Jean Monnet Saar

From Search Engines to Large Language Models: Re-evaluating the Right to Be Forgotten in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

This Saar Blueprint examines whether the EU’s Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF), first established in Google Spain, can and should apply to Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT. By comparing search engines and LLMs, it highlights the new legal and technical challenges these AI systems pose for data protection under the GDPR. The author concludes that while RTBF could in principle extend to LLMs, effective enforcement will depend on clearer legal guidance and technological solutions.

Thomas Giegerich’s book “The Human Right to Democracy in Multilevel Systems at a Time of Democratic Backsliding – Global, Regional and European Union Perspectives” has just been published online by Springer Nature (open access).

Thomas Giegerich’s new open access book “The Human Right to Democracy in Multilevel Systems at a Time of Democratic Backsliding” explores how human rights can protect democracy within global, regional, and EU frameworks. It analyses the interdependence between national and international democracy and the EU’s role as a model multilevel system. The book offers a comprehensive legal perspective on how to counter democratic backsliding.

The European Parliament & Whistleblowers: Case analysis of the General Court ruling TU v European Parliament (T-793/22)

This Saar Brief analyzes the EU General Court’s judgement in Case TU v Parliament (T-793/22), which concerns whistleblower protection in the European Parliament. In addition to a detailed description of the ruling and its implications, the impact of the ruling on whistleblower protection in EU institutions is examined.

Accession to the ECHR: Draft Revised Accession Agreement of 2023

This Saar Blueprint explores the implications of the EU’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights based on the 2023 draft revised accession agreement. It analyzes key procedural issues and potential risks in relations with other contracting parties, ultimately advocating for accession as an instrument to strengthen the Convention system as a whole.

Comparative Analysis of the Concepts of Torture and Inhumane Treatment in International Law: Perspectives from UN Human Rights Bodies, the European Court of Human Rights, and International Criminal Tribunals

This Saar Blueprint provides a comparative analysis of the legal concepts of torture and inhumane treatment under international law, focusing on interpretations by UN human rights bodies, the European Court of Human Rights, and international criminal tribunals. While all regimes uphold the absolute prohibition of torture, they differ in how they define and apply key elements, especially regarding mental and sexual violence.

12. August 2025 Online-Symposium: Protecting the Rule of Law in the European Union – Mechanisms and National Responsibility

Rule of Law in German and European Foreign Policy: The Use of Rule-of-Law Clauses in International Treaties

This Saar Brief explores how Germany and the EU use “rule-of-law clauses” in international agreements as foreign policy tools, linking them to EU treaties and Germany’s Basic Law. Drawing on case studies such as EU–Ukraine, EU–Moldova, EU–Israel, and CETA, it shows a preference for political over legal enforcement. The author calls for faster enforcement.

6. August 2025 Online-Symposium: Protecting the Rule of Law in the European Union – Mechanisms and National Responsibility

Germany and the EU: Safeguarding the Rule of Law in Troubled Times

This Saar Brief explores the EU’s rule of law mechanisms – Article 7 TEU, infringement proceedings, and funding conditionality. While these tools have led to major rulings and applied financial pressure, they often secure only limited compliance. The authors argue that the CJEU’s efforts rely heavily on national courts and that Germany’s legal culture and political influence are central to shaping a more cohesive enforcement regime.

4. August 2025 Online-Symposium: Protecting the Rule of Law in the European Union – Mechanisms and National Responsibility

Zur Bedeutung und Effektivität des Artikel-7 EUV-Verfahrens

Dieser Saar Brief ist Teil des Online-Symposiums mit dem JuWissBlog zum Thema „Schutz der Rechtsstaatlichkeit in der Europäischen Union – Mechanismen und nationale Verantwortung“ und beleuchtet das Verfahren nach Art. 7 EUV und dessen politische Blockierbarkeit im Schutz gemeinsamer EU-Werte. Als wirksames Ergänzungsinstrument wird die Konditionalitätsverordnung hervorgehoben, die finanzielle Sanktionen bei Rechtsstaatsverstößen erlaubt.

30. Juli 2025 Online-Symposium: Protecting the Rule of Law in the European Union – Mechanisms and National Responsibility

Factual Silence as Rule of Law Evasion: Adverse Inference and the Evidentiary Collapse of EU Accountability

This Saar Brief by Moon Hwan Lee is part of the joint Online Symposium by Jean Monnet Saar and JuWissBlog on “Protecting the Rule of Law in the European Union”. It explores how some EU Member States use factual silence to evade legal accountability while maintaining an appearance of compliance. The author proposes the use of adverse inference – treating unjustified silence as evidence of a breach – as a doctrinal tool to strengthen the EU’s rule of law enforcement.

21. Juli 2025 Aktuelles / Allgemein

Call for Contributions

Jean Monnet Saar and the Völkerrechtsblog invite interested persons to contribute articles in English or German to our online-symposium “Tackling Human Rights, Environmental Protection and Business – A Multilevel Approach”.

Deadline: Friday 3rd October
Length: max. 1,500 words
Category: Saar Briefs

17. Juli 2025 EuGH / Europarecht / Verfassungsrecht

Dezentrale Herrschaftskontrolle als Teil der Verbundverfassung – Eine Replik auf Thomas Giegerich

In diesem Saar Brief antwortet Dr. Benedikt Riedl auf die Kritik von Prof. Thomas Giegerich bezüglich seines Beitrags in der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung Nr. 157 vom 10.07.2025.
Die Ultra-vires-Kontrolle sichere demokratische Legitimationsketten und werde der Rolle des Unionsrechts als abgeleitete Rechtsordnung gerecht. Das Vorabentscheidungsverfahren sei hingegen ein Kommunikationsinstrument innerhalb der Unionsrechtsordnung und schließe ein Handeln jenseits der Verträge aus.