31 August 2021
The European Constitutional Road to Address Platform Power
The functions exercised by online platforms raise questions about the safeguarding of fundamental rights and democratic values from the autonomous discretion of the private sector, which is not bound by constitutional law. The Digital Services Act horizontally translates European constitutional values to private relationships, to limit governance by platforms. Continue reading >>
3 
11 May 2021
Trump’s Indefinite Ban
After months of waiting, the Facebook Oversight Board has upheld Facebook’s ban of former President Donald Trump. Beyond the merits, the decision underlines a trend showing how the FOB is applying protections of free speech. The FOB’s increasing reliance on the principle of proportionality and transparency is a paradigmatic example of an ever-growing distance to the First Amendment dogma characterising US constitutionalism and the proximity to the European (digital) constitutional approach. Continue reading >>26 February 2021
Flexing the Muscles of Information Power
Since July 2020, the global news media industry has been looking at Australia’s draft code, that would force Google and Facebook to negotiate with news publishers, pay for news, share data and advertising revenues. Facebook, in response, decided to ban Australian publishers and users from sharing or viewing Australian as well as international news content. Soon after, the social media changed its view, once the Australian government decided to step back and negotiate with Facebook. This interaction is not just an example of how Facebook can influence public policies, but also shows how powers are relocated among different actors in the information society. Continue reading >>05 February 2021
Shedding Light on the Darkness of Content Moderation
With the Facebook Oversight Board, we face a new age of private adjudication of online content, which promises an alternative system to enforce human rights on a global scale, while marginalising and hybridising constitutional values and democratic safeguards. Digital constitutionalism offers a framework to look at this new form of private adjudication of online content and its challenges. A look at the FOB’s first cases is an opportunity peek behind the scenes of content moderation, as well as a laboratory to study the transnational challenges which the information society has raised to global (digital) constitutionalism. Continue reading >>
0
09 October 2020
The European “Market” for Constitutional Ideas
It was already clear to Seneca, almost 2000 years ago, that “[i]f a man knows not to which port he sails, no wind is favourable”. Now, almost 2000 years later, as mentioned by Armin von Bogdandy in his inspiring introduction to this symposium, we are faced with a crucial question of existential significance: Are we moving towards a Europeanised Germany or a Germanised Europe? In order to answer to the question, we have to draw a distinction between intention and practical effect. Continue reading >>
0
25 July 2020
Diabolical Persistence
As Genna Churches and Monika Zalnieriute wrote here on 16 July, the day on which the Schrems II decision was published, reading the judgment gives more than a simple feeling déjà vu; it rather looks like a full-blown Groundhog Day: One has the impression of being trapped in a time loop that forces us to relive the day – 6 October 2015 – on which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) adopted Schrems I and invalidated the European Commission’s Safe Harbour Decision (Safe Harbour) adopted on 26 July 2000. More than a week after the Schrems II judgment was adopted, following the hundreds of comments made on the subject, I shall modestly attempt to consider the judgment (and the underlying saga) from two particular viewpoints. Continue reading >>
0
28 March 2019
Fundamental Rights as Bycatch – Russia’s Anti-Fake News Legislation
On 18 March, following approval by President Putin, Russia’s controversial anti-fake news legislation entered into force. While Russia is not the only state to address the issues of hate speech or fake news with legislative means, its new legislation raises serious constitutional concerns, particularly due to its imprecise and overly broad scope of application. Continue reading >>
0
27 February 2019
Not to be Pushed Aside: the Italian Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice
A few days ago, with the decision no 20/2019, the Italian Constitutional Court (ICC) has set a new cornerstone in its relationship with EU law and, in particular, with the judicial treatment of issues covered by both national fundamental rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In so doing, the Consulta shows the intention to act as a pivotal institution in the field of judicial protection of fundamental rights. Continue reading >>
0
05 June 2018
Two Courts, two Languages? The Taricco Saga Ends on a Worrying Note
The epic story of the confrontation between the Italian Constitutional Court (ICC) and the European Court of Justice (ECJ) that has become known under name Taricco has come to an end at last – somewhat different than expected, but nevertheless. On May 31 the ICC has handed down its final judgment. The hatchet between the Courts is buried. But the way it was done by the ICC is by no means conciliatory. Continue reading >>
0
05 December 2017
Defusing the Taricco Bomb through Fostering Constitutional Tolerance: All Roads Lead to Rome
As Mauro Cappelletti perceptively wrote in 1986, ‘unlike the American Supreme Court and the European Constitutional Courts, the Court of Justice has almost no powers that are not ultimately derived from its own prestige, intellectual and moral force of its opinions’. In other terms, the Court of Justice (‘ECJ’) cannot take obedience to its judgments by Member States and the respective authorities as granted or constitutionally-mandated since, in Weiler’s words, this is a voluntary obedience which goes hand in hand with the exercise of constitutional tolerance in the Member States. In other words, there is a time for the enforcement of the radical primacy of EU law as in Melloni and Taricco I, and a time for internalizing the counterlimits, as in the Taricco II decision (M.A.S. and M.B. case) handed down today by the ECJ. Continue reading >>
0