As the end of the year is approaching many news sites, radio stations and other media usually make lists to summarize the year in numbers. Following this tradition I would like to list the posts that were most read by our readers (according to Google Analytics). This is of course not entirely fair to the most recent posts written, since they had less time to become popular among readers, but I think it is a fun exercise nonetheless. So here we go:
Written in March, Wessel takes us into the intricacies of the effects based approach initiated by the Commission following the CJEU’s grand chamber judgment in Post Danmark. Our friends over at corporate probably had a good time with this one.
The Sturgeon case continues to push lawyers of airlines to seek the limits of regulation 261/2004 and we will have to see if this will stop following the Nelson and TUI Travel cases. We probably had quite some visitors that had a ‘SABENA’ experience (Such A Bad Experience Never Again) with their airlines.
3. Horizontal direct effect of article 34 TFEU? Laurens Ankersmit
4. Case C-171/11 Fra.bo: Horizontal Effect of Article 34 TFEU Benedikt Pirker
Both these posts deal with one of the most fun academic issues in EU law: horizontal effect. In addition to the discussion on horizontal direct effect of directives, there is also the discussion to what extent the fundamental freedoms should apply to private parties. In the Fra.bo case, the Court was confronted with the latter question in relation to the free movement of goods. Article 34 TFEU has traditionally been dealt with differently by the CJEU in this respect (denying horizontal effect), but the CJEU seems to be opening up a little by stating that it applies to all activities that have a restrictive effect on the free movement of goods ‘in the same manner as do measures imposed by the State’ (para 26).
5. Kadi De-listed – a cause for celebration? Joris Larik
The Kadi case is arguably one of the most famous cases of the past decade. Joris Larik takes us through the complete saga leading up to the Kadi case and its follow up. Despite the fact that the length of the saga does raise some questions on the effectiveness of multilevel governance in protecting fundamental rights, Joris notes that the interaction between the CJEU’s insistentance on fundamental rights protection and the Security Council’s actions interaction following the Kadi case is a reason for cautious optimism.
An important judgment on the notion of Union citizenship and the scope of the exception contained in article 28 of the citizenship directive which allows Member States to expel Union citizens for ‘imperative grounds of public security’. Benedikt takes us through the complex assessment of this exception in cases where a Union citizen has lawfully resided in a Member State for a very long period.
Marek undoubtedly attracted some attention of legal professionals with his comment on VALE: a case concerning the right of establishment of companies and cross-border conversion. We will have to see if the Commission will listen to the calls of the European Parliament for EU rules following this decision.
These three posts all concern the protection of fundamental rights within the EU legal order. As the scope of EU law expands the application of the EU fundamental rights regime as well as its relationship with national constitutional traditions will continue to be a source of debate. The Melloni and Fransson judgments to be expected next year will probably give us more food for thought.
On behalf of the editors, I want to thank all our readers and contributors for their interest and efforts and extend my best wishes for 2013 to all of you. You are always welcome to join the discussion. We will be back next year for more!