To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This chapter focuses on the link between the rule of law and migration in the poisonous context of democratic decay and rule of law backsliding in the EU. The analysis draws on the Hungarian case study, where overall institutional changes introduced since 2010 have led to the establishment of a regime described as ‘illiberal’ and as ‘authoritarian’. The chapter argues that Hungarian asylum policy is essentially designed with one key goal in mind: to deprive people of the right to seek asylum in breach of the international obligations of Hungary and of EU law. This is a direct result of a broader process of rule of law backsliding. The Hungarian case study proves that unresolved issues of rule of law backsliding in some EU Member States affects both the practical implementation of EU basic values (e.g., solidarity) and the proper functioning of EU policies (e.g., asylum policy). The chapter’s conclusion is that the rule of law is not secured sufficiently, either in the EU or by the EU, causing all concerned to lose face.
The effects of populist narratives have become an increasingly important topic on the European Union (EU) agenda, both political and juridical, because no EU Member State is immune from populist movements, which are ever-popular.1 The last decade demonstrated that domestic constitutional populism has the ability to affect the supranational political entity in myriad ways.2 The rule of law – a fundamental EU value,3 first assumed politically,4 then proclaimed judicially,5 and, finally, codified in the Treaties to initially uncertain effects,6 – became a proxy: graduating into the interface between the populism-affecting domestic constitutional arrangements and the EU legal order.7 The inept reaction of the EU institutions to the rule of law crisis in Member States (Poland and Hungary in particular), ‘illiberalism within’,8 suggests that the constitutional populism undermined the foundations and effectiveness of the EU rule of law. Worse still – the developments over the last decade highlight the fact that the EU might be drifting away from its proclaimed foundations of democracy, rule of law and human rights protection: its very raison d’être stands undermined. Indeed, the added value of the Union as a tool to empower ‘autocratic legalism’,9 uniting states engaged in ‘ruling by cheating’,10 as opposed to a club of rule of law-abiding democracies, is unclear. One thing is certain, however: such a Union cannot have any future.
The Digital Green Certificate (DGC) proposed by the European Commission on the basis of facilitating the free movement rights of European Union (EU) citizens will be capable of effectively serving as a COVID-19 passport. In this contribution, we cast doubt on whether the DGC is fit for purpose, highlighting in particular the potential for the DGC to in fact facilitate greater free movement restrictions for a large number of EU citizens, in particular those who have received non- European Medicines Agency (EMA)-approved vaccines such as Sputnik V in compliance with EU law. Under the proposal as amended by the European Parliament, any destination Member State that accepts proof of vaccination “in order to waive restrictions to free movement” must apply the same waiver to any DGC-holder that has received an EMA-approved vaccine and has the option of doing so for vaccines added to the World Health Organization (WHO) Emergency Use Listing; however, such equal treatment is not available for DGC-holders who have received non-EMA/WHO vaccines. While this measure was alleged to be taken on grounds of public health, a convincing public health case has not been put forward. Instead, the DGC proposal as it stands disregards the promise of the internal market and sets the stage for its fragmentation through geopolitics and bilateralism.
The Russian Constitution was adopted by a referendum on December 12, 1993. It was inspired by Western constitutional traditions and internationally recognised democratic and human rights values. The Constitution established three core features of the Russian constitutional order, all breaking with the Soviet past:
• The Constitutional provisions on the foundations of the constitutional system, the protection of human rights, and constitutional review are unchangeable and cannot be amended, except via the summoning of a new Constitutional Assembly/national referendum (art. 135).
• The Constitution established a strongly monist approach to international law, integrating it into the Russian legal order and giving priority to duly ratified international treaties and agreements to override conflicting domestic laws (art. 15(4)).
• The Russian Constitutional Court enjoys exclusive competence to interpret the Constitution via binding precedents.
This collection marks the rich legacy of Professor Laurence W. Gormley's scholarship in the field of EU internal market law, providing a definitive critical appraisal of all the key aspects of the internal market, with an emphasis on goods and judicial protection; Professor Gormley's expert fields. Forty chapters deal with constitutional aspects of the EU internal market, the free movement of goods, persons and services, EMU, public procurement and competition law, institutional and procedural dimensions, and the EU's external relations, which includes matters relating to Brexit. The broad theme of the book, reflecting the many interests of Professor Gormley, will appeal to scholars, students and practicing lawyers. Dealing with both classic, foundational aspects of the EU internal market as well as highly topical matters, such as Brexit, this book will be a most welcome addition to every engaged legal scholar's library, thereby celebrating the legacy of a mentor and dear friend.