Suchergebnisse

On July 4 2023, the Court of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) issued its advisory opinion in RS v Steuerverwaltung des Fürstentums Liechtenstein. Liechtenstein's Constitutional Court had already found in 2020 that a difference in tax rate on income for resident and non-resident employees was incompatible with the free movement of workers. Nonetheless, the Administrative Court of Liechtenstein found it necessary to refer the exact same issue to the EFTA Court, upon which the EFTA Court came to a similar conclusion as the Constitutional Court. The reason thereto? The Constitutional Court had suspended the annulment of the national law for reasons of legal certainty. The question consequently arose of how the national court should further proceed. Should it immediately give full effect to the law of the European Economic Area (EEA) by following the EFTA Court and disapplying the national legislation, or should it give priority to the findings of its own Constitutional Court and nonetheless apply the national legislation, even if that legislation breaches EEA law? How should the national court deal with this conflict of allegiance?

On 15 November 2023, the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) unanimously declared the government's policy of removing some asylum seekers to Rwanda to process their claims unlawful. Like the Court of Appeal, it found substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers would face a real risk of ill-treatment because of insufficient guarantees against refoulement. This post explores the origin and significance of the UKSC judgment and the legal and policy implications of the UK government's immediate response to it.

On 1 June 2023, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR concluded a saga that even experts of the Strasbourg Court might have overlooked. In the Grosam case, the alleged shortcomings in the disciplinary procedure involving a Czech enforcement officer (bailiff) have been addressed. The Grosam chamber judgment was certainly not a routine case. The chamber judgment went to the core of the role of the ECtHR and, if it would have been allowed to stand, it could have seriously undermined the legitimacy of the whole system of the Strasbourg protection.

On Friday, June 30, the Supreme Court ended its session with a serious blow to the progressive agenda after its decisions striking down race-conscious college admissions and narrowing protections for LGBTQ consumers the day before. In its final case, Biden v. Nebraska, the Court further thwarted the Biden campaign, which is counting on the help of young voters to get reelected for a second term, as it struck down the Biden administration's plan to wipe out more than $400 billion in student debt. The decision in Biden v. Nebraska joins a series of recent Supreme Court decisions aimed at curbing the executive branch's power to regulate certain issues and to limit the so-called administrative state. In this battle against the administrative state, the major question doctrine, according to which it cannot be assumed that the administration has been authorized to regulate a "major question" with far-reaching economic and political consequences without "clear congressional authorization," has become one of the central tools.

Politically, summers in the Czech Republic are often quiet. This year is different. A newly elected president, Petr Pavel, is selecting almost all of the fifteen members of the Czech Constitutional Court ("CCC") during the next two years. Unexpectedly, Pavel's selection process has sparked a great deal of controversy and discussion about how a president should choose constitutional judges. What happened? And what are the main lessons to be learned from the current situation in the Czech Republic?

Indonesia will have the world's biggest one-day election in 2024. More than 200 million voters will go to the ballots to choose the next president and legislative members on 14 February, opening a fresh chapter for the nation's leadership after a decade of President Joko Widodo's rule. In recent weeks, the Constitutional Court has been flooded with back-to-back filings for judicial review of Indonesia's General Election Law. Against the backdrop of Indonesia's declining levels of trust in public institution, the Court's rulings might not only change the rules of Indonesia's electoral game but also threaten to further impair its own independence and integrity.

In 2023, we should have been celebrating the 41st anniversary of the establishment of Polish Constitutional Court. "Should" is used advisedly here because as is well known Poland no longer has a constitutional court. Undoubtedly, the technical question of how to rebuild the Court is important, yet we should also understand why its rebuild must be the first order of the day after the present dark days of total capture. I argue, in this respect, that the EU would do well to remember the central role constitutional courts have played in the particular form of constitutionalism that emerged in the aftermath of Europe's experience with totalitarianism, and the laudable way in which the Polish Constitutional Court took up this task.

A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India recently heard over 20 petitions seeking marriage equality. The significance of a positive declaration cannot be overstated. It would make India only the second country in Asia to recognize LGBTQ+ marriages. As India becomes the world's most populous country this year, a favorable decision would also mean that an estimated 17.7% of the world's population would come under a marriage equality regime which is more than the cumulative population of the 34 countries that currently recognize such marriages (17% of the global population).

The climate protection ruling of the German Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe of 2021 is a historic decision. It is on a par with the Court's major landmark decisions such as Lüth, Elfes, or Brokdorf. It updates the fundamental value of equal freedom: Freedom includes future freedom and, as a right to intertemporal freedom, can demand a proportional distribution of freedom opportunities over time.

In a landmark ruling in mid-February, the Hague Court of Appeal ordered the Dutch government to stop exporting parts for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II to Israel, citing the risk of serious violations of international humanitarian law if the F-35 were used for airstrikes in Gaza. Although it seems unlikely that the court order will have any significant impact on Israeli air operations, it raises a number of legal and political challenges to the global F-35 program, the U.S. Department of Defense's most ambitious and most expensive weapons program to date.
Author information





Frank Kuhn



Frank Kuhn ist Projektkoordinator des Clusters Natur- und Technikwissenschaftliche Rüstungskontrollforschung (CNTR) am PRIF. Zu seinen Forschungsinteressen zählen nukleare Abschreckung, Rüstungskontrolle und Nichtverbreitung sowie Militärtechnologien und -strategien. // Frank Kuhn is the project coordinator for the Cluster for Natural and Technical Science Arms Control Research (CNTR) at PRIF. His research interests include nuclear deterrence, arms control and non-proliferation, as well as military technology and strategy. | Twitter: @_FrankKuhn

|



Der Beitrag Court Orders Dutch Government to halt the Export of F-35 Parts to Israel: Implications for the War in Gaza and Beyond erschien zuerst auf PRIF BLOG.

Yesterday, on September 12th, the Israeli Supreme Court, sitting en banc, heard eight petitions challenging a hotly contested constitutional amendment. The Court has rarely sat en banc in the past, and this is the first time that it sits in a composition of fifteen justices, attesting to the importance that the Court attributes to this decision. The amendment modifies Basic Law: the Judiciary, which protects judicial independence, lays out the process of judicial selection for all the state courts and grants the Supreme Court the authority to supervise state action when the Court convenes in its capacity as a High Court of Justice. In this blog, I will explain each side's arguments and the strategic considerations behind the Attorney General's unprecedented move to push the Court to explicitly invalidate a constitutional amendment. I will show how both sides ultimately found themselves dragged into a game of chicken from which they could not back down.

Amidst massive protests taking place in Jerusalem and throughout the country, on July 24th the Knesset (Israeli parliament) passed Amendment Number 4 to Basic Law: The Judiciary, curtailing the power of Israel's Supreme Court. The amendment determines that no court, including the Supreme Court seating as the High Court of Justice, may engage with and/or pass judgment on the reasonableness of any "decision" of the government, the prime minister, or any minister; nor may a court give an order on the said matter. The coalition government's choice to go ahead with the legislation notwithstanding the internal and external pressures may now only deepen the multi-layered crisis the country has been in since January.

Since 2018, Swiss courts have become regular sites of criminal trials against climate activists who engage in various forms of non-violent protest to obtain effective climate action from their government and raise public awareness. Since the autumn of 2018, we have recorded approximately 30 non-violent forms of climate protest and civil disobedience across Switzerland, leading to at least 200 trials in Swiss criminal courts. In this contribution, we highlight three themes that have emerged in the trials of climate activists: First, the Federal Supreme Court has closed the door to the use of the necessity defense to justify civil disobedience in the name of the climate emergency. Second, at least some Swiss judges and courts are open to considering and applying the case law of the ECtHR. Third, the idea of civil disobedience remains deeply contested in the courts, as it is considered by the authorities to be antithetical to the Swiss model of democracy.

On November 30, the Brussels Court of Appeal handed down its ruling in VZW Klimaatzaak v. Kingdom of Belgium & Others, commonly known as "the Belgian climate case." The ruling is clear: Belgian authorities failed to participate adequately in the global effort to curb global warming, and they must imperatively reduce their emissions. Subscribing fully to Matthias Petel and Norman Vander Putten's sharp analysis of how this litigation saga embodies tensions between climate justice and the separation of powers, we wish to highlight three remarkable aspects of the case. After quickly summarizing the first instance judgment and last week's ruling, we begin by touching on the elephant in the (court)room: the articulation of the available scientific evidence with the limits of courts' power of review and injunction. Then, we say a word about the Brussels Court of Appeal's thorough application of European human rights law. We finish by deploring, as did the Court, Belgian federalism's inefficiencies.