Role Models of Politics Disguised in Technique

The article analyses two decisions of the European Court of Justice issued last year against Hungary, with the aim of outlining a new trend in the Court’s caselaw, where threats to the rule of law are confronted without making express reference to it. The profiles of the two judgements that are investigated are three, and namely: the timing of the procedures, the role of discrimination in the assessment of violations of the TFEU rules on the freedom of movement of capital and services, the assessment of violations of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union alongside TFEU violations. The purpose of the article is to prove that the infringement procedure under Art. 258 TFEU can be successfully used to hinder antidemocratic drifts and illiberal trends even when a case is designed as purely technical and the rule of law is not called in, which may ultimately shield the Court itself from accusations of being too politically involved in Member States’ affairs.

There is a relationship between the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the International Tax Law in the universal pandemic moments? – Education study

The unexpected pandemic 2020 context brings to humanity the effective relevance to the minimum existential, to the human rights, more than the discourse, but the real need of the protection from the main legal instruments. The paper proposes and discusses the connection with the need for tax collection by the states to meet the expenses of the social state, namely for education expenses, and whether the economic limitation caused by the current pandemic in face of the sharp decline in GDP and which has necessarily associated with a large decrease in the collection of tax revenues, which may compromise the right to education. From the findings of the study, concerning the new technologies and their dependence, the actual context shows that it is not an option but an effective need for everyone, so the states and the international community have the obligation to generate conditions of the best access and should promote the pedagogical need in this subject. Keywords: Fundamental rights, social state, taxes, property protection, education.

A Market-Friendly Human Rights Paradigm for Intellectual Property Rights in Europe?

This chapter explains that in the new variants of constitutionalism, human rights are perceived as critical normative counterweights to the extension of market-friendly rights privileging the protection of fiscal policies, the free movement of capital assets across borders, and the interests of investors over democratic processes, communities, and people. From this perspective, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which extend the right of property to legal persons, strike a discordant note by comparison with other international human rights instruments. The chapter investigates the origins of this incongruity. It shows that, paradoxically and contrary to the prevailing view, the rationale for the extension in the ECHR was to enable states to counteract the adverse social and economic impact of untrammelled exploitation of property and accumulation of profit. The chapter then examines the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) through this prism and considers how the Court may recover the normative ideals of human rights law. It also draws out the implications and challenges for the interpretation of IP rights in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Case C-243/19 A v. Veselības ministrija

The issue at stake in Case C-243/19 A v. Veselības ministrija is whether a personal choice on the part of a patient, based on religious beliefs, must be considered when assessing the need for cross-border healthcare. The Court of Justice of the European Union holds that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is applicable and the right to freedom of religion can be invoked, in addition to medical criteria. However, the sustainability of the healthcare system can be an objective justification for refusal to grant authorisation for cross-border healthcare. Furthermore, the case clarifies – to a certain extent – the parallel tracks for claiming cross-border healthcare.

Law and Medicine: the Influence of Fundamental Rights on the Corona-crisis and the Influence of the Corona-crisis on Fundamental Rights in the EU

The article deals with the intersection of law and medicine, especially in the time of the Corona-crisis. It analyses restrictions of human/fundamental rights in the time of the Corona-crisis at the EU level. Conditions for restrictions of fundamental rights are provided by Article 52(1) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The case-law of the Court of Justice of the EU concerning the restrictions of fundamental rights in connection with health protection is also analysed. The last part provides an overview of some decisions of constitutional courts of EU Member States concerning the justifications of restrictions of fundamental rights during the Corona-crisis.

The Relationship between EU Law and Fundamental Principles of Estonian Substantive Criminal Law

Although the EU lacks explicit competence to harmonise national principles of criminal law, there are many ways in which EU law and national criminal law are interconnected on a level deeper than mere minimum standards adopted from directives. The article analyses these intersections between EU law and fundamental principles of Estonian substantive criminal law, explaining how the principles of criminal law recognised and interpreted in the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU and covered by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union exhibit the capacity to affect fundamental principles of Estonian substantive criminal law. The article focuses on five principles specific to substantive criminal law, which are derived from the fundamental principles of the Estonian Constitution and have equivalents in human-rights law: the principle of legality of criminal law, the principle of retroactive application of the more lenient criminal law, proportionality, ultima ratio, and the principle of individual guilt. The analysis demonstrates that the relationship between EU law and the various principles of substantive criminal law is not uniform because the principles of substantive criminal law are not developed evenly at European Union level.

Interview with Gilles de Kerchove

Gilles de Kerchove was appointed European Union (EU) Counter-Terrorism Coordinator (EU CTC) on 19 September 2007. In this function, he coordinates the work of the EU in the field of counterterrorism (CT), maintains an overview of all the instruments at the Union's disposal, closely monitors the implementation of the EU CT strategy and fosters better communication between the EU and third countries to ensure that the Union plays an active role in the fight against terrorism. He was previously Director for Justice and Home Affairs at the EU Council General Secretariat (1995–2007) and Deputy Secretary of the Convention which drafted the Charter of fundamental rights of the EU (1999–2000). Before that he was Head of the Private Office of the Deputy Prime-Minister of the Federal Government of Belgium, Minister of Justice and Minister of Economic Affairs (1993–1995) and Head of the Private Office of the Deputy Prime-Minister of the Federal Government of Belgium, Minister of Justice and Minister of SMEs (1989–1992). Mr de Kerchove is a Professor of European Law at the Université Catholique de Louvain, at the Université Libre de Bruxelles and at the Université Saint Louis-Bruxelles. He has published a number of books and numerous articles on European law, human rights, security and CT.

Case C-66/18

On October 6, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down its judgment in Commission v. Hungary. It found that Hungary had violated the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), as well as internal European Union law—specifically the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (EU Charter). The case arose out of Hungary's 2017 amendment to its higher education law. The amendment imposed two novel requirements on foreign universities operating in Hungary. It barred any non-EU university from operating unless its country of origin concluded a specific enabling treaty with Hungary. Moreover, it required that the foreign university actually provide educational services in its country of origin. While framed in general terms, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the 2017 amendment was aimed at ending the operations of the Central European University (CEU) in Hungary.