what the Court did not) whether the Flemish case involves indirect discrimination against Muslims. I find that neither EU law nor its application violate fundamental rights. However, we need to remain vigilant because, speaking with Theodor Adorno, vilifying human and non-human animals might, in psychological and ethical terms, be related and even intertwined. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

High Risk, High Reward: Taking the Question of Italy’s Involvement in Libyan ‘Pullback’ Policies to the European Court of Human Rights

Published on May 14, 2018        Author: 

The mere filing of a case is rarely a reason for legal commentary but in this particular case, it may well be. A few days ago, a broad-based coalition consisting of NGOs and scholars, led by the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) filed an application against Italy before the ECtHR with potentially far-reaching implications for European migration policy and especially maritime border control. The issues at hand are so-called ‘pullback’ practices in which the Libyan coastguard – funded, trained, and equipped by the Italian authorities under an agreement signed in February 2017 – prevents migrant boats from heading to Europe’s safe shores.

The application concerns events that unfolded the morning of 6 November 2017. A migrant dinghy in distress before the Libyan coast was simultaneously intercepted by the Libyan coastguard and a rescue ship of the German NGO ‘Seawatch’. A messy and partly confrontational rescue process ensued. Of the (approx.) 120 migrants onboard the dinghy, more than 20 persons drowned before and during the operation. 47 others were ‘pulled back’ by the Libyan coastguard, allegedly experiencing human rights violations including torture and inhumane and degrading treatment upon their return in Libya. 59, more lucky individuals, were rescued by the Seawatch and brought to Italy. By merely looking at the facts, the advantages of having a broad-based coalition become clear. University of London Goldsmiths’ Forensic Architecture agency made available an impressive digital reconstruction of the events that unfolded that morning. These details could be a crucial ingredient for a successful case.

Still, the present case comes at a difficult time for migrant rights advocates in Europe. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 
Tags: ,

Achmea: The Fate and Future of Intra-EU Investment Treaty Awards under the New York Convention

Published on May 8, 2018        Author: 

On March 6, 2018, the CJEU rendered its judgment in the long-awaited Slovak Republic v. Achmea case (Case C-284/16). This case involved a preliminary reference from the German Bundesgerichtshof in the context of setting aside proceedings initiated by Slovakia against a 2012 award, which was rendered by an investment tribunal in accordance with the UNCITRAL Rules under the BIT between the Kingdom of Netherlands and Czech and Slovak Federative Republic, in force since 1992. Based on its analysis of certain provisions of the EU Treaties (TEU and TFEU), the CJEU ruled that an Investor-State Dispute Settlement (“ISDS”) provision in an intra-EU is not valid under EU law.

Thus far, the academic discussion surrounding the case has focused on the fate and future of Intra-EU BITs (see here and here) but has not ventured into the consequences of the decision for the arbitral awards rendered under these BITs. Since the Achmea decision forms part of EU law and is binding on the national courts of all EU Member States, it reasonably follows that national courts within the EU must now refuse to recognize and enforce non-ICSID awards based on ISDS provisions in intra-EU BITs. However, under Article III of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958) (“New York Convention”), national courts within the EU also have an obligation to recognize and enforce arbitral awards except where one or more of the seven grounds under Article V apply. This piece utilizes this legal conflict that courts within the EU now face as its starting point and explores the practical implications of the Achmea decision through the lens of Article V of the Convention, focusing on two grounds in particular: violation of public policy and invalidity of the arbitration agreement. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 
Comments Off on Achmea: The Fate and Future of Intra-EU Investment Treaty Awards under the New York Convention

European Court of Justice Bans Homosexuality Tests for Asylum Seekers

Published on May 1, 2018        Author: 

Asylum seekers in European Union countries will no longer be subject to psychological tests to prove their homosexuality, according to a decision by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on 25 January 2018. In F v. Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal, the ECJ declared the illegality of the use of psychological reports based on projective personality tests in determining sexual orientation of asylum seekers.

The asylum applicant, a Nigerian man identified as F, sought asylum in Hungary, arguing that he has a well-founded fear of persecution because of his homosexuality. The Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal (Office for Immigration and Citizenship of Hungary, hereinafter “Immigration Office”) rejected his asylum application. While the Immigration Office concluded that F’s application was not “fundamentally contradictory,” the Immigration Office found that F’s statement about his homosexuality “lacked credibility” based on one psychologist’s report (para. 22). F appealed this decision to a Hungarian court, and the case was eventually referred to the ECJ.

The “expert report” at issue in the case was produced by a psychologist after an investigative examination, which involved several basic projective personality tests, including the “Draw-A-Person-In-The-Rain” test and the Rorschach and Szondi tests. Upon completing the tests, the psychologist concluded that F’s homosexuality could not be confirmed.

The ECJ ruled that EU law does not prohibit authorities or courts from ordering the production of an expert report to help assess the facts and circumstances relative to an asylum seeker’s claim, but only if the production of the report is consistent with human rights law and the report is not relied upon solely or conclusively. The Court further held that EU law precludes the preparation and use of a psychological expert’s report based on projective personality tests to determine an individual’s sexual orientation when assessing an asylum claim sought by the individual on the ground of sexual orientation. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 
Comments Off on European Court of Justice Bans Homosexuality Tests for Asylum Seekers

Those Who Live in Glass Houses….

Published on November 8, 2017        Author: 

The European Commission launched an infringement procedure against Poland over measures affecting the judiciary a day after the publication in the Polish Official Journal of the Law on the Ordinary Courts Organization on 28 July 2017. Though the infringement procedure is formally distinct from the ongoing ‘Rule of Law Dialogue’ and the recommendations issued just a few days before commencement of such procedure, it comes under the latter’s penumbra; both form part and parcel of the Commission Press Release (IP-17-2205). If the concern was ‘The Rule of Law,’ at least in some respects there is more bang than buck. The President of Poland blocked the most controversial parts of the new judicial regime in Poland, so that the infringement procedure was left with just two violations.    

The first concerns a different retirement age for male and female judges. It is not clear if this distinction in the Polish law is by design or inertia but the infringement seems clear: what is sauce for Sabena (RIP) cabin attendant geese should be sauce for judicial ganders. But important as any form of gender discrimination is, this item in the Polish legislation does not directly concern the more troublesome aspects of political control over the judiciary and its independence. Should Poland not correct this anomaly, it should be an easy case for the Court.

The second item in the infringement procedure is far more serious. In the Letter of Formal Notice (the first stage in infringement procedures) the Commission raises concerns ‘…that by giving the Minister of Justice the discretionary power to prolong the mandate of judges who have reached retirement age, as well as dismiss and appoint Court Presidents, the independence of the Polish Courts will be undermined’ (id.), allegedly contravening a combination of Article 19(1) of the TEU and Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – a legal basis which is creative but not specious.

If indeed the prolongation of the mandate of a judge reaching retirement age rests in the hands of a Minister, the government of which he or she is part and acts and/or legislation issuing from which might be subject to judicial scrutiny by said judge, it may well consciously or otherwise impact, for example, his or her conduct prior to retirement or, no less importantly, give the appearance of lack of independence. I think this is indeed a serious matter impinging on the independence and appearance of independence of the judiciary. It is one thing to have scrutiny and approval of judges by democratic bodies at the moment of appointment. But once appointed, the independence of the judge from political actors must be as absolute as possible, and this dependency described in the letter of intent clearly compromises such.

But there is an irony in this complaint; some might even think a ticking time bomb. At least on two occasions proposals were put to various Intergovernmental Conferences to amend the Treaties so that the appointment of Judges to the Court of Justice of the European Union should be for a fixed period of time – say nine years – as is undoubtedly the Best Practice in Europe among higher courts where appointments are not until the age of retirement. Ominously in my view, the proposals were rejected. So that now we live under a regime where the prolongation of Members of the Court(s) (Judges and Advocates General) rests in the hands of national politicians whose decisions and legislation may come before such judges. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

Is Ukraine a “Stranger” to the EU? OPAL Case

Published on August 28, 2017        Author: 

In their recent contribution to the Global Trust Working Paper Series, Professor Eyal Benvenisti and Dr. Sivan Shlomo Agon raise one conspicuous, though rarely asked, question within a broader topic of state sovereignty in a globalised world. They wonder how sovereign decision-making powers can be restrained in the face of interests of “strangers”, i.e. third countries, as well as natural and legal persons, to which the effects of national policies “radiate” without allowing them to hold the decision-makers politically accountable. The authors make the first proposition that:

“international courts can and in fact do play a role in promoting the duties of states towards strangers affected by their policies, thereby alleviating some of the democratic and accountability deficits associated with globalization” (p.2).

Their second proposition is that international courts have developed ways to account for the “interests of affected others from within and outside” their host systems. Both propositions are then tested against the ample practice of the WTO dispute settlement system.

The article echoes well in the universe of “global administrative law” (GAL), i.e. a normative paradigm promoted by Professor Benvenisti which introduces practices of accountability (transparency, good process, reasoned decision-making, and basic legality) in what would otherwise be a non-democratic process of global administration. (For early conceptualizations of GAL, see the EJIL’s symposium issue).

The article is also provocative as it resonates far beyond the ambit of the WTO law. The present note offers to look for the advanced propositions in a group of energy-related cases currently pending before the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU).

Admittedly, international energy law is rarely scanned for general international law trends and patterns. This may be due to the highly technical complexity of the underlying field of study, combined with the traditional view of energy as a nation state prerogative (recall General Assembly resolution 1803 (XVII) of 14 December 1962 “Permanent sovereignty over natural resources”). Yet, the intensity of present-day energy cooperation, spurred by critical socio-economic and even geopolitical needs, has effectively isolated exclusively national areas of regulation (e.g., access to upstream energy resources) and produced a layer of new, inherently international rules of community building. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 
Tags:
Comments Off on Is Ukraine a “Stranger” to the EU? OPAL Case

A Turning of the Tide against ISDS?

Published on May 19, 2017        Author: 

The Court of Justice for the European Union fired a significant shot at investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) this week, and the result is likely to be much more than just a flesh wound. In deciding that the European Union did not have exclusive competence to enter into agreements including ISDS clauses, the Court made it significantly more likely that the EU would jettison these clauses from its Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and seek to conclude separate, parallel agreements dealing with dispute resolution. Along with a series of other developments, this may mark a turning of the tide against the inclusion of ISDS clauses in trade and investment agreements.

Background to the European Court’s Opinion

This week’s landmark case concerned the European Union’s competence to enter into the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement. This is a newer style FTA that, in addition to covering classic trade issues, like reductions in customs duties, includes provisions on a range of other trade-related matters, such as intellectual property protection, investment, public procurement, competition and sustainable development. This FTA also included investor-state arbitration.

The question that the Court had to grapple with was whether the European Union had exclusive competence to enter into such agreements, or whether this competence was shared between the EU and the Member States (or even fell within the exclusive competence of the Member States), at least with respect to certain issues. The European Commission and Parliament wanted EU exclusive competence, but this received pushback from many of the Member States.

In many ways, the Court handed a significant victory to the European Union on these issues. Going further than had been suggested by the Advocate General’s Opinion in that case, the Court found that the European Union had exclusive competence over almost all aspects of the EU-Singapore FTA, which paves the way for them to enter into such agreements without requiring the approval of all of the Member States. But this general ruling was subject to two notable exceptions. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email