This case note analyses two judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. The judgments in Valiullina and Others v. Latvia and Džibuti and Others v. Latvia were delivered in the autumn of 2023. This series of cases deals with the compatibility of the 2018 Latvian education reform with the European Convention on Human Rights. This case note focuses on two aspects of the judgments. First, it examines the question of the right to education of minorities and its relation to the right to cultural identity. In previous judgments, the Court avoided questions concerning the right of minorities to cultural identity. The recent judgments have given the Court the opportunity to address this issue. Second, I would like to look at why the Court did not follow the recommendations of international bodies, which concluded that the 2018 education reform was not in line with Latvia’s positive obligations under international law, respect for minorities and children’s rights. Instead, the Court emphasized Latvia’s prerogative to promote the unity of its education system and its constitutional identity.
This article examines the legal challenges surrounding the reception of unaccompanied minors within Spain’s multilevel governance (MLG) framework. Using the Canary Islands as a key case study, it explores the institutional conflict between the regional and central governments, highlighting how fragmented competences and the lack of binding mechanisms for territorial solidarity generate systemic tensions. The paper offers a legal analysis of Royal Decree 2/2025, evaluating its potential to improve intergovernmental coordination. It argues that while decentralization may enhance adaptability, it can also produce governance gaps that undermine the rights of vulnerable populations. Also drawing on case studies from other European countries, the article assesses whether the current Spanish model is capable of ensuring the effective protection of unaccompanied minors. It concludes with a call for institutional reform to align MLG with the principle of the best interests of the child.
The European Union (EU) Green Deal and its implementation policies set out ambitious and legally binding goals related to climate neutrality, biodiversity protection and zero pollution. To achieve these goals, Member States must discontinue economic activities causing the most detrimental environmental impacts. The societal changes ahead are likely to pose challenges to the right to property and other fundamental rights. As a result, tension and even conflict can be anticipated between the Green Deal goals and the domestic legal orders. Traditionally, direct conflict between the two legal systems has been resolved by the principle of primacy. This article analyses whether and to what extent the principle of primacy can be effective in delivering the Green Deal goals. Through concrete case examples, the article illustrates the friction between EU and national law in implementing the Green Deal and demonstrates the promise and pitfalls of relying on primacy in resolving conflicts between legal orders.
The constitutional identity of the EU was first mentioned by the Court of Justice in the budgetary conditionality judgments and evoked prominently in the values judgment on Hungary referring to the founding values enshrined in Article 2 TEU. It is different from national (constitutional) identity in Article 4(2) TEU and yet, both are reflexively linked. Taking a reflexive approach, the following argues that the founding values in Article 2 TEU are the bedrock of the EU’s constitutional identity and can be distinguished from a corollary comprising certain principles and objectives. This identity does not lead to a hierarchy within the Treaties and takes effect through consistent and systemic interpretation with important implications for the interpretation of competences, possible derogations from the Treaties and the protection of fundamental rights.
This paper examines Kosovo’s foundation as a multi-ethnic state and its constitutional identity, both essential to its independence. The international community sought to establish a civic, multi-ethnic identity, avoiding an ethno-nationalist framework centred on the Albanian majority. This principle, embedded in the Declaration of Independence (DI) and reinforced by the Ahtisaari Plan, was operationalized through the Constitution of Kosovo (CK). However, the EU-facilitated Kosovo-Serbia dialogue, culminating in the 2023 Brussels and Ohrid agreements, has introduced a new constitutional framework. These agreements mandate the creation of a mono-ethnic entity that contradicts Kosovo’s established constitutional identity as defined by the DI, the Ahtisaari Plan, and the Constitution. This paper argues that the EU-facilitated dialogue with Serbia and the Brussels and Ohrid agreements, challenges Kosovo’s constitutional identity by introducing a mono-ethnic structure – the Association/Community of SerbianMajority Municipalities – which undermines Kosovo’s foundational principles.
