29 September 2015
The Proposed TTIP Tribunal and the Court of Justice: What Limits to Investor-State Dispute Settlement under EU Constitutional Law?
In its controversial Opinion 2/13, the European Court of Justice has rejected the accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights. The constitutional hurdles the CJEU has erected in this opinion are not only relevant in the area of human rights, but also require us to think hard about the EU constitutionality of the suggested TTIP Tribunal, or any other mechanism of investor-state dispute settlement under future EU international investment agreements. To reduce this uncertainty it may be advisable to request the CJEU through an advisory opinion. Continue reading >>
0 
23 September 2015
Where do we stand on the reform of the EU’s Court System? On a reform as short-sighted as the attempts to force through its adoption
Last October, the CJEU has proposed to double the number of judges at the General Court to help tackling its growing workload. The legislative process this proposal is currently undergoing appears to be marred by a pattern of procedural irregularities whose only aim seems to be the speedy adoption of the reform and – more troublingly – may also be construed as a joint advocacy strategy designed to systematically eliminate any opportunity for a public, well informed and evidence-based debate. Should this reform go through (as it appears likely), damaging evidence might yet come to light and the authority and legitimacy of relevant EU institutions will be further undermined at a time where they have little to spare. Continue reading >>
0
23 September 2015
Where do we stand on the reform of the EU’s Court System? On a reform as short-sighted as the attempts to force through its adoption
Last October, the CJEU has proposed to double the number of judges at the General Court to help tackling its growing workload. The legislative process this proposal is currently undergoing appears to be marred by a pattern of procedural irregularities whose only aim seems to be the speedy adoption of the reform and – more troublingly – may also be construed as a joint advocacy strategy designed to systematically eliminate any opportunity for a public, well informed and evidence-based debate. Should this reform go through (as it appears likely), damaging evidence might yet come to light and the authority and legitimacy of relevant EU institutions will be further undermined at a time where they have little to spare. Continue reading >>
0