Search

In its preliminary ruling in Haqbin, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or Court) ruled for the first time on whether the EU Reception Conditions Directive 2013/33 (RCD) prohibits Member States from withdrawing material reception conditions in the event of a breach of the rules of accommodation centers, or in the context of violent behavior within those centers. In holding in the negative, the CJEU affirmed the important role played by fundamental rights in the EU's asylum system.

Following on from its judgment in Akzo Nobel,1 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on 6 September 2012 delivered its judgment in Prezes.2Prezes expanded the decision in Akzo Nobel, which held that communications between a client and its in-house legal counsel were not protected by legal privilege because the latter are not considered sufficiently independent from the former. Taking this holding one step further, the CJEU in Prezes held not only that corporations are unable to benefit from legal privilege regarding communications with their in-house counsel, but also that any lawyer in an employment relationship with its client is disqualified from representing their client before the CJEU. This article criticizes this holding and argues that the CJEU's interpretation of independence does two things: (1) unreasonably expands the scope of Akzo Nobel to include the representation of in-house counsel in all cases; and (2) does so in a way which is inconsistent in light of similar concerns of the independence of government lawyers, who seemingly maintain their right of privilege under the judgment.

The United Kingdom (‘UK’) has indicated its intention not to opt-in to two proposals from the European Commission aimed at further developing the Common European Asylum System through the replacement of existing instruments on asylum procedures and reception conditions. The purpose of the European Union (‘EU’) amendment process is to establish rules that more closely align the legal framework for asylum in the Member States so that asylum seekers receive the same higher standard of treatment in any Member State in which they choose to make their application, and to address criticism that the Directives are incompatible with human rights obligations. The UK asserts that its asylum procedures satisfy the standards imposed by its obligations under international and European law, and does not view further harmonization of asylum matters at EU level as necessary or appropriate. Its decision not to opt-in raises issues regarding sovereignty, subsidiarity, the rule of law and European integration. This article will explore these issues, as well as provide an overview of select provisions from the proposals in light of UK asylum policy.

On 14 September 2010 the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) delivered its judgment in Akzo Nobel.1 The judgment and its preceding opinion focused on the application of legal professional privilege to communications between a client and in-house legal counsel. The less-emphasized aspect of the case was the Court's decision to exclude all lawyers qualified outside of the European Union (EU) from the application of legal professional privilege.2 Because the application of legal professional privilege to lawyers from third States was not the focus of Akzo Nobel, the issue was lost in the extensive debate surrounding privilege and in-house legal counsel. The Court unfortunately missed an opportunity to reshape EU privilege law in acknowledgement of its negative consequences on the EU human rights framework and also on the EU's relationships with countries which do not apply a similar bright line rule. These implications will be discussed below with a particular emphasis on the EU's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and its relationship with the United States (US).

This article considers the European Union's legal framework and its ability to facilitate – or hinder – international assistance for natural disasters occurring within the European Union. At a time when the frequency and severity of natural disasters in the EU appears to be increasing, and when it is more likely that affected EU Member States are required to seek assistance from outside their borders, or even outside the EU, it is important to ensure that international assistance is able to reach its intended target. Member State domestic legal frameworks may delay, obstruct or prevent international assistance from reaching those in need, often due to a failure to consider the special situation of disasters when drafting, interpreting and applying legislative regimes. For example, immigration, customs, food and transport laws may not contain sufficient exemptions for emergency personnel, materials and goods, and domestic licensing requirements and quality standards may prevent a nation from accepting assistance. At the same time, there is a need to ensure that any assistance accepted by an affected Member State is subject to appropriate quality standards without unduly impeding the delivery of assistance.