It is strange to see how the powerful institutions of the EU just don’t seem to get the message. At a time where attitudes towards the EU are increasingly critical, if not hostile, in growing swathes of the population, the political and judicial elites act as if that were nothing to concern them. Subsidiarity is over, cultural imperialism holds sway.
A case in point is the issue of sodo-“marriage”, i.e. the mockery of marriage by sexual perverts, which has become legal in some Member States while it is clearly rejected by others. One might assume that in such a situation, if it does not want to simply defend the position that used to be the common ground among all civilised nations before some decadent countries like the Netherlands or Belgium started to call it into question as late as in the early Two-Thousands, the European Union should at least remain neutral, leaving Member States free to accept or reject this aberrant political fashion. But instead the EU takes side – of course for perversion and against decency. It does so without a proper political mandate, and in fact against its own foundational texts. Is anyone really believing that this will not provide further fuel to EU-scepticism?
In the Coman case currently pending before the Court of Justice of the EU, Advocate General Melchior Wathelet has issued a Legal Opinion which, if followed, would de facto oblige all EU Member States – including those who have constitutional provisions that rule out the arbitrary re-definition of marriage – to give a (perhaps limited) legal effect to “marriages” between same-sex sodomites. Continue reading “Will European Court impose the legal recognition of sodo-“marriage” all over Europe?”
In times of increasing public resistance against their agenda, the LGBT lobby increasingly relies on the judicial activism of like-minded judges to impose what they cannot obtain through democratic means.
While the “strategic litigation” of the lobby so far has focused on the European Court of Human Rights (which, thanks to its relentless support for radical agendas on abortion and sodomy has by now depleted its once considerable prestige), it is now trying to involve the Court of Justice of the EU in its attempts to overturn the moral order. This is done through a legal action (Case C – 673/16 Coman and others) in which, following a request from the Romanian Constitutional Court, the CJEU is being asked to interpret the word “spouse” in the context of EU law on freedom of movement. Continue reading “CJEU holds hearing on “free movement rights” for sodomite couples”
In his Legal Opinion delivered today, Advocate General Yves Bot proposes that the Court should dismiss the legal actions brought by Slovakia and Hungary against a controversial EU decision to mandatorily relocate asylum-seekers according to a fixed quota among the EU Member States. See the press release here. Continue reading “CJEU: Advocate General opines that controversial EU mechanism for the mandatory relocation of asylum seekers is legal”
The hearing of the case One of Us vs. the European Commission was held on Tuesday 16 May 2017 before a Chamber of five judges of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Luxembourg.
The European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) “One of Us”, which had gathered nearly two million signatures in Europe in 2012/2013, calls for a ban on European funding for activities involving the destruction of human embryos, in particular in research and development aid cooperation. However, in a poorly argued Communication issued in May 2014, the European Commission refused to transmit the citizens’ initiative to the European Parliament for debate, thus effectively assuming for itself a right to block the process.
The hearing on Tuesday, May 16, 2017, allowed Paul Diamond, the British lawyer speaking for the initiative, to set the focus the debate on the question of how the ECI can contribute to strengthening democracy if it can be arbitrarily turned down like this (see his plea: Oral argument). Continue reading ““One of Us” puts European Commission on the defensive”
The hearing, which was originally scheduled to take place on 14 March, has now been re-scheduled: it will take place on Tuesday 16 May, 9.30 at the Blue Courtroom of the Tribunal of the EU in Luxembourg.
In the case of X and X v. Belgium, the European Court of Justice has ruled that EU Member States’ embassies and consulates do not have an obligation to grant so-called “humanitarian visas” to people who claim to be in danger of being persecuted in their countries of origin. With this decision, the Court has overruled the legal opinion issued by its Advocate General Paolo Mengozzi.
Continue reading “CJEU: Member States not obliged to grant “humanitarian visas””
Fear of the consequences of uncontrolled mass immigration was one of the main reasons for Americans to elect Donald Trump as their new President, and for Brits to vote for Brexit.
But Paolo Mengozzi, an Advocate General at the European Court of Justice, knows better. In the opinion he delivered to the Court in the case of X and X v. Belgium — which could be reflected in the Court’s final ruling — he found that EU countries “must issue a visa” in cases where refusing one would place someone “at risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.” Continue reading “Advocate General: “Let everyone in””