25 January 2022
Time to Rewrite the EU Directive on Combating Terrorism
The adoption of EU Directive 2017/541 on combating terrorism in March 2017 has profoundly changed the landscape of European counter-terrorism law. The primary aim of this Directive was to further harmonise the legal framework under which terrorist offences are prosecuted across EU Member States by establishing minimum rules and standards. However, the adverse consequences for the rule of law and human rights have been overlooked from the very outset by the EU institutions. Now, five years after its adoption, it is time for a thorough revision. Continue reading >>
0 
24 February 2021
Live Debate: Power and the Covid-19 Pandemic
Marking the launch of the 2021 "Power and the COVID-19 Pandemic" Symposium, this webinar will bring together five contributors to discuss the impact of the pandemic on legal systems globally, and offer initial assessments for the rule of law, democracy, and human rights. Continue reading >>
0
23 February 2021
Finland: Soft measures, respect for the rule of law, and plenty of good luck
In mid-April 2020 Verfassungsblog published my first take on Finland’s response to COVID-19, under the characterisation 'Best Practice and Problems'. Into February 2021, Finland has remained one of the few European champions in combating the epidemic, with 9,423 cases and 131 deaths (both per one million inhabitants and by 18 February 2021). Notably, Finland’s success has not followed from strict ‘draconian’ measures but from a combination of factors that include at least geographical location; cultural patterns that support physical distancing and even isolation; a well-functioning healthcare system; a good level of compliance; comparatively good levels of vitamin D; and sheer luck which would be related to the first factor, geographical location. Continue reading >>16 April 2020
The COVID-19 Emergency in Finland: Best Practice and Problems
Finland has a modern Constitution with an ambitious catalogue of fundamental rights. Has this framework, including the constitutional regulation of emergency powers, been able to cope with the COVID-19 crisis? Are there lessons to learn from Finland? Continue reading >>30 January 2019
The EU Regulation on Terrorist Content: An Emperor without Clothes
The draft EU Regulation on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online constitutes a grave threat to freedom of expression. It could be applied in respect of journalists, non-governmental organisations, political parties, trade unions, indigenous peoples, scholars of history or social sciences, novelists, cartoonists, photographers and filmmakers. Its cross-border application makes it a dreadful tool in the hands of authoritarian regimes or rogue officials. Continue reading >>
0
08 May 2018
Is Travel to Syrian Warfare a Terrorist Crime? The Finnish Case
On 24 January 2018, the Helsinki District Court of 24 January 2018 ruled on an alleged plan by three Muslim men, all Finnish nationals, to travel to Syria and join the ongoing armed conflict there. The prosecutor chose to base the charges on Section 2, Preparation of an offence to be committed with terrorist aim, under the construction that joining the armed opposition forces in Syria so as to engage in hostilities against the official army of the al-Assad regime, could have resulted in death or injury to members of the Syrian military forces. Continue reading >>07 October 2015
The Essence of Privacy, and Varying Degrees of Intrusion
What is remarkable in the CJEU's Schrems decision is that a) the Court actually identified the intrusion in question as falling under the notion of the essence of privacy – something the European Court of Human Rights has never done under the privacy provision of ECHR Article 8, and b) the identification of an intrusion as compromising the essence of privacy meant that there was no need for a proportionality assessment under Article 52 (1.2) of the Charter. For these reasons, the Max Schrems judgment is a pathbreaking development, a major contribution to the understanding of the structure and legal effect of fundamental rights under the Charter. Continue reading >>
0
26 December 2014
CJEU Opinion 2/13 – Three Mitigating Circumstances
The academic response to CJEU Opinion 2/13 on EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights can be characterised as a combination of shock, disbelief and protest. Indeed, the Opinion looks like total overkill, as the grounds for rejecting the draft accession agreement are so many and so diverse that they unavoidably give the impression of being primarily based on a defensive and territorial attitude of protecting the exclusive and superior nature of the CJEU’s own jurisdiction. That said, the critical discussion on Opinion 2/13 should include a search for rational explanations as to why the CJEU’s opinion is negative, even if in the extreme. What follows is a short reflection on three factors towards that kind of an approach, without any intention to defend the Opinion itself. Continue reading >>
0
25 September 2014
Back to post-9/11 panic? Security Council resolution on foreign terrorist fighters
The United Nations Security Council has adopted a resolution on foreign terrorist fighters. It is not a mere political declaration adopted at highest political level but a “legislative” resolution with “teeth,” adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and therefore legally binding for all UN Member States and obtaining, by virtue of Article 103 of the Charter, primacy in relation to any other international agreement of states. The resolution constitutes a huge backlash in the UN counter-terrorism regime, comparable to Security Council Resolution (SCR) 1373, adopted in the immediate aftermath of the atrocious terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It wipes out the piecemeal progress made over 13 long years in introducing protections of human rights and the rule of law into the highly problematic manner in which the Security Council exercises its supranational powers. Continue reading >>
0
25 September 2014