Category: Article

Authoritative citizenship withdrawal and foreign fighters issue

Dario Chiari, LLM (King’s College London); LLB (University of Bologna)

This post tries to show the evolution of the relationship between the concepts of “national” and “Union” citizenship in light of certain judgements of the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter CJEU or the Court). Using principles extrapolated from these rulings, this blog post will examine how certain CJEU principles can help deal with contemporaneous issues, like the question of citizens fighting for foreign terrorist organizations (e.g. the foreign fighters). In the last few years Europe has witnessed the rise of the phenomenon of nationals of Member States (hereinafter MSs) who decide to leave to join international terrorist organizations. The reaction of the States has been uneven, and some have proposed and implemented as a solution, the withdrawal of the citizenship.[1] Have the MSs a limitless power to withdraw citizenship? And if not, to which kind of criteria are they bound? Continue reading “Authoritative citizenship withdrawal and foreign fighters issue”

Is the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) of the European Union adequate to respond to the current refugee crisis in Europe?

Mathilde Crepin, PhD Candidate Dickson Poon School of law, UNHCR appointed judge at the national court of asylum law (CNDA) in Paris

In 2011, the political turmoil in North Africa and in the Middle East prompted the flight of millions of people from their home place. Some of them attempted to seek protection in Europe, causing a significant rise of asylum applications in the Member States of the European Union (EU) in 2013 and 2014.[1] Under both International[2] and EU Law.[3] Member States have the obligation to take efficient and coordinated measures to address the needs of refugees and this necessity is even more pressing in light of the latest statistics, estimating that approximately one million asylum applications will be lodged in the European Union in 2015.[4]

Unfortunately, Member States have proven relatively unable to respond to this humanitarian crisis at the European level. EU countries agreed in 1999 to create a Common European Asylum System (CEAS), setting up minimum standards for harmonizing asylum systems in Europe.[5] However, instead of consistently applying the provisions of the CEAS, Member States have adopted unilateral measures to tackle the outflow of asylum seekers in their territory.[6]  In response to this situation, the Commission issued in September 2015 a decision on 40 infringements[7] directed at 19 governments of the EU. At this occasion, the European Commission First Vice-President, Frans Timmermans, stated that the CEAS could function only if everyone “played by the rules”.[8] However, the inability or unwillingness of the Member States to “play by the rules” reveals deeper concerns, namely that the CEAS might not be adequate to efficiently tackle the current needs of asylum seekers and migrants in Europe.

Continue reading “Is the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) of the European Union adequate to respond to the current refugee crisis in Europe?”

Unveiling the Mechanics in EU Courts: Centre of European Law Public Lecture – “How EU Judges Behave in Competition Appeals”

Joe Lee, LLM Student (King’s College London), BBA (Law), LLB & PCLL (The University of Hong Kong)

On 5 November 2015, Dr. Angela H Zhang, Lecturer in competition and trade law at the Dickson Poon School of Law, King’s College London, gave a presentation on the topic of “How EU Judges Behave in Competition Appeals” based on her recently published research paper titled “The Faceless Court”.[1]  The lecture examined the career structure and incentives as well as background of EU judges and evaluated how these factors and the design of the EU judicial decision-making process may impact competition appeals. This article discusses the three main parts of the lecture: firstly, the selection, compensation and tenure of EU judges and the role of référendaires; secondly the dominance of French judicial culture in EU courts and lastly the hierarchical design of judicial decision making in EU courts and its impact on the degree of judicial scrutiny.

Continue reading “Unveiling the Mechanics in EU Courts: Centre of European Law Public Lecture – “How EU Judges Behave in Competition Appeals””

How does the professional background of a future EU judge in the ECtHR matter?

Kaja Kaźmierska, English Law and German Law LLB & M.LL.P, King’s College London/Humboldt University;  EU International Relations and Diplomacy Studies, MA, College of Europe

The EU is supposed to join the ECHR, as provided by Article 6(2) TEU.[1] The agreement between the two institutions was reached in April 2013, as a result of negotiations which commenced in June 2010.[2] However, the CJEU issued its Opinion regarding the agreement on the 18th of December 2014, declaring the agreement incompatible with EU law which significantly slowed down the accession process.[3] Nevertheless, the EU’s accession to the ECHR is still expected, which would fundamentally shift the balance within the European mechanism of human rights protection. Upon joining, the EU will be granted a voice in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), as there will be one EU judge in the Strasbourg Court, along with one for every Council of Europe Member State. As a result, there will be 29 judges from the EU – one from every country and the EU judge. Continue reading “How does the professional background of a future EU judge in the ECtHR matter?”

Opinion 2/13: Some Further Reflections

Veronica Shleina: LL.B King’s College London, LL.M Candidate University College London

Introduction

In December 2014[1] the CJEU “dropped its Christmas bombshell”[2] declaring the Draft Agreement on the Accession to the ECHR[3] incompatible with EU law, thereby deeming the future accession almost impossible. While some of the concerns that Luxembourg addresses seem plausible, overall the Opinion appears to be a disappointing incarnation of playground politics. It is clear that despite the CJEU’s view, there is a real need for accession.

Continue reading “Opinion 2/13: Some Further Reflections”