[Recommandations] Any legal must-read on E-democracy in Europe?
01.07.2025 16:33
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
[Recommandations] Any legal must-read on E-democracy in Europe?
We urge the Parliament of #Slovakia to reject a proposed constitutional amendment package that would ban adoption by same-sex couples, severely restrict children’s access to comprehensive sexuality education, and make legal gender recognition virtually impossible.
Everyone is free to disagree, but one should at least be honest about their own economic dependencies and show some decency in the language they use.
Those basic requirements are also part of living in a democratic society
4/4
Yet they come and portray themselves as defenders of the weak and the oppressed, throwing around grand terms like “illiberal Union” or accusing others of having “no reasoning.”
3/4
Some of the most vocal academics are funded by the very organizations that promote these schemes which—let’s not fool ourselves—are primarily designed for the wealthy.
2/4
[Likely unpopular opinion following Commission v. Malta (citizenship)]
Being very attached to academic freedom and regardless of the desired outcome, I’m increasingly irritated by scholars who fail to acknowledge the hands that feed them—or the vocabulary used.
1/4
As you are aware, horizontality is a very sensitive matter.
Plus, if Bauer and co were landmark cases, their expends to horizontality was arguably also conditioned on the link with the 'essence' of a fundamental rights. Was it really the case in Plamaro? 3/3
Does Plamaro really qualify as a landmark? Was AMS one?
Isn't the possibility of distinguishing stronger if one wants to still develop the case-law? Then, Plamaro might just be a case-specific ruling.
2/3
Great you spotted that one.
I do agree it may well amount to a deceiving decision (though you seem to acknowledge it is a very technical decision based on a very light directive). 1/3
Finally, the Court finds Malta in breach of Article 20 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, without requiring separate proof of an infringement of the latter.
If correct, this approach reflects an evolution in the Court’s case-law on Article 4(3) TEU.
6/6
Particular emphasis is placed on the divergent residence conditions: whereas the program requires only formal legal residence, ordinary naturalisation typically necessitates actual and effective residence.
5/6
Next, in substantive terms, it focuses on the transactional nature of the program, highlighting that discrepancy between this program and the requirements imposed under the ordinary naturalisation process.
The remainder of the Court’s reasoning is both comprehensive and well-structured.
4/6
Instead, the Court affirms that Union citizenship "constitutes the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States". In doing so, the Court is, at last, articulating the true nature of Union citizenship—clearly and unequivocally stating what it really is.
3/6
Perhaps the most notable development appears in paragraph 92, where the Court expressly moves away from the previously used “is intended” formulation when it comes to Union citizenship.
2/6
🔥
This judgment undoubtedly constitutes a landmark ruling.
Its significance lies not only in the outcome—which, contrary to Advocate General Collins’s Opinion— finds Malta in breach of EU law, but also in several important aspects of the Court’s reasoning.
1/6
And what a great timing, judgment in Case C-181/23 coming out tomorrow!
Opinion will be out tomorrow on whether a concept such as “immigrants and their descendants from non-western origin” is discriminatory on the ground of ethnic origin.
www.thetimes.com/article/8a07...
There is nothing inherently weak in this anti-transactional approach: and indeed it has proved successful for Trump, both politically and commercially. And, yes, he does deploy the rhetoric of “the deal”. But this only makes him transactional in the same way an atheist going on about “God” makes them a Christian. There is instead a positive disbelief in the words and concepts being used. And so each supposed agreement with Trump is a mere marker for the next use (and abuse) of leverage: few if any transactions will ever be transacted. Things will move on, there will be new exertions of power, and new things demanded.
NEW
Why Donald Trump is not really "transactional" but anti-transactional
A contract lawyer's perspective on how Trump uses deals and deal-making
By me
Personal blog:
davidallengreen.com/2025/02/why-...
Substack:
emptycity.substack.com/p/why-donald...
eulawlive.com/podcast/are-...
“Il recommande également d’élargir le droit à l’erreur dans le champ européen”… bon courage!
Downgrading the protection level of wolfs in the EU…
ec.europa.eu/commission/p...
Candidates for the role of Ombuds(wo)man
www.europarl.europa.eu/ombudsmanele...
