Tag: rule of law

Editorial of September 2025

On By officialblogunioIn EditorialsLeave a comment

Brief notes on the State of the Union (SOTEU) annual address of 10 September 2025

Pedro Madeira Froufe [Editor of this blog and Coordinator of the Group “Studies in European Union Law” (CEDU), of JUSGOV – Research Centre for Justice and Governance, University of Minho)]

On the same day that the President of the Commission delivered her 2025 State of the Union address[1] to the European Parliament, [2] Polish airspace was violated by a group of Russian drones. One of the concerns raised by President von der Leyen was therefore the urgent need to rethink and strengthen the common security and defence policy. In other words, on the very day that the State of the Union address was delivered in the European Parliament, Putin helped to corroborate one of the priorities set out in President von der Leyen’s speech! Moreover, these were the opening words of the speech, in a diagnosis that the President herself described as bleak: “Europe is in a fight. A fight for a continent that is whole and at peace. For a free and independent Europe. A fight for our values and our democracies. A fight for our liberty and our ability to determine our destiny for ourselves. Make no mistake – this is a fight for our future.”

Continue reading “Editorial of September 2025” →

Editorial of June 2025

On By officialblogunioIn EditorialsLeave a comment

40 years since Portugal joined the European Union
(or about Constante’s refusal to jump, the dog from José Saramago’s “The Stone Raft”)

Pedro Madeira Froufe [Editor of this blog and Coordinator of the Group “Studies in European Union Law” (CEDU), of JUSGOV – Research Centre for Justice and Governance, University of Minho)]

I

Forty years ago, on 12 June 1985, in the Jerónimos Monastery (Lisbon), the Treaty of Accession of Portugal to the then European Economic Community (EEC) was signed – eight years after Portugal had formally applied for membership. This brings us back to the character named Constante, the dog in the 1986 novel “The Stone Raft” by José Saramago, winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature. In this novel, Saramago develops an allegory: the physical, geographical separation of the Iberian Peninsula from the rest of the European continent. In Saramago’s text, this unusual event with no scientific explanation (the separation of the Peninsula) is an allusion to what the author foresaw/feared would happen as part of the unification of Europe: the Iberian countries would be forgotten, cast aside, “sailing adrift”, unable to identify culturally, socially or economically with the rest of Europe. The dog Constante appears at the very beginning of the narrative, hesitating between Spain and France (“the rest of Europe”) as soon as he feels the first crack, and ends up jumping (opting) for the Peninsula, in the process of separation. We shall return to this character, the dog Constante, later in this text.

To begin with, and to give a brief historical overview of Portugal’s pre-accession phase, it was on 28 March 1977 – just after the so-called PREC (“ongoing revolutionary period”) had run its course and only three years after the “Carnation Revolution” (on 25 April 1974) – that the then Portuguese Foreign Minister, José Medeiros Ferreira, sent a letter formally requesting Portugal’s accession to the EEC. In other words, the Portuguese option for European integration was formally recognised as early as 1977.

It is important to remember that around two years earlier, Greece had applied for membership, favouring the direction of European integration at the time (during the 1970s) towards southern Europe. In a way, Greece’s accession in 1981 also signified a reunion of Europe (then “Community”) with its classical mythology. This mythology is at the origin of its name: Europa (Princess Europa and her abduction by a love-struck Zeus…).

Continue reading “Editorial of June 2025” →

Judicial independence and judges’ remuneration: echoes of the “Portuguese Judges” judgment in the joined cases C-146/23 and C-374/23

On By officialblogunioIn Case notesLeave a comment 
João Pedro Sousa (master’s student in European Union Law at the School of Law of the University of Minho)

1. Preliminary considerations

Judicial independence is a fundamental pillar of the rule of law enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). It guarantees that judges are free from external pressures – whether from the executive, legislative branches, or private interests –, allowing them to adjudicate cases impartially and fairly. In the European Union (EU) context, judicial independence transcends the internal affairs of Member States; it is an essential safeguard to ensure the full application of EU law and effective judicial protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has consistently emphasised that national courts act as “European courts”,[1] applying and upholding EU law within their jurisdictions. Consequently, any impairment to the judicial independence in a Member State poses a national constitutional issue and a direct threat to the European legal order.[2]

The recent joined cases C-146/23 (Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku) and C-374/23[3] (Adoreikė) come at a pivotal moment as concerns over the rule of law rise in certain Member States. These joined cases addressed whether budgetary measures impacting the remuneration of judges in Poland and Lithuania, introduced through national legislation, violated EU law by undermining judicial independence. Their significance is heightened by the fact that they coincide with the seventh anniversary of the “Portuguese Judges” judgment [Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v. Tribunal de Contas (ASJP)],[4] a landmark case that firmly established judicial independence as a fundamental element of the rule of law under EU law. As highlighted in a recent analysis on this blog, understanding the legacy of the “Portuguese Judges” judgment is essential to contextualising the challenges facing the judiciary today.[5] 

Continue reading “Judicial independence and judges’ remuneration: echoes of the “Portuguese Judges” judgment in the joined cases C-146/23 and C-374/23” →

Editorial of March 2025

On By officialblogunioIn EditorialsLeave a comment 
Alessandra Silveira [Editor of this blog, Coordinator of Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence “Digital Citizenship and Technological Sustainability” (CitDig), UMinho]

The new world (dis)order and the European Defence Union

(on three years since the invasion of Ukraine)

On 24 February 2022, while the planet was still rising from the depths of the pandemic, barbarity returned to the European continent – all recorded by drones and satellites in a conventional war perpetrated amid the digital age. The return of war to the European continent urges us to re-read Hannah Arendt, because totalitarian solutions are still tantalisingly tempting. [1] Arendt explains that nowhere else does Fortune – good or bad – play such a decisive role in human affairs as on the battlefield. That is why violence in war carries with it an additional element of arbitrariness.[2]

In “The Origins of Totalitarianism” from 1951, Arendt traces the subterranean elements that crystallised the astonishing singularity of the totalitarianisms of the 20th century – and their systematic attempt to make human beings superfluous. The same perplexity that arises before the terrifying images of Bucha or Mariupol – but where does this horror come from? – led Arendt to coin the expression “the banality of evil”. With this concept, she wanted to explain that someone does not have to be a monster to perpetrate an evil act – and that people can commit it for banal reasons, without ever having decided whether to be good or bad, but simply because of their inability to think, to put themselves in the place of the victims, to exercise a broad mentality or the Kantian universalisation test.[3]

Continue reading “Editorial of March 2025” →

Procedural changes in the European Court of the European Union by entrusting preliminary ruling competences to the General Court: first impressions

On By officialblogunioIn EssaysLeave a comment 
Joana Covelo de Abreu (Editor of this blog and Key-staff member of Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence “Digital Citizenship & Technological Sustainability” - CitDig, Erasmus+).

Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union was amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2019 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of April, 11th 2024, which entered into force on September 1st 2024. These changes were mainly focused on relieving the Court of Justice from some of its jurisdictional demands, especially by entrusting the General Court the competence on certain specific areas in which preliminary questions could be raised. Notwithstanding, the opportunity was also embraced to “modernize and simplify procedures before the two courts”, i.e., the Court of Justice and the General Court.

In fact, the Court of Justice of the European Union was already called upon to pronounce itself concerning the possibility to transfer jurisdiction on preliminary references to the General Court, under specific circumstances: under Regulation (EU, Eurotom) 2015/2422, this institution submitted a report to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on 14th December 2017, where it “took the view that there was no need, at that time, to propose changes as regards the manner of dealing with requests for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU.” However, in that same report, the Court also “pointed out that a subsequent transfer of jurisdiction to the General Court to give preliminary rulings in certain specific areas could not be ruled out if the number and complexity of requests for a preliminary ruling submitted to the Court of Justice were to be such that the proper administration of justice required it” (Recital 1 of Regulation 2024/2019).

Continue reading “Procedural changes in the European Court of the European Union by entrusting preliminary ruling competences to the General Court: first impressions” →

A wall that fell, a world that collapsed: the transition to the unexpected (on the 35th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall)

On By officialblogunioIn EssaysLeave a comment 

Rubén Díez García (Professor in the Department of Applied Sociology at the Complutense University of Madrid)

The Berlin Wall, built in 1961, was more than just a physical barrier: it was a symbol that separated two worlds and competing political ideologies. This ideological division also fuelled conflict within liberal democracies themselves. On the eastern side, the communist bloc, under the tutelage of the Soviet Union, controlled the political, economic, and social life of its societies. On the western side, liberal democracies defended their ideal of individual freedom and human rights. And I emphasise “ideal,” because it is no secret that democratic liberalism in practice is not exempt from risks, threats, and tensions.

Beyond separating two blocs during the Cold War, the wall also divided two different ways of legitimising power. Without delving into the limitations and the shadows and monsters of reason illuminated by modernity and capitalist development, the Berlin Wall encapsulated an oppressive reality for millions in the communist bloc. Its very existence reflected authoritarian control that restricted access to information, freedom of speech, and even collective expression, a key element in our democracies. The wall symbolised the state’s force to suppress the desire for personal autonomy beyond the collective, as well as the right to free movement. Over time, its meaning expanded: it ceased to be just a tangible border and became a symbol of the authoritarian system governing the Eastern bloc.

Continue reading “A wall that fell, a world that collapsed: the transition to the unexpected (on the 35th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall)” →

Law and politics: the Puigdemont case and the dialogue between courts

On By officialblogunioIn EssaysLeave a comment 

Teresa Freixes (President of Citizens pro Europe and Jean Monnet Professor ad personam)
▪           

In recent weeks, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has handed down judgments that shatter the assertion, so dear to some, that law cannot constrain policy. I am referring, essentially, to those that have considered the EU’s agricultural and fisheries agreement with Morocco to be contrary to EU law because it does not respect the will of the Sahrawi people, guaranteed by international law (Judgment in Joined Cases C-778/21 P and C-798/21 P and in Joined Cases C-779/21 P and C-799/21 P); also, the EU must grant political asylum to Afghan women who request it because they objectively meet all the legally established requirements for it to be granted, given the systematic violation of rights to which they are subjected in their country (Judgment in Joined Cases C‑608/22 and C‑609/22); and, of course, that which rejects the appeal of Mr. Puigdemont and Mr. Comín, confirming that they cannot be considered MEPs because they have not fulfilled the requirements established in national law to do so (Judgment C-600/22 P).

No matter how much political agreement there has been between the political bodies of the EU and Morocco, ignoring the fact that legally speaking Western Sahara is still a territory to be decolonised, regardless of the political decision that has been taken to abandon Afghan women asylum seekers to their fate, or the political will that some have had in pretending that one can be an MEP without complying with the electoral law of the Member State, the CJEU has guaranteed the rule of law and the application of the competent rules in the disputes that are the subject of its rulings. This is an example to be followed by the high courts, both supreme and constitutional, in all EU Member States and, particularly, as far as Spain is concerned.

Continue reading “Law and politics: the Puigdemont case and the dialogue between courts” →

CJEU case law on ‘amnesties’: prospects for the Spanish amnesty on the Catalan independence conflict

On By officialblogunioIn Essays1 Comment 

Miryam Rodríguez-Izquierdo Serrano  (Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Seville)
▪           

On 11 June 2024[1], the Spanish Official State Journal published Organic Law 1/2024, of 10 June, on amnesty for institutional, political and social normalisation in Catalonia (Ley Orgánica 1/2024, de 10 de junio, de amnistía para la normalización institucional, política y social en Cataluña).[2] The law entered into force at the same time of its publication. As of this date, it is mandatory for the judicial, administrative and accounting bodies that may be handling cases linked to the sovereignty process in Catalonia (2014-2017) to apply the law. The law orders these bodies to exempt from criminal, administrative or accounting liability those who have been involved in those events, especially those linked to the preparation or consequences of the consultations on independence that took place in 2014 and 2017.

The approval of this Spanish amnesty law has been preceded by some speculation about the position that the EU will adopt in relation to it, as well as others related to possible preliminary rulings: whether the Spanish courts could ask the CJEU for preliminary rulings before adopting their decision on the application of the amnesty law to each specific case. For this reason, it is relevant to recall what the EU’s position has been, to date, regarding amnesties approved in its Member States. But above all, it is important to find out whether the CJEU has previously ruled on the effectiveness of amnesty laws. This will provide basic guidance on whether the CJEU has jurisdiction over an amnesty law passed in a Member State and on the limits within which a Member State may decide to amnesty criminal, administrative and accounting liabilities.

Continue reading “CJEU case law on ‘amnesties’: prospects for the Spanish amnesty on the Catalan independence conflict” →

Editorial of May 2024

On By revistaunioIn Editorials1 Comment 
By the Alessandra Silveira (Editor)
▪

“Europe is mortal”: recovering the original impetus for loyal co-operation of Article 4(3) TEU

Last April 25, while the Portuguese were celebrating the 50th anniversary of their democracy, French President Emmanuel Macron delivered a speech at the Sorbonne University urging the European Union (EU) to urgently rethink its economic and defence models, otherwise it will become irrelevant on the world stage value-wise – that is the meaning of the metaphor according to which the Europe we have come to know could die.[1] The rules of the game have changed on several fronts – including geopolitics, economy, trade and culture – and in this context, the “European way of life” is under threat and could fall into decay. Moreover, fighting Western values is the more or less declared plan of those who want a new illiberal international order.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine marks the beginning of a new phase for European integration, the shape of which is not yet fully understood. But one thing is certain: in this new phase, loyal co-operation between European institutions and Member States – as well as their loyalty to each other – is particularly important. This is not a time for friction or dispute between Europeans and their representatives, because in the face of the barbarity of war, what is at stake is always of an existential nature. In other words, it is always a matter of life and death, also for European values and their relevance in the world. Against this backdrop, it is important to identify the new winds that are blowing across the relations of articulation and interdependence between the legal-constitutional order of the EU and the legal-constitutional order of the Member States.

Continue reading “Editorial of May 2024” →

Dr. Strangelove or: What Lights Sheds Kubrick on Today’s Union

On By officialblogunioIn ReviewsLeave a comment 

Gonçalo Martins de Matos (Master in Judiciary Law by the University of Minho)
▪           

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, Stanley Kubrick’s political satire black comedy film, completed, in the past Monday, 60 years of age since its release on 29th January 1964. Often considered one of the best comedies ever made and, arguably, the best political satire of the 20th century[1], the depths of human stupidity are surgically dissected by the keen, sagacious mind of Stanley Kubrick. More than that, Kubrick’s cautionary tale about nuclear apocalypse exposes humans in what they tragicomically have more contradictory, hypocritical and idiosyncratic.

Encompassing a wide spectrum of themes, Dr. Strangelove remains very present, shedding, like all great Art, some light on contemporary issues and events. More so in recent years, with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, bringing to the Old Continent the dark fog of war again. Since Russia is a nuclear power, the fear of nuclear escalation invaded once again people’s hearts, reminding the great powers of the Cold War’s Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD – a fittingly ironic name, as well) doctrine. NATO members have been (well) cautious, as to avoid a backslide to the obscurity of the Cold War. Obscurity is the right word to describe the surroundings of war: freedom is suffocated, barricades are erected, and truth is the first victim.

Continue reading “Dr. Strangelove or: What Lights Sheds Kubrick on Today’s Union” →