“One of Us” puts European Commission on the defensive

18581490_1494894630582932_1089524314007024045_n-e1495465089663.jpgThe 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

CJEU: Member States not obliged to grant “humanitarian visas”

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

Advocate General: “Let everyone in”

el-abogado-general-del-tribunal-de-justicia-de-la-ue-paolo-mengozzi-efeFear 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

Save the date: Court to hear case of “One of Us v. the European Commission” on 14 March!

1-von-uns-7ea3da06It has been announced that on 14 March the General Court of the EU will hear the case of “One of Us v. the European Commission”, which the pro-life European Citizens’ Initiative “One of Us” has brought against the European Commission in view of the Commission’s failure to provide an adequate response to the 2 million citizens who have requested that legislation be proposed and enacted to prevent EU taxpayers’ money to be spent on the murdering of children befor birth. Continue reading

CJEU asked for preliminary ruling on sodo-“marriages”

slide_225388_957607_freeThe Romanian Constitutional Court has announced that it will refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the case of a same-sex couple who wish to be recognised as spouses in Romania.

The Constitutional Court will seek clarification on whether a same-sex couple, “married” in Belgium, is entitled to be recognised as “spouses” in Romania by way of application of the EU Directive on family reunification with a EU citizen.  Continue reading

EU Member States are NOT obliged to introduce or recognize Sodo-“marriage”, EU Court confirms

91645ac327In the judgement it delivered today in the case of  David L. Parris v. Trinity College Dublin, the CJEU has (once more) confirmed that:

The Member States are … free to provide or not provide for marriage for persons of the same sex, or an alternative form of legal recognition of their relationship, and, if they do so provide, to lay down the date from which such a marriage or alternative form is to have effect.

As a matter of consequence, it found that the fact that Dublin’s Trinity College does not provide for a widower’s pension for the surviving part of a same-sex couple living in a registered “civil partnership” concluded in the UK is not a “discrimination” on the grounds of sexual orientation and/or age.