Podcasts about european courts

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe D’s[CB] are pushing more taxes while Trump is removing the taxes, the people will decide in the end. As illegals are deported American workers see jobs coming back. Gov is the entity that increases the prices across the country. Trump is removing the income tax and ready to give dividends to the middle and low income people not the rich. The [DS] has been pushing division, they are trying to pit the people against Kash, Bondi etc. Social media is trying to bring the people down the wrong path. Trump has released the US strategy and is now codifying his executive order as law. Trump is setting everything in motion so the people can take back this country, the people will be liberate him. Economy https://twitter.com/RickyDoggin/status/1997885141990216111  Illinois Republicans introduced several bills this year to stop taxing tips in Illinois, but JB Pritzker, and Illinois Democrats have no interest in providing any tax relief. (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); https://twitter.com/JDVance/status/1997703409408032937?s=20 https://twitter.com/_emergent_/status/1997862345700499847?s=20 https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/1998015706525307152?s=20   VICTORIOUS MANNER. I have settled 8 Wars in 10 months because of the rights clearly given to the President of the United States. If countries didn't think these rights existed, they would have said so, LOUD AND CLEAR! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1997816417413153016?s=20 Political/Rights ICE Launches Armed Raids Across Minnesota Targeting Illegal Somali Nationals Wanted on Federal Warrants ICE has already begun making arrests in what locals call “Somali-land Minnesota,” a region with one of the largest concentrations of Somali immigrants in the United States,     Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O'Hara warned residents that masked individuals detaining people in Somali neighborhoods were “possibly kidnapping people,” urging the city's enormous Somali enclave to dial 911 if they encounter law-enforcement activity they “don't recognize.” “If there is anything that is … a violation of someone's human rights or civil rights, excessive force or anything like that, they absolutely have a duty to intervene as police officers,” O'Hara added. https://twitter.com/KatieDaviscourt/status/1997745591032713531?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1997745591032713531%7Ctwgr%5E307f0a93a8a06042ad5d66adbb608b3b4cc65312%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2025%2F12%2Fice-launches-armed-raids-across-minnesota-targeting-illegal%2F   subject allegedly assaulted officers but was successfully apprehended. A previously deported female subject fled into a house, which ultimately resulted in her apprehension and several collateral arrests, per sources. Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/DHSgov/status/1997375316956676498?s=20 https://twitter.com/AlexanderTabet/status/1996987184260239794?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1996987184260239794%7Ctwgr%5E9f3a417fd49065356a991f37feb9d06210c99091%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Ft%2Fassets%2Fhtml%2Ftweet-5.html1996987184260239794 https://twitter.com/overton_news/status/1997700603301237055?s=20  his appearance with a line Brennan clearly didn't expect. BESSENT: “To be clear, the initial fraud was discovered by the IRS, for which I'm the acting commissioner, it was discovered by IRS criminal investigations unit.” “This was not endogenous that the state of Minnesota decided. We had to go in and clean up the mess for them. This is part of the continued cleanup.” “A lot of money has been transferred from the individuals who committed this fraud, including those who donated to the governor, donated to representative Omar and to AG Ellison.” “They have been transferred to something called MBSs.” “They are wire transfer organizations that are outside the regulated banking system. That money has gone overseas. We are tracking that, both to the Middle East and Somalia to see what the uses of that have been.” BRENNAN: “You have no evidence of that money being used to fuel terrorism at this point? Which is what some conservative writers are alleging.” BESSENT: “That's why it's an investigation. We started it last week. We will see where it goes.” “I can tell you, it's terrible. Representative Omar tried to downplay it. Said it was very…it was very tough to know how this money should be used. She was gaslighting the American people.” “When you come to this country, you have to learn which side of the road to drive on, stop at stop signs and learn not to defraud the American people.” https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1997727923768594758?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1998009509675958422?s=20 https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1997712517242708339?s=20 DOGE  Geopolitical https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1997841818411823248?s=20 https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1997712272009883916?s=20   was called Operation Rubific. The secret mass migration program was revealed by a British High Court earlier today. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1997609494738821618?s=20 https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1997900194655162371?s=20 seekers. Basically, the EU said: stop booting people out before hearing their appeals. Hungary said no thanks. So now Brussels is punishing Hungary for not letting in enough migrants, mostly from Africa and the Middle East, while the rest of the continent watches. The European Court says it’s about “human rights.” Hungary says it’s about borders. You don't have to agree with Hungary to notice what's going on. A country makes a decision, the EU doesn't like it, and suddenly unelected judges are draining your national budget. This is what happens when a “union” turns into a rule-by-lawsuit machine.   https://twitter.com/nettermike/status/1997765685922136281?s=20   is required under UNCLOS to sail under the flag of a specific nation. If it does not, it is legally considered a stateless vessel. A stateless vessel has no right to the protections normally afforded to ships under a national flag, including immunity from interference by other states. UNCLOS Articles 92, 94, 110, and customary maritime law spell out the consequences clearly: 1. Stateless vessels have no sovereign protection. A flagged ship is an extension of its flag-state's sovereignty. A stateless vessel is not. This matters because “war crimes” presuppose protected persons or protected property. A stateless vessel is legally unprotected. 2. Any state may stop, board, search, seize, or disable, a stateless vessel. UNCLOS Article 110 explicitly authorizes boarding and seizure. The law does not require states to risk their own personnel or assets while doing so. Disabling a vessel that refuses inspection, including firing on it, is legally permitted under both UNCLOS and long-established state practice. 3. War crimes require an armed conflict. You cannot commit a “war crime” outside an armed conflict. War crimes occur only within the context of international humanitarian law (IHL). Enforcing maritime law against a stateless vessel is a law enforcement action, not an IHL situation. No armed conflict = no war crime possible. 4. Lethal force may be used when a vessel refuses lawful orders. The International Maritime Organization's “Use of Force” guidance for maritime interdiction recognizes that disabling fire, even lethal force, is lawful when a vessel refuses lawful boarding, attempts to flee, poses a threat, or engages in illicit activities such as piracy or narcotics trafficking. Once again: law enforcement rules apply, not IHL. 5. Sinking a stateless vessel is not prohibited by UNCLOS. UNCLOS permits seizure of a stateless vessel and leaves the means entirely to the enforcing state so long as necessity and proportionality are respected. If the vessel flees, attacks, or refuses lawful commands, sinking it is legally permissible. Many states routinely do this to drug-smuggling vessels (e.g., semi-submersibles) without it ever being treated as a war crime. 6. No flag = no jurisdictional shield. The entire reason international law requires ships to fly a flag is to prevent this exact situation. Flagless vessels are legally vulnerable by design. Because a stateless vessel has no protected status, because UNCLOS authorizes interdiction of such vessels, because lethal force may be used in maritime law enforcement when necessary, and because war crimes require an armed conflict that is not present here, sinking an unflagged ship in international waters is not a war crime. War/Peace https://twitter.com/InsiderGeo/status/1997834841723908411?s=20 US Issues NATO’s European Members New Self-Defense Deadline European members of NATO have been warned by Washington that they must assume greater responsibility for the alliance’s intelligence operations and missile production – which will require significantly more defense spending by 2027, Reuters has reported. Reuters in its exclusive Friday report said that the United States “wants Europe to take over the majority of NATO’s conventional defense capabilities, from intelligence to missiles, by 2027, Pentagon officials told diplomats in Washington this week, a tight deadline that struck some European officials as unrealistic.” “The message, recounted by five sources familiar with the discussion, including a U.S. official, was conveyed at a meeting in Washington this week of Pentagon staff overseeing NATO policy and several European delegations,” the report continued. The directive was coupled with a warning behind the scenes, reportedly involving Pentagon officials cautioning representatives from several European nations that the US may scale back its role in certain NATO defense efforts if this target and deadline is not met.It was noted in the report that some European officials consider the 2027 goal unrealistic, saying that rapidly substituting American military support would demand far greater investment than current plans and NATO member approved defense budgets allow. Source: zerohedge.com NATO was created by the [DS] https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1997999917801910425?s=20  and Ukraine, but we don’t have a shared view on Donbas,” Zelensky said. Ukraine also insists on a separate security guarantees agreement with Western allies, primarily the U.S. “There is one question that I and all Ukrainians want answered: if Russia starts a war again, what will our partners do?” he added. Zelensky Heads to London for Talks with European Allies  President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was meeting the French, German and British leaders in London on Monday as Kyiv's European allies try to strengthen Ukraine's hand in thorny talks on a U.S.-backed plan to end the Russia-Ukraine war. Prime Minister Keir Starmer was due to gather with Zelenskyy, President Emmanuel Macron and Chancellor Friedrich Merz at the British leader's 10 Downing St. residence. source: breitbart.com https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1997790753385300463?s=20 https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1997693479313666088?s=20 https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/1997981255200039181?s=20 Medical/False Flags https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1997987063300251658?s=20 [DS] Agenda https://twitter.com/C_3C_3/status/1997709276958318942?s=20 https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1997771432181522493?s=20 https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1998030855348883903?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1997771084674765308?s=20   about to learn the hard way that most Texans are very different from her district, her base & her values.” “She'll be pummeled for her progressive socialist agenda & get crushed by the Republican nominee for Senate.” “Looking forward to watching the circus– and KEEPING the US Senate seat red. On the bright side for her, maybe she'll end up with a job on The View!”   Storm the polls, Texas! https://twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/1997818897005695221?s=20 President Trump's Plan    and anyone close to them. When the Democrats overwhelmingly lost the 2024 Presidential Election, and power with it, they, regardless, did everything they could to keep going after the Cuellar family. The Dems were vicious, and all because Henry strongly wanted, correctly, BORDER SECURITY! He was against illegals pouring into our Country, totally unchecked and unvetted. The Congressman didn't want gang members, drug dealers, violent prisoners, people from mental institutions and yes, even murderers, in the good ol' USA. It was all very unfair what they were doing to him and his family, so much so that his daughters wrote me a beautiful letter about their parents (Just posted on TRUTH!). After reading it I decided, in the interest of justice, and based on the daughter's loving request, that I would give Henry and Imelda a Full and Complete Pardon. I never spoke to the Congressman, his wife, or his daughters, but felt very good about fighting for a family that was tormented by very sick and deranged people – They were treated sooo BADLY! I signed the papers, and said to people in the Oval Office that I just did a very good, perhaps life saving, thing. God was very happy with me that day! THEN IT HAPPENED!!! Only a short time after signing the Pardon, Congressman Henry Cuellar announced that he will be “running” for Congress again, in the Great State of Texas (a State where I received the highest number of votes ever recorded!), as a Democrat, continuing to work with the same Radical Left Scum that just weeks before wanted him and his wife to spend the rest of their lives in Prison – And probably still do! Such a lack of LOYALTY, something that Texas Voters, and Henry's daughters, will not like. Oh' well, next time, no more Mr. Nice guy! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP    Trump hating, 60 Minutes “correspondent,” Lesley Stahl, who still owes me an apology from when she attacked me on the show (with serious conviction!), that Hunter Biden's LAPTOP FROM HELL was produced by Russia, not Hunter himself (TOTALLY PROVEN WRONG!), interviewed a very poorly prepared Traitor, who in her confusion made many really stupid statements. My real problem with the show, however, wasn't the low IQ traitor, it was that the new ownership of 60 Minutes, Paramount, would allow a show like this to air. THEY ARE NO BETTER THAN THE OLD OWNERSHIP, who just paid me millions of Dollars for FAKE REPORTING about your favorite President, ME! Since they bought it, 60 Minutes has actually gotten WORSE! Oh well, far worse things can happen. P.S. I hereby demand a complete and total APOLOGY, though far too late to be meaningful, from Lesley Stahl and 60 Minutes for her incorrect and Libelous statements about Hunter's Laptop!!! President DJT https://twitter.com/HansMahncke/status/1997739659724832803?s=20  on the other foot, and there is highly incriminating evidence against the people who instigated the hoaxes, it somehow cannot be used. Just beyond infuriating. STUNNING UPDATE: Jocelyn Ballantine – the Lead Attorney Assigned to J6 Pipe Bomber Case – Notoriously Pressured the Proud Boys to Lie About Trump's Involvement in Jan. 6 or Face Decades in Prison!    Jocelyn Ballantine was one of the Department of Justice attorneys assigned to Michael Flynn's prosecution. The Department admitted altering evidence in the case following a reprimand from the judge. She called this an inadvertent mistake at the time. Ballantine also provided altered documents to Sidney Powell, and submitted an FBI interview report with redactions to information that was crucial to the case, according to En-Wikipedia.  When the US government threw out the case against  General Flynn, Ballantine declined to sign the motion to dismiss the charges against him. She is as crooked as they come. Jocelyn Ballantine was later assigned to the infamous Proud Boys Trial. Ballantine and the Biden prosecutors made up evidence, pressured the defendants to lie to the court, planted evidence in the Proud Boys chat group, and led the charge to send the innocent men to prison for over a decade each.   Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/TheStormRedux/status/1997495783168299481?s=20   a grand jury process, and we are issuing – I think we are up to like 75 of 100 subpoenas already – for witnesses. That's what you target first. We also have targets of our investigation. People we think committed acts of criminal conduct… We are not only exposing what they did, but they are frantically – “they,” the media, the mainstream media and those that were involved in the weaponization of justice – are trying to cover it up… You think that's gonna stop me and the deputy here? We're gonna get there. We're already halfway there on a lot of it. I firmly believe that this Comey case is far from over. We are not finished. We are formulating a plan to make sure that we use the Constitution to hold people accountable… These people will not be let off the hook.” Go get em, Kash.  & throwing distractions at them in hopes they will fall. #3925 twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/st Do people really believe the biggest scandal in modern US history will go unpunished [Scot-Free]? Backchannels are important. Patriots stand at the ready [shills whine]. Q Genuinely curious on how, exactly, people expect @kash to provide us with COMPLETE & TOTAL transparency…….but also (simultaneously) protect the integrity of ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS so cases aren't completely dismissed for lack of due process??!

Alexandra and Nina open the episode with a rundown of the latest news, including ongoing American diplomacy vis a vis Russia and Ukraine, the closure of the Hungarian service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a new ruling by the European Court of Justice related to same-sex marriage, the election results in the Republika Srpska entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Albania's positive progress toward EU membership.Alexandra is then joined by Catherine Baker of the University of Hull for the main interview. Catherine is a specialist in post-Cold War history, international relations, and cultural studies researching national identity and popular music during and after the Yugoslav Wars. Together they discuss some of late Yugoslavia's most famous artists, how their work evolved alongside the borders of the successor states, and how they have been remembered over time and today. Some of the artists and songs mentioned in the episode include:Neda Ukraden - Zora je (1985) Doris Dragović  Željo moja (1986)Severina - Dalmatinka (1993) Ceca - Pustite me da ga vidim (1990)Alka Vuica - Laži me (1994)Lepa Brena - Luda za tobom (1996)Maja Blagdan - Sveta ljubav (1996)Zabranjeno pušenje - Jugo 45 (1999)Bijelo Dugme - 1st reunion tour (2005)Baby Lasagna - Rim Tim Tagi Dim (2024)Catherine's latest work focuses on the Eurovision Song Contest, which will be the subject of forthcoming bonus content exclusive to Talk Eastern Europe patrons. Listen online here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/246-bonus-144726903

I am Rolf Claessen and together with my co-host Ken Suzan I am welcoming you to episode 169 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann, co-founder of my patent law firm Michalski Hüttermann & Partner and a true expert on the Unified Patent Court. He has written several books about the new system and we talk about all the things that plaintiffs and defendants can learn from the first decisions of the court and what they mean for strategic decisions of the parties involved. But before we jump into this very interesting interview, I have news for you! The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is planning rule changes that would make it virtually impossible for third parties to challenge invalid patents before the patent office. Criticism has come from the EFF and other inventor rights advocates: the new rules would play into the hands of so-called non-practicing entities (NPEs), as those attacked would have few cost-effective ways to have questionable patents deleted. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reports a new record in international patent applications: in 2024, around 3.7 million patent applications were filed worldwide – an increase of 4.9% over the previous year. The main drivers were Asian countries (China alone accounted for 1.8 million), while demand for trademark protection has stabilized after the pandemic decline. US rapper Eminem is taking legal action in Australia against a company that sells swimwear under the name “Swim Shady.” He believes this infringes on his famous “Slim Shady” brand. The case illustrates that even humorous allusions to well-known brand names can lead to legal conflicts. A new ruling by the Unified Patent Court (UPC) demonstrates its cross-border impact. In “Fujifilm v. Kodak,” the local chamber in Mannheim issued an injunction that extends to the UK despite Brexit. The UPC confirmed its jurisdiction over the UK parts of a European patent, as the defendant Kodak is based in a UPC member state. A dispute over standard patents is looming at the EU level: the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) of the European Parliament voted to take the European Commission to the European Court of Justice. The reason for this is the Commission’s controversial withdrawal of a draft regulation on the licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs). Parliament President Roberta Metsola is to decide by mid-November whether to file the lawsuit. In trademark law, USPTO Director Squires reported on October 31, 2025, that a new unit (“Trademark Registration Protection Office”) had removed approximately 61,000 invalid trademark applications from the registries. This cleanup of the backlog relieved the examining authority and accelerated the processing of legitimate applications. Now let's jump into the interview with Aloys Hüttermann: The Unified Patent Court Comes of Age – Insights from Prof. Aloys Hüttermann The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has moved from a long-discussed project to a living, breathing court system that already shapes patent enforcement in Europe. In a recent IP Fridays interview, Prof. Aloys Hüttermann – founder and equity partner at Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner and one of the earliest commentators on the UPC – shared his experiences from the first years of practice, as well as his view on how the UPC fits into the global patent litigation landscape. This article summarises the key points of that conversation and is meant as an accessible overview for in-house counsel, patent attorneys and business leaders who want to understand what the UPC means for their strategy. How Prof. Hüttermann Became “Mr. UPC” Prof. Hüttermann has been closely involved with the UPC for more than a decade. When it became clear, around 13 years ago, that the European project of a unified patent court and a unitary patent was finally going to happen, he recognised that this would fundamentally change patent enforcement in Europe. He started to follow the legislative and political developments in detail and went beyond mere observation. As author and editor of several books and a major commentary on the UPC, he helped shape the discussion around the new system. His first book on the UPC appeared in 2016 – years before the court finally opened its doors in 2023. What fascinated him from the beginning was the unique opportunity to witness the creation of an entirely new court system, to analyse how it would be built and, where possible, to contribute to its understanding and development. It was clear to him that this system would be a “game changer” for European patent enforcement. UPC in the Global Triangle: Europe, the US and China In practice, most international patent disputes revolve around three major regions: the UPC territory in Europe, the United States and China. Each of these regions has its own procedural culture, cost structure and strategic impact. From a territorial perspective, the UPC is particularly attractive because it can, under the right conditions, grant pan-European injunctions that cover a broad range of EU Member States with a single decision. This consolidation of enforcement is something national courts in Europe simply cannot offer. From a cost perspective, the UPC is significantly cheaper than US litigation, especially if one compares the cost of one UPC action with a bundle of separate national cases in large European markets. When viewed against the territorial reach and procedural speed, the “bang for the buck” is very compelling. China is again a different story. The sheer volume of cases there is enormous, with tens of thousands of patent infringement cases per year. Chinese courts are known for their speed; first-instance decisions within about a year are common. In this respect they resemble the UPC more than the US does. The UPC also aims at a roughly 12 to 15 month time frame for first-instance cases where validity is at issue. The US, by contrast, features extensive discovery, occasionally jury trials and often longer timelines. The procedural culture is very different. The UPC, like Chinese courts, operates without discovery in the US sense, which makes proceedings more focused on the written record and expert evidence that the parties present, and less on pre-trial disclosure battles. Whether a company chooses to litigate in the US, the UPC, China, or some combination of these forums will depend on where the key markets and assets are. However, in Prof. Hüttermann's view, once Europe is an important market, it is hard to justify ignoring the UPC. He expects the court's caseload and influence to grow strongly over the coming years. A Landmark UPC Case: Syngenta v. Sumitomo A particularly important case in which Prof. Hüttermann was involved is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo matter, concerning a composition patent. This case has become a landmark in UPC practice for several reasons. First, the Court of Appeal clarified a central point about the reach of UPC injunctions. It made clear that once infringement is established in one Member State, this will usually be sufficient to justify a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That confirmation gave patent owners confidence that the UPC can in fact deliver broad, cross-border relief in one go. Second, the facts of the case raised novel issues about evidence and territorial reach. The allegedly infringing product had been analysed based on a sample from the Czech Republic, which is not part of the UPC system. Later, the same product with the same name was marketed in Bulgaria, which is within UPC territory. The Court of Appeal held that the earlier analysis of the Czech sample could be relied on for enforcement in Bulgaria. This showed that evidence from outside the UPC territory can be sufficient, as long as it is properly linked to the products marketed within the UPC. Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to state its view on inventive step. It confirmed that combining prior-art documents requires a “pointer”, in line with the EPO's problem-solution approach. The mere theoretical possibility of extracting a certain piece of information from a document does not suffice to justify an inventive-step attack. This is one of several decisions where the UPC has shown a strong alignment with EPO case law on substantive patentability. For Prof. Hüttermann personally, the case was also a lesson in oral advocacy before the UPC. During the two appeal hearings, the presiding judge asked unexpected questions that required quick and creative responses while the hearing continued. His practical takeaway is that parties should appear with a small, well-coordinated team: large enough to allow someone to work on a tricky question in the background, but small enough to remain agile. Two or three lawyers seem ideal; beyond that, coordination becomes difficult and “too many cooks spoil the broth”. A Game-Changing CJEU Decision: Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux Surprisingly, one of the most important developments for European patent litigation in the past year did not come from the UPC at all, but from the Court of Justice of the European Union. In Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux, the CJEU revisited the rules on cross-border jurisdiction under the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia). Previously, under what practitioners often referred to as the GAT/LuK regime, a court in one EU country was largely prevented from granting relief for alleged infringement in another country if the validity of the foreign patent was contested there. This significantly limited the possibilities for cross-border injunctions. In Bosch, the CJEU changed course. Without going into all procedural details, the essence is that courts in the EU now have broader powers to grant cross-border relief when certain conditions are met, particularly when at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state. The concept of an “anchor defendant” plays a central role: if you sue one group company in its home forum, other group companies in other countries, including outside the EU, can be drawn into the case. This has already had practical consequences. German courts, for example, have issued pan-European injunctions covering around twenty countries in pharmaceutical cases. There are even attempts to sue European companies for infringement of US patents based on acts in the US, using the logic of Bosch as a starting point. How far courts will ultimately go remains to be seen, but the potential is enormous. For the UPC, this development is highly relevant. The UPC operates in the same jurisdictional environment as national courts, and many defendants in UPC cases will be domiciled in UPC countries. This increases the likelihood that the UPC, too, can leverage the broadened possibilities for cross-border relief. In addition, we have already seen UPC decisions that include non-EU countries such as the UK within the scope of injunctions, in certain constellations. The interaction between UPC practice and the Bosch jurisprudence of the CJEU is only beginning to unfold. Does the UPC Follow EPO Case Law? A key concern for many patent owners and practitioners is whether the UPC will follow the EPO's Boards of Appeal or develop its own, possibly divergent, case law on validity. On procedural matters, the UPC is naturally different from the EPO. It has its own rules of procedure, its own timelines and its own tools, such as “front-loaded” pleadings and tight limits on late-filed material. On substantive law, however, Prof. Hüttermann's conclusion is clear: there is “nothing new under the sun”. The UPC's approach to novelty, inventive step and added matter is very close to that of the EPO. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears frequently in UPC decisions. Intermediate generalisations are treated with the same suspicion as at the EPO. In at least one case, the UPC revoked a patent for added matter even though the EPO had granted it in exactly that form. The alignment is not accidental. The UPC only deals with European patents granted by the EPO; it does not hear cases on purely national patents. If the UPC were more generous than the EPO, many patents would never reach it. If it were systematically stricter, patentees would be more tempted to opt out of the system. In practice, the UPC tends to apply the EPO's standards and, where anything differs, it is usually a matter of factual appreciation rather than a different legal test. For practitioners, this has a very practical implication: if you want to predict how the UPC will decide on validity, the best starting point is to ask how the EPO would analyse the case. The UPC may not always reach the same result in parallel EPO opposition proceedings, but the conceptual framework is largely the same. Trends in UPC Practice: PIs, Equivalents and Division-Specific Styles Even in its early years, certain trends and differences between UPC divisions can be observed. On preliminary injunctions, the local division in Düsseldorf has taken a particularly proactive role. It has been responsible for most of the ex parte PIs granted so far and applies a rather strict notion of urgency, often considering one month after knowledge of the infringement as still acceptable, but treating longer delays with scepticism. Other divisions tend to see two months as still compatible with urgency, and they are much more cautious with ex parte measures. Munich, by contrast, has indicated a strong preference for inter partes PI proceedings and appears reluctant to grant ex parte relief at all. A judge from Munich has even described the main action as the “fast” procedure and the inter partes PI as the “very fast” one, leaving little room for an even faster ex parte track. There are also differences in how divisions handle amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. Munich has suggested that if a patentee needs to rely on claim amendments or auxiliary requests in a PI, the request is unlikely to succeed. Other divisions have been more open to considering auxiliary requests. The doctrine of equivalents is another area where practice is not yet harmonised. The Hague division has explicitly applied a test taken from Dutch law in at least one case and found infringement by equivalence. However, the Court of Appeal has not yet endorsed a specific test, and in another recent Hague case the same division did not apply that Dutch-law test again. The Mannheim division has openly called for the development of an autonomous, pan-European equivalence test, but has not yet fixed such a test in a concrete decision. This is clearly an area to watch. Interim conferences are commonly used in most divisions to clarify issues early on, but Düsseldorf often dispenses with them to save time. In practice, interim conferences can be very helpful for narrowing down the issues, though parties should not expect to be able to predict the final decision from what is discussed there. Sometimes topics that dominate the interim conference play little or no role in the main oral hearing. A Front-Loaded System and Typical Strategic Mistakes UPC proceedings are highly front-loaded and very fast. A defendant usually has three months from service of the statement of claim to file a full statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation. This is manageable, but only if the time is used wisely. One common strategic problem is that parties lose time at the beginning and only develop a clear strategy late in the three-month period. According to Prof. Hüttermann, it is crucial to have a firm strategy within the first two or three weeks and then execute it consistently. Constantly changing direction is a recipe for failure in such a compressed system. Another characteristic is the strict attitude towards late-filed material. It is difficult to introduce new documents or new inventive-step attacks later in the procedure. In some cases even alternative combinations of already-filed prior-art documents have been viewed as “new” attacks and rejected as late. At the appeal stage, the Court of Appeal has even considered new arguments based on different parts of a book already in the file as potentially late-filed. This does not mean that parties should flood the court with dozens of alternative attacks in the initial brief. In one revocation action, a plaintiff filed about fifty different inventive-step attacks, only to be told by the court that this was not acceptable and that the attacks had to be reduced and structured. The UPC is not a body conducting ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case actively and to ask parties to focus on the most relevant issues. Evidence Gathering, Protective Letters and the Defendant's Perspective The UPC provides powerful tools for both sides. Evidence inspection is becoming more common, not only at trade fairs but also at company premises. This can be a valuable tool for patentees, but it also poses a serious risk for defendants who may suddenly face court-ordered inspections. From the perspective of potential defendants, protective letters are an important instrument, especially in divisions like Düsseldorf where ex parte PIs are possible. A well-written protective letter, filed in advance, can significantly reduce the risk of a surprise injunction. The court fees are moderate, but the content of the protective letter must be carefully prepared; a poor submission can cause more harm than good. Despite the strong tools available to patentees, Prof. Hüttermann does not view the UPC as unfair to defendants. If a defendant files a solid revocation counterclaim, the pressure shifts to the patentee, who then has only two months to reply, prepare all auxiliary requests and adapt the enforcement strategy. This is even more demanding than at the EPO, because the patentee must not only respond to validity attacks but also ensure that any amended claims still capture the allegedly infringing product. It is entirely possible to secure the survival of a patent with an auxiliary request that no longer covers the defendant's product. In that scenario, the patentee has “won” on validity but lost the infringement case. Managing this tension under tight time limits is a key challenge of UPC practice. The Future Role of the UPC and How to Prepare Today the UPC hears a few hundred cases per year, compared with several thousand patent cases in the US and tens of thousands in China. Nevertheless, both the court itself and experienced practitioners see significant growth potential. Prof. Hüttermann expects case numbers to multiply in the medium term. Whether the UPC will become the first choice forum in global disputes or remain one pillar in parallel proceedings alongside the US and China will depend on the strategies of large patentees and the evolution of case law. However, the court is well equipped: it covers a large, economically important territory, is comparatively cost-effective and offers fast procedures with robust remedies. For companies that may end up before the UPC, preparation is essential. On the offensive side, that means building strong evidence and legal arguments before filing, being ready to proceed quickly and structured, and understanding the specific styles of the relevant divisions. On the defensive side, it may mean filing protective letters in risk-exposed markets, preparing internal processes for rapid reaction if a statement of claim arrives, and taking inspection requests seriously. Conclusion The Unified Patent Court has quickly moved from theory to practice. It offers pan-European relief, fast and front-loaded procedures, and a substantive approach that closely mirrors the EPO's case law. At the same time, national and EU-level developments like the Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision are reshaping the jurisdictional framework in which the UPC operates, opening the door for far-reaching cross-border injunctions. For patent owners and potential defendants alike, the message is clear: the UPC is here to stay and will become more important year by year. Those who invest the time to understand its dynamics now – including its alignment with the EPO, the differences between divisions, and the strategic implications of its procedures – will be in a much better position when the first UPC dispute lands on their desk. Here is the full transcript of the interview: Rolf Claessen:Today's interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann. He is founder and equity partner of my firm, Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner. More importantly for today's interview, he has written several books about the Unified Patent Court. The first one already came out in 2016. He is co-editor and author of one of the leading commentaries on the UPC and has gained substantial experience in UPC cases so far – one of them even together with me. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays again, Aloys. Aloys Hüttermann:Thank you for inviting me, it's an honour. How did you get so deeply involved in the UPC? Rolf Claessen:Before we dive into the details, how did you end up so deeply involved in the Unified Patent Court? And what personally fascinates you about this court? Aloys Hüttermann:This goes back quite a while – roughly 13 years. At that time it became clear that, after several failed attempts, Europe would really get a pan-European court and a pan-European patent, and that this time it was serious. I thought: this is going to be the future. That interested me a lot, both intellectually and practically. A completely new system was being built. You could watch how it evolved – and, if possible, even help shape it a bit. It was also obvious to me that this would be a complete game changer. Nobody expected that it would take until 2023 before the system actually started operating, but now it is here. I became heavily interested early on. As you mentioned, my first book on the UPC was published in 2016, in the expectation that the system would start soon. It took a bit longer, but now we finally have it. UPC vs. US and China – speed, cost and impact Rolf Claessen:Before we go deeper into the UPC, let's zoom out. If you compare litigation before the UPC with patent litigation in the US and in China – in terms of speed, cost and the impact of decisions – what are the key differences that a business leader should understand? Aloys Hüttermann:If you look at the three big regions – the UPC territory in Europe, the US and China – these are the major economic areas for many technology companies. One important point is territorial reach. In the UPC, if the conditions are met, you can get pan-European injunctions that cover many EU Member States in one go. We will talk about this later in more detail. On costs there is a huge difference between the US and the UPC. The UPC is much cheaper than US litigation, especially once you look at the number of countries you can cover with one case if the patent has been validated widely. China is different again. The number of patent infringement cases there is enormous. I have seen statistics of around 40,000 infringement cases per year in China. That is huge – compared with roughly 164 UPC infringement cases in the first year and maybe around 200 in the current year. On speed, Chinese courts are known to be very fast. You often get a first-instance decision in about a year. The UPC is comparable: if there is a counterclaim for revocation, you are looking at something like 12 to 15 months for a first-instance decision. The US can be slower, and the procedure is very different. You have full discovery, you may have juries. None of that exists at the UPC. From that perspective, Chinese and UPC proceedings are more similar to each other than either is to the US. The UPC is still a young court. We have to see how influential its case law will be worldwide in the long run. What we already see, at least in Germany, is a clear trend away from purely national patent litigation and towards the UPC. That is inside Europe. The global impact will develop over time. When is the UPC the most powerful tool? Rolf Claessen:Let's take the perspective of a global company. It has significant sales in Europe and in the US and production or key suppliers in China. In which situations would you say the UPC is your most powerful tool? And when might the US or China be the more strategic battleground? Aloys Hüttermann:To be honest, I would almost always consider bringing a case before the UPC. The “bang for the buck” is very good. The UPC is rather fast. That alone already gives you leverage in negotiations. The threat of a quick, wide-reaching injunction is a strong negotiation tool. Whether you litigate in the US instead of the UPC, or in addition, or whether you also go to China – that depends heavily on the individual case: where the products are sold, where the key markets are, where the defendant has assets, and so on. But in my view, once you have substantial sales in Europe, you should seriously consider the UPC. And for that reason alone I expect case numbers at the UPC to increase significantly in the coming years. A landmark UPC case: Syngenta vs. Sumitomo (composition patent) Rolf Claessen:You have already been involved in several UPC cases – and one of them together with me, which was great fun. Looking at the last 12 to 18 months, is there a case, decision or development that you find particularly noteworthy – something that really changed how you think about UPC litigation or how companies should prepare? Aloys Hüttermann:The most important UPC case I have been involved in so far is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo case on a composition patent. It has become a real landmark and was even mentioned in the UPC's annual report. It is important for several reasons. First, it was one of the first cases in which the Court of Appeal said very clearly: if you have established infringement in one Member State, that will usually be enough for a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That is a powerful statement about the reach of UPC relief. Second, the facts were interesting. The patent concerned a composition. We had analysed a sample that had been obtained in the Czech Republic, which is not a UPC country. Later, the same product was marketed under the same name in Bulgaria, which is in the UPC. The question was whether the analysis of the Czech sample could be used as a basis for enforcement in Bulgaria. The Court of Appeal said yes, that was sufficient. Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to say something about inventive step. It more or less confirmed that the UPC's approach is very close to the EPO's problem-solution approach. It emphasised that, if you want to combine prior-art documents, you need a “pointer” to do so. The mere theoretical possibility that a skilled person could dig a particular piece of information out of a document is not enough. For me personally, the most memorable aspect of this case was not the outcome – that was largely in line with what we had expected – but the oral hearings at the appeal stage. We had two hearings. In both, the presiding judge asked us a question that we had not anticipated at all. And then you have about 20 minutes to come up with a convincing answer while the hearing continues. We managed it, but it made me think a lot about how you should prepare for oral hearings at the UPC. My conclusion is: you should go in with a team, but not too big. In German we say, “Zu viele Köche verderben den Brei” – too many cooks spoil the broth. Two or three people seems ideal. One of them can work quietly on such a surprise question at the side, while the others continue arguing the case. In the end the case went very well for us, so I can speak about it quite calmly now. But in the moment your heart rate definitely goes up. The CJEU's Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision – a real game changer Rolf Claessen:You also mentioned another development that is not even a UPC case, but still very important for European patent litigation. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes. In my view, the most important case of the last twelve months is not a UPC decision but a judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU): Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. This is going to be a real game changer for European IP law, and I am sure we have not seen the end of its effects yet. One example: someone has recently sued BMW before the Landgericht München I, a German court, for infringement of a US patent based on acts in the US. The argument is that this could be backed by the logic of Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. We do not know yet what the court will do with that, but the fact that people are trying this shows how far-reaching the decision might be. Within the UPC we have already seen injunctions being issued for countries outside the UPC territory and even outside the EU, for example including the UK. So you see how these developments start to interact. Rolf Claessen:For listeners who have not followed the case so closely: in very simple terms, the CJEU opened the door for courts in one EU country to rule on patent infringement that took place in other countries as well, right? Aloys Hüttermann:Exactly. Before Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux we had what was often called the GAT/LuK regime. The basic idea was: if you sue someone in, say, Germany for infringement of a European patent, and you also ask for an injunction for France, and the defendant then challenges the validity of the patent in France, the German court cannot grant you an injunction covering France. The Bosch decision changed that. The legal basis is the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia), which deals with jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters in the EU. It is not specific to IP; it applies to civil cases generally, but it does have some provisions that are relevant for patents. In Bosch, a Swedish court asked the CJEU for guidance on cross-border injunctions. The CJEU more or less overturned its old GAT/LuK case law. Now, in principle, if the defendant is domiciled in a particular Member State, the courts of that state can also grant cross-border relief for other countries, under certain conditions. We will not go into all the details here – that could fill a whole separate IP Fridays episode – but one important concept is the “anchor defendant”. If you sue a group of companies and at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state, then other group companies in other countries – even outside the EU, for example in Hong Kong – can be drawn into the case and affected by the decision. This is not limited to the UPC, but of course it is highly relevant for UPC litigation. Statistically it increases the chances that at least one defendant will be domiciled in a UPC country, simply because there are many of them. And we have already seen courts like the Landgericht München I grant pan-European injunctions for around 20 countries in a pharmaceutical case. Rolf Claessen:Just to clarify: does it have to be the headquarters of the defendant in that country, or is any registered office enough? Aloys Hüttermann:That is one of the open points. If the headquarters are in Europe, then it is clear that subsidiaries outside Europe can be affected as well. If the group's headquarters are outside Europe and only a subsidiary is here, the situation is less clear and we will have to see what the courts make of it. Does the UPC follow EPO case law? Rolf Claessen:Many patent owners and in-house counsel wonder: does the UPC largely follow the case law of the EPO Boards of Appeal, or is it starting to develop its own distinct line? What is your impression so far – both on substantive issues like novelty and inventive step, and on procedural questions? Aloys Hüttermann:On procedure the UPC is, of course, very different. It has its own procedural rules and they are not the same as at the EPO. If we look at patent validity, however, my impression is that there is “nothing new under the sun” – that was the title of a recent talk I gave and will give again in Hamburg. Substantively, the case law of the UPC and the EPO is very similar. For inventive step, people sometimes say the UPC does not use the classical problem-solution approach but a more “holistic” approach – whatever that is supposed to mean. In practice, in both systems you read and interpret prior-art documents and decide what they really disclose. In my view, the “error bar” that comes from two courts simply reading a document slightly differently is much larger than any systematic difference in legal approach. If you look at other grounds, such as novelty and added matter, the UPC even follows the EPO almost verbatim. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears all over UPC decisions, even if the EPO case numbers are not always cited. The same is true for novelty. So the rule-based, almost “Hilbertian” EPO approach is very much present at the UPC. There is also a structural reason for that. All patents that the UPC currently deals with have been granted by the EPO. The UPC does not handle patents granted only by national offices. If the UPC wanted to deviate from EPO case law and be more generous, then many patents would never reach the UPC in the first place. The most generous approach you can have is the one used by the granting authority – the EPO. So if the UPC wants to be different, it can only be stricter, not more lenient. And there is little incentive to be systematically stricter, because that would reduce the number of patents that are attractive to enforce before the UPC. Patent owners might simply opt out. Rolf Claessen:We also talked about added matter and a recent case where the Court of Appeal was even stricter than the EPO. That probably gives US patent practitioners a massive headache. They already struggle with added-matter rules in Europe, and now the UPC might be even tougher. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes, especially on added matter. I once spoke with a US practitioner who said, “We hope the UPC will move away from intermediate generalisations.” There is no chance of that. We already have cases where the Court of Appeal confirmed that intermediate generalisations are not allowed, in full alignment with the EPO. You mentioned a recent case where a patent was revoked for added matter, even though it had been granted by the EPO in exactly that form. This shows quite nicely what to expect. If you want to predict how the UPC will handle a revocation action, the best starting point is to ask: “What would the EPO do?” Of course, there will still be cases where the UPC finds an invention to be inventive while the EPO, in parallel opposition proceedings, does not – or vice versa. But those are differences in the appreciation of the facts and the prior art, which you will always have. The underlying legal approach is essentially the same. Rolf Claessen:So you do not see a real example yet where the UPC has taken a totally different route from the EPO on validity? Aloys Hüttermann:No, not really. If I had to estimate how the UPC will decide, I would always start from what I think the EPO would have done. Trends in UPC practice: PIs, equivalents, interim conferences Rolf Claessen:If you look across the different UPC divisions and cases: what trends do you see in practice? For example regarding timelines, preliminary injunctions, how validity attacks are handled, and how UPC cases interact with EPO oppositions or national proceedings? Aloys Hüttermann:If you take the most active divisions – essentially the big four in Germany and the local division in The Hague – they all try to be very careful and diligent in their decisions. But you can already see some differences in practice. For preliminary injunctions there is a clear distinction between the local division in Düsseldorf and most other divisions. Düsseldorf considers one month after knowledge of the infringement as still sufficiently urgent. If you wait longer, it is usually considered too late. In many other divisions, two months is still viewed as fine. Düsseldorf has also been the division that issued most of the ex parte preliminary injunctions so far. Apart from one special outlier where a standing judge from Brussels was temporarily sitting in Milan, Düsseldorf is basically the only one. Other divisions have been much more reluctant. At a conference, Judge Pichlmaier from the Munich division once said that he could hardly imagine a situation where his division would grant an ex parte PI. In his words, the UPC has two types of procedure: one that is fast – the normal main action – and one that is very fast – the inter partes PI procedure. But you do not really have an “ultra-fast” ex parte track, at least not in his division. Another difference relates to amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. In one recent case in Munich the court said more or less that if you have to amend your patent or rely on auxiliary requests in a PI, you lose. Other divisions have been more flexible and have allowed auxiliary requests. Equivalence is another area where we do not have a unified line yet. So far, only the Hague division has clearly found infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and explicitly used a test taken from Dutch law. Whether that test will be approved by the Court of Appeal is completely open – the first case settled, so the Court of Appeal never ruled on it, and a second one is still very recent. Interestingly, there was another Hague decision a few weeks ago where equivalence was on the table, but the division did not apply that Dutch-law test. We do not know yet why. The Mannheim division has written in one decision that it would be desirable to develop an autonomous pan-European test for equivalence, instead of just importing the German, UK or Dutch criteria. But they did not formulate such a test in that case because it was not necessary for the decision. So we will have to see how that evolves. On timelines, one practical difference is that Düsseldorf usually does not hold an interim conference. That saves them some time. Most other divisions do hold interim conferences. Personally, I like the idea because it can help clarify issues. But you cannot safely read the final outcome from these conferences. I have also seen cases where questions raised at the interim conference did not play any role in the main oral hearing. So they are useful for clarification, but not as a crystal ball. Front-loaded proceedings and typical strategic mistakes Rolf Claessen:If you look at the behaviour of parties so far – both patentees and defendants – what are the most common strategic mistakes you see in UPC litigation? And what would a well-prepared company do differently before the first statement of claim is ever filed? Aloys Hüttermann:You know you do not really want me to answer that question… Rolf Claessen:I do! Aloys Hüttermann:All right. The biggest mistake, of course, is that they do not hire me. That is the main problem. Seriously, it is difficult to judge parties' behaviour from the outside. You rarely know the full picture. There may be national proceedings, licensing discussions, settlement talks, and so on in the background. That can limit what a party can do at the UPC. So instead of criticising, I prefer to say what is a good idea at the UPC. The system is very front-loaded and very fast. If you are sued, you have three months to file your statement of defence and your counterclaim for revocation. In my view, three months are manageable – but only if you use the time wisely and do not waste it on things that are not essential. If you receive a statement of claim, you have to act immediately. You should have a clear strategy within maybe two or three weeks and then implement it. If you change your strategy every few weeks, chances are high that you will fail. Another point is that everything is front-loaded. It is very hard to introduce new documents or new attacks later. Some divisions have been a bit generous in individual cases, but the general line is strict. We have seen, for example, that even if you filed a book in first instance, you may not be allowed to rely on a different chapter from the same book for a new inventive-step attack at the appeal stage. That can be regarded as late-filed, because you could have done it earlier. There is also case law saying that if you first argue inventive step as “D1 plus D2”, and later want to argue “D2 plus D1”, that can already be considered a new, late attack. On the other hand, we had a revocation action where the plaintiff filed about 50 different inventive-step attacks in the initial brief. The division then said: this does not work. Please cut them down or put them in a clear hierarchy. In the end, not all of them were considered. The UPC does not conduct an ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case and to tell the parties to limit themselves in the interest of a fair and efficient procedure. Rolf Claessen:I have the feeling that the EPO is also becoming more front-loaded – if you want to rely on documents later, you should file them early. But it sounds like the UPC is even more extreme in that regard. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes, that is true. Protective letters, inspections and the defendant's perspective Rolf Claessen:Suppose someone from a company is listening now and thinks: “We might be exposed at the UPC,” or, “We should maybe use the UPC offensively against competitors.” What would you consider sensible first steps before any concrete dispute arises? And looking three to five years ahead, how central do you expect the UPC to become in global patent litigation compared to the US and China? Aloys Hüttermann:Let me start with the second part. I expect the UPC to become significantly more important. If we have around 200 cases this year, that is a good start, but it is still very small compared to, say, 4,000 to 5,000 patent cases per year in the US and 40,000 or so in China. Even François Bürgin and Klaus Grabinski, in interviews, have said that they are happy with the case load, but the potential is much larger. In my view, it is almost inevitable that we will see four or five times as many UPC cases in the not-too-distant future. As numbers grow, the influence of the UPC will grow as well. Whether, in five or ten years, companies will treat the UPC as their first choice forum – or whether they will usually run it in parallel with US litigation in major disputes – remains to be seen. The UPC would be well equipped for that: the territory it covers is large, Europe is still an important economy, and the UPC procedure is very attractive from a company's perspective. On sensible first steps: if you are worried about being sued, a protective letter can make a lot of sense – especially in divisions like Düsseldorf, where ex parte PIs are possible in principle. A protective letter is not very expensive in terms of court fees. There is also an internal system that ensures the court reads it before deciding on urgent measures. Of course, the content must have a certain quality; a poor protective letter can even backfire. If you are planning to sue someone before the UPC, you should be extremely well prepared when you file. You should already have all important documents and evidence at hand. As we discussed, it is hard to introduce new material later. One tool that is becoming more and more popular is inspection – not just at trade fairs, where we already saw cases very early, but also at company premises. Our firm has already handled such an inspection case. That is something you should keep in mind on both sides: it is a powerful evidence-gathering tool, but also a serious risk if you are on the receiving end. From the defendant's perspective, I do not think the UPC is unfair. If you do your job properly and put a solid revocation counterclaim on the table, then the patentee has only two months to prepare a full reply and all auxiliary requests. And there is a twist that makes life even harder for the patentee than at the EPO. At the EPO the question is mainly: do my auxiliary requests overcome the objections and are they patentable? At the UPC there is an additional layer: do I still have infringement under the amended claims? You may save your patent with an auxiliary request that no longer reads on the defendant's product. That is great for validity, but you have just lost the infringement case. You have kept the patent but lost the battle. And all of this under very tight time limits. That creates considerable pressure on both sides. How to contact Prof. Hüttermann Rolf Claessen:Thank you very much for this really great interview, Aloys. Inside our firm you have a nickname: “the walking encyclopedia of the Unified Patent Court” – because you have written so many books about it and have dealt with the UPC for such a long time. What is the best way for listeners to get in touch with you? Aloys Hüttermann:The easiest way is by email. You can simply write to me, and that is usually the best way to contact me. As you may have noticed, I also like to speak. I am a frequent speaker at conferences. If you happen to be at one of the conferences where I am on the programme – for example, next week in Hamburg – feel free to come up to me and ask me anything in person. But email is probably the most reliable first step. Rolf Claessen:Perfect. Thank you very much, Aloys. Aloys Hüttermann:Thank you. It was a pleasure to be on IP Fridays again. Some of your long-time listeners may remember that a few years ago – when you were not yet part of our firm – we already did an episode on the UPC, back when everything was still very speculative. It is great to be back now that the system is actually in place and working. Rolf Claessen:I am very happy to have you back on the show.

Happy Thanksgiving!  It's Thursday, November 27th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes written by Jonathan Clark and heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  Filling in for Adam McManus I'm Ean Leppin. (Contact@eanvoiceit.com) 18 Church Leaders Arrested in China Authorities in China arrested 18 leaders from Zion Church last Tuesday. Zion Church is one of the largest unregistered church in the country. The congregation has faced persecution for years. In the latest crackdown on the church, police detained at least 30 Christians across seven cities since October. The arrested leaders can effectively be held indefinitely in pre-trial detention. Scott Bower with Christian Solidarity Worldwide said the church leaders were “targeted solely for the peaceful exercise of their religious belief.” Taiwan Spends Extra $40 billion on Defense The self-ruling island of Taiwan plans on spending an extra $40 billion on defense in the face of threats from China. The Chinese government continues to claim the island as its own.  Taiwan's President Lai Ching-te announced the plan yesterday. He said, “China's threats to Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific region are escalating. . . . History has proven that compromising with aggression only brings war and enslavement.” The U.S. State Department welcomed the plan. And Japan recently stated that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could trigger a military response from Tokyo. Poland Facing Changes to Marriage Law In Europe, Poland is facing challenges to its marriage law. The country currently bans faux same-sex marriage and defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.  However, the European Court of Human Rights ruled Tuesday that Poland must recognize the faux same-sex marriages of other European Union countries.  Some Polish lawmakers are trying to change the marriage law. But Poland's President Karol Nawrocki has said he would veto “any bill that would undermine the constitutionally protected status of marriage.” Jesus said in Mark 10:6-8, “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.' ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.” Roman Catholic Church Praises Monogamous Marriage The Roman Catholic Church recently praised monogamous marriage between one man and one woman. The Vatican's Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith released the document Tuesday. The doctrinal note came in response to concerns from bishops in Africa where polygamy is still practiced. The document stated, “Polygamy, adultery, or polyamory are based on the illusion that the intensity of the relationship can be found in the succession of partners.” However, the Vatican's doctrinal dicastery has previously allowed priests to give a blessing to same-sex couples in certain cases.  U.S. Highschoolers Losing Interest in Marriage In the United States, high schoolers are losing interest in eventually getting married. Pew Research reports 67% of 12th graders in 2023 said they would want to get married in the future. That's down from 80% in 1993. Twelfth graders are also less likely to want children or to stay married to the same person for life if they do get married. In particular, high school girls are much less likely to want to get married someday. Boys' interest in eventually getting married has remained relatively unchanged over the last 30 years. U.S. State Department Addresses Human Rights Violations  The U.S. State Department announced a list of acts it considers human rights violations. These acts include transgender surgeries, government funded abortions or abortifacient drugs, attempts at coerced euthanasia, and violations of religious freedom.  Tommy Pigott is the Principal Deputy Spokesperson for the Department of State. He told The Daily Signal, “In recent years, new destructive ideologies have given safe harbor to human rights violations. The Trump administration will not allow these human rights violations, such as the mutilation of children.” Do People Still Thank God on Thanksgiving? And finally, Lifeway Research reports two in three Americans say they typically give thanks to God at Thanksgiving. Lifeway Research also shared the Bible verses Christians turn to at Thanksgiving based on Bible-reading apps. Many of them are from the Psalms. One of the most-read verses at Thanksgiving over the last five years was Psalm 9:1-2. The passages says, “I will thank the Lord with all my heart; I will declare all your wondrous works. I will rejoice and boast about you; I will sing about your name, Most High.” The most popular verse last year was 1 Chronicles 16:34. The verse says, “Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good; his faithful love endures forever.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Thanksgiving, Thursday, November 27th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. Filling in for Adam McManus I'm Ean Leppin (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Give Thanks and seize the day for Jesus Christ.

The European Court of Justice has ruled that all EU member states must recognise same-sex marriages lawfully concluded in any other member state, even if they don't allow such marriages at home. But what sparked this ruling and what are the reactions from countries where same sex marriages are illegal?Join us on our journey through the events that shape the European continent and the European Union.Production: By Europod, in co production with Sphera Network.Follow us on:LinkedInInstagram Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, we continue our conversation with Dr. José Reis, Research Analyst at the Portuguese National Cybersecurity Center, and Dr. Marcel Garz, Associate Professor at Jönköping University in Sweden, about how media attention shapes states' willingness to comply with human rights rulings.Drawing on their 2024 article published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution, “Media Attention and Compliance with the European Court of Human Rights,” they delve deeper into their findings: how newspaper coverage of rulings from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) increases both the likelihood and the speed of compliance — and why this effect unfolds over years rather than days.They reflect on what surprised them during their research, from the striking lack of media coverage in many countries, to the rare but impactful cases where media engagement is unusually high. The discussion also highlights the practical implications of their work: what the Court itself can do to improve visibility, how journalists shape accountability, and how NGOs and activists can leverage information diffusion to promote compliance.How should courts craft press releases to maximize visibility? Why do some rulings remain invisible to the public? And what can citizen journalists, NGOs, and everyday human rights defenders do when mainstream media stays silent?Join us for this second part of a fascinating conversation that connects media dynamics, public pressure, and the real-world effectiveness of international human rights law.

It's Thursday, November 20th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark Muslims in Congo killed 17 patients in a Christian hospital Sheer evil has struck Africa again. Last Friday, Muslim militants with the Allied Democratic Forces killed 17 people at a Christian hospital in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.  The armed rebels killed patients in their hospital beds, including women who were nursing their babies. Such civilian massacres are becoming more common in the Christian-majority area. Congo is ranked 35th on the Open Doors' World Watch List of the most dangerous countries to be a Christian. Open Doors' profile for the country notes, “Allied with the Islamic State group, the [Allied Democratic Forces] abduct and kill Christians and attack churches, leading to widespread terror, insecurity and displacement.” European Court of Human Rights denied rights of unborn humans The European Court of Human Rights  ruled in favor of abortion last week, denying the rights of unborn humans. The case began when a woman wanted to get an abortion in Poland after discovering her baby had a genetic disorder. However, Poland's Constitutional Tribunal had struck down abortion on the basis of disability.  So, the woman travelled abroad for an abortion and challenged Poland's decision. The European court ruled against Poland in the case. Dr. Felix Böllmann with Alliance Defending Freedom International warned, “This judgment sends a troubling signal that the Court is again willing to overstep its role. The Court should return to its original mission of protecting genuine human rights, not inventing false ones.” Isaiah 10:1-2 says, “Woe to those who decree unrighteous decrees, who write misfortune, which they have prescribed to rob the needy of justice ... that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless.” U.S. pregnancy centers are seeing growth In the United States, pregnancy centers are seeing growth in recent years. The Charlotte Lozier Institute released its 2025 National Pregnancy Center Report. The study found 2,775 pregnancy centers provided over $452 million in care, education, and material goods to families in 2024. The centers also saw over one million new clients for the first time last year. That's the equivalent of each location serving a new client every day! The phase out of the unnecessary Department of Education The U.S. Department of Education announced Tuesday it is handing off major responsibilities to other federal agencies. This is part of the Trump administration's plan to close the department.  The plan transfers major programs to the Departments of Labor, Interior, State as well as Health and Human Services. Listen to comments from U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. MCMAHON: “The announcement really follows the plan that President Trump has had since Day 1, and that is returning education to the states.  He fully believes, as do I, the best education is that that is closest to the child, and not one run from a bureaucracy in Washington D.C.” Only 11% of U.S. churchgoers have Biblical worldview Christian researcher Dr. George Barna released his latest survey on the worldview of Americans, specifically regular churchgoers. The report found only 11% of churchgoers have a Biblical worldview. Only 54% say the Bible is the inspired, error-free Word of God. About 50% or less believe the Bible speaks clearly on moral issues. And 32% of churchgoers now prefer socialism over capitalism. Dr. David Closson, Director of the Center for Biblical Worldview at the Family Research Council, commented on the study.  He said, “The answer to these trends is not despair, but a return to the faithful proclamation of God's Word. We must help Christians connect their zeal for God with the knowledge of God, as Scripture commands in Romans 10:2.” That verse says, “For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.” WalMart CEO and Berkshire Hathaway CEO retire And finally, CEOs of U.S. companies are leaving at record rates this year. This comes as many executives are reaching retirement age. For example, 59-year-old Doug McMillion will retire from being CEO of Walmart next year after leading the retailer's growth for over a decade.  In another case, 95-year-old Warren Buffett is stepping down as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway this year. After 60 years in leadership, the renowned investor sent out his final letter to shareholders last week.  In his final thoughts, Buffett wrote, “Greatness does not come about through accumulating great amounts of money. When you help someone in any of thousands of ways, you help the world. Kindness is costless but also priceless. Whether you are religious or not, it's hard to beat The Golden Rule as a guide to behavior.” Buffett's billions funded millions of abortions Too bad Buffet has not used his resources to treat the unborn children in the womb with such Golden Rule kindness. Instead, the Media Research Center reported that Buffett's grants to abortion groups through the Buffett Foundation totaled at least $1.3 billion between 1989 and 2012. (The tax returns from 1997 to 2000 were missing.)  The New York Times reported, “Most of the [Buffet] Foundation's spending goes to abortion and contraception.”  Buffett's biographer describes him as having “a Malthusian dread” of population growth among the poor. And the Buffett Foundation's spending in this area was accelerating rapidly as the 2000s unfolded. Beneficiaries of Buffett's deadly giving include $300 million for abortion giant Planned Parenthood as well as millions more for the National Abortion Rights Action League, the National Abortion Federation, Catholics for a Free Choice, Abortion Access Project, Population Council, Marie Stopes International, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and dozens of other pro-abortion advocates. In addition, the Buffett Foundation gave money that was instrumental in creating the abortion drug RU-486 and pushing it through clinical trials. Tragically, 63% of mothers who abort in America today use this deadly drug to kill their babies. Close And that's The Worldview on this Thursday, Novem ber 20th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Follow us on X  or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus

It's Tuesday, November 18th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Kevin Swanson Nigerian Muslims abduct 7 people in Borno State, Nigeria Persecution.org reports that seven people have been abducted in Chibok in Borno State, Nigeria, Africa. Boko Haram, the Muslim terrorist group, is suspected of involvement in this kidnapping of mothers and their children, including two daughters of a local pastor and an infant.   One resident described the atmosphere in the area as shock and fear.  She said, “I'm shocked and saddened by the attack. … My heart goes out to the families of the abducted. It's heartbreaking that this is happening weekly in Chibok. The silence is deafening — we must demand action from our leaders and support our troops to bring an end to this senseless violence.” 25 girls kidnapped in Kebbi State, Nigeria And this just in. The Associated Press reports that 25 girls were kidnapped yesterday morning from a high school in Kebbi State, Nigeria. Nigerian military opened fire on police in Benue State, Nigeria Meanwhile, the Nigerian military opened fire on a police patrol in Benue State last week. The patrol was offering protection to villagers from Fulani Muslim terrorists. Just another incident marking the unravelling of the social and political state of the Nigerian nation.  Congress might impose sanctions on Nigeria The United States House of Representatives Subcommittee on Africa has scheduled an open hearing this Thursday on the President's recent designation of Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern. If ratified by the Senate, the designation would allow the U.S. to impose sanctions on Nigerian government officials found complicit in religious persecution. German authorities targeting homeschooling and Christian schooling Homeschooling and Christian schooling are under attack in Germany, again. The Dietrich Bonhoeffer International School in Germany is a part-homeschool and part-Christian school hybrid. After three court hearings over the last six years, education authorities are not forcing school closure. Two partner schools have been denied accreditation by German authorities.   Alliance Defending Freedom International is appealing the case to the European Court of Human Rights.  In 1920, Germany introduced public school compulsory attendance, By 1939,  almost all denominational  or confessional schools in the Reich were converted into “community schools” under state control or they were closed. Keep in mind, God is in control. In Isaiah 43:15-17, God says, “I am the Lord, your Holy One, The Creator of Israel, your King.” Thus says the Lord, who makes a way in the sea and a path through the mighty waters, who brings forth the chariot and horse, The army and the power, they shall lie down together, they shall not rise; They are extinguished, they are quenched like a wick.” Marco Rubio to designate Venezuelan cartel as terrorist group Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced Sunday that the State Department would designate Cartel de los Soles or Cartel of the Suns as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. It will take place within a week. The cartel is believed to be headed by Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his cronies.   The State Department press release promised that the United States would use “all available tools to protect our national security interests and deny funding and resources to narco-terrorists.” Since September, the U.S. military has completed 21 attacks on boats thought to be carrying drugs in the Caribbean seas.  As of Saturday, 83 people aboard ships have been killed, and 22 ships sunk.  State Department called Maduro “one of largest narco-traffickers” Not only has the State Department referred to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro as "one of the largest narco-traffickers in the world,” but also the U.S. government has offered a $50 million reward for information leading to his arrest.  Venezuela's Gross Domestic Product has sunk from $371 billion in 2013, when Madura was elected, to an estimated $107 billion this year.   HIs government is known for having killed thousands of political enemies. In his early years, Maduro was trained as a communist in Cuba, and leads the United Socialist Party of Venezuela. Venezuela, once rich oil-based country, no relies on illegal drugs Venezuela was one of the most prosperous states in South America back in the 1980s and 1990s, that is, until a left-wing politician named Hugo Chávez was elected as President in 1998. Since then, the country has shifted from an oil-based economy to a drug-based economy. Venezuelan oil production has dropped off by 75% since the late 90s. Proverbs 28:16 speaks to this: “Like a roaring lion and a charging bear Is a wicked ruler over poor people. A ruler who lacks understanding is a great oppressor, but he who hates covetousness will prolong his days.” African, Muslim & Eastern countries vs West on trust in governments The Edelman International Survey finds that the people of African, Muslim, and Eastern countries are far more optimistic about the future of their nations than the people in Western countries. Those who live in Kenya, Indonesia, India, China, and Saudi Arabia are very optimistic — over 50% believe the next generation will be better off. By contrast, the population of France, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Australia, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Canada are extremely pessimistic — barely 9-20% could say the same thing. In terms of distrust of governments, the people of Japan, Germany, Spain, Colombia, and South Africa were highly distrustful. But those who live in Saudi Arabia, China, India, Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia registered high trust in governments. Hollywood's economic slump And, finally, Hollywood has gone into an economic tailspin — now sporting the worst summer season in 44 years. At $3.67 billion, Tinseltown's summer box office season registered a 43% decrease from the peak year of 2013, adjusted for inflation.  Pagan worldview of How to Train Your Dragon 2025 In case you missed it, How to Train Your Dragon 2025 featured a pagan worldview with ample references to the ancient demonic gods of Odin and Thor, not to mention the witch consulting bones and magic. Jurassic Park Rebirth advocated the evolution of man, environmentalism, and the woke of feminism.   And Superman 2025 got a little political and wokey around the edges, once more setting the worldview of existentialism against the polytheism of the superheroes. Close And that's The Worldview on this Tuesday, November 18th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

In this episode, we begin our conversation with Dr. José Reis, Research Analyst at the Portuguese National Cybersecurity Center, and Dr. Marcel Garz, Associate Professor at Jönköping University in Sweden, about how media attention influences compliance with human rights rulings.Drawing on their 2024 article published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution, “Media Attention and Compliance with the European Court of Human Rights,” they explore whether — and how — media coverage of the European Court of Human Rights' decisions can increase the likelihood that states actually comply with them.They take us behind the scenes of their innovative research, revealing the complex process of gathering data from dozens of countries and building models to measure media influence — all before the rise of large language models. The discussion also highlights the power of interdisciplinary collaboration between law, political science, and media research in understanding international accountability.How does public attention shape governments' willingness to respect human rights? Why is compliance with international law so dependent on information diffusion? And what can these findings tell us about the relationship between transparency, democracy, and justice in Europe today? Join us for this first part of a fascinating conversation that bridges media studies, data science, and human rights law.

Please note that, in places, the microphones momentarily failed to record the proceedings at this event. We apologise. In the UK, calls for the withdrawal from the European Convention of Human Rights are becoming louder and more persistent. The government has promised to look into the case for reform of the Convention, but at present there are no details about what this would look like. Yet, the discussions about the future of the ECHR are not limited to the UK. Across the Council of Europe many states are considering the case for renegotiation of current obligations under the Convention, particularly in the context of migration. In Denmark, the government is reviewing the practice of its courts and drafting a proposal for a new agreement that would amend the current text of the Convention and allow the government to limit its obligations in relation to particular groups of migrants. How are these developments at European level relevant for the discussion in the UK? A panel of expert speakers familiar with the developments in Denmark, UK, and the Council of Europe speak about the pressures that human rights and especially the European Convention find themselves under and what the options are for states seeking a reform of the system. Speakers:Former Judge Robert Spano, Former President of European Court of Human Rights, Partner at Gibson DunnProfessor Jens Elo Peters Rytter, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of CopenhagenProfessor Colm O'Cinneide, Professor of Constitutional and Human Rights Law, UCLProfessor Alice Donald, Professor in Human Rights Law, Middlesex University LondonChair: Professor Veronika Fikfak, Professor of Human Rights and International Law, UCL Links:Website: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unitMailing list: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/get-involved/mailing-listBlog: constitution-unit.com

In the EU, national regulatory authorities are meant to act without political interference — but how independent are they really? In this episode of the FSR Policy Briefcase (Season 2, Episode 9), hosts Leonardo Meeus and Emma Menegatti sit down with FSR part-time Professor Kaisa Huhta to discuss the evolving definition of regulators' independence in the EU. Drawing on Kaisa Huhta's recent Policy Brief, the discussion examines why regulators' independence matters, how recent European Court of Justice rulings have tested its boundaries, and what these cases mean for the future framework of energy regulation in Europe. Recorded in October 2025. Read the policy brief: https://fsr.eui.eu/publications/?handle=1814/92830

The Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS) hosts an annual public lecture in honour of Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, the first British Judge to be President of the Court of Justice. Among the eminent scholars of European legal studies invited to give the lecture are Professor Joseph Weiler, former Judge David Edwards of the European Court of Justice, and Advocate-General Francis Jacobs of the European Court of Justice. The texts of the Mackenzie-Stuart Lectures are published in the Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies.The 2025-26 Mackenzie-Stuart Lecture was delivered by Professor Anand Menon, Director, UK in a Changing Europe, on the title 'Reflections on the Brexit Revolution' on 3 November 2025.Anand Menon is Director of the UK in a Changing Europe and Professor of European Politics and Foreign Affairs at King's College London. He has written widely on many aspects of EU politics and policy and on UK-EU relations. He is a frequent contributor to the media on matters relating to British relations with the EU.Abstract: The outcome of the Brexit referendum was driven by many forces, including increasing frustration at an economic and political model that seemed to be failing far too many people. And the vote to Leave in fact provided a unique opportunity for this discontent to be addressed. The fact that it was not has merely contributed to the growing appeal of populism. And along the way, many of the things we took for granted about our country and the way it is governed have been challenged.Lecture begins at 03:52The slides are available at:PDF: https://resources.law.cam.ac.uk/cels/MSL_2025_26_slides.pdfPowerpoint: https://resources.law.cam.ac.uk/cels/MSL_2025_26_slides.pptxMore information about this lecture, including photographs from the event, is available from the Centre for European Legal Studies website at:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/mackenzie-stuart-lectures

The Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS) hosts an annual public lecture in honour of Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, the first British Judge to be President of the Court of Justice. Among the eminent scholars of European legal studies invited to give the lecture are Professor Joseph Weiler, former Judge David Edwards of the European Court of Justice, and Advocate-General Francis Jacobs of the European Court of Justice. The texts of the Mackenzie-Stuart Lectures are published in the Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies.The 2025-26 Mackenzie-Stuart Lecture was delivered by Professor Anand Menon, Director, UK in a Changing Europe, on the title 'Reflections on the Brexit Revolution' on 3 November 2025.Anand Menon is Director of the UK in a Changing Europe and Professor of European Politics and Foreign Affairs at King's College London. He has written widely on many aspects of EU politics and policy and on UK-EU relations. He is a frequent contributor to the media on matters relating to British relations with the EU.Abstract: The outcome of the Brexit referendum was driven by many forces, including increasing frustration at an economic and political model that seemed to be failing far too many people. And the vote to Leave in fact provided a unique opportunity for this discontent to be addressed. The fact that it was not has merely contributed to the growing appeal of populism. And along the way, many of the things we took for granted about our country and the way it is governed have been challenged.Lecture begins at 03:52The slides are available at:PDF: https://resources.law.cam.ac.uk/cels/MSL_2025_26_slides.pdfPowerpoint: https://resources.law.cam.ac.uk/cels/MSL_2025_26_slides.pptxMore information about this lecture, including photographs from the event, is available from the Centre for European Legal Studies website at:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/mackenzie-stuart-lectures

What is Englishness? Why did Suella Braverman clash with Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss over immigration? And would she really join Reform UK? In this explosive episode of Heretics, Andrew Gold sits down with former Home Secretary Suella Braverman to discuss British identity, immigration, nationalism, and the deep state within the Conservative Party. SPONSORS: Get up to 45% off Ekster with my code ANDREWGOLDHERETICS: https://partner.ekster.com/andrewgoldheretics  Go to https://TryFum.com/HERETICS  and use code HERETICS to get your free FÜM Topper when you order your Journey Pack today!  Use Code ANDREW FOR 25% OFF Plaud Note: https://bit.ly/4nJWt7j  Plaud Note Pro: https://bit.ly/423JiWv  Grab your free seat to the 2-Day AI Mastermind: https://link.outskill.com/ANDREWS2  Cut your wireless bill to 15 bucks a month at https://mintmobile.com/heretics  Start your MyHeritage journey now with a 14-day free trial using my link: https://bit.ly/AndrewGoldMyHeritage Suella opens up about her time in Number 10, the ‘Stop the Boats' crisis, and what really happened behind closed doors with Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss. She reveals why she believes immigration is out of control, what went wrong with the Rwanda plan, and whether Britain can ever regain control of its borders. We also dive deep into what it means to be English, British or Asian-British in modern Britain — from the St. George's flag controversy to national pride, religion, and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Suella explains why she believes strong countries need strong identities, and how ‘human rights' laws have been exploited to block deportations. Finally, Andrew challenges Suella on issues like burqas, cousin marriage, and nationalism, before asking the question everyone wants to know — would she join Nigel Farage and Reform UK? #SuellaBraverman #HereticsPodcast #BritishPolitics  Join the 30k heretics on my mailing list: https://andrewgoldheretics.com  Check out my new documentary channel: https://youtube.com/@andrewgoldinvestigates  Andrew on X: https://twitter.com/andrewgold_ok   Insta: https://www.instagram.com/andrewgold_ok Heretics YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@andrewgoldheretics Chapters: 0:00 Suella Braverman Highlights 1:35 Why Suella Braverman is Normal 4:05 What is Englishness? 6:35 Nationality vs Ethnicity 9:35 Nationalism Debate 12:05 We Must Copy Israel's Nationalism 13:35 St. George's Flag Controversy 15:35 Why We Brought In So Many Immigrants 17:35 What Suella Said To Rishi and Liz 21:35 The Deep State & Stopping the Boats 25:05 Can We Ever Trust The Tories Again? 26:50 How Has Islam Changed Your Life 28:35 What's Suella's Ancestry? 31:35 Andrew's Dog Test 33:35 Burqas and 1st Cousin Marriage 36:35 We Have Too Many People 39:35 Would Suella Join Reform? 41:35 Can the Tories Win? 43:35 Harry Kane Analogy With Reform 47:35 What Actually Is The ECHR? 50:35 Why Rwanda Failed 53:35 Can We Get Out Of The ECHR? 56:35 How ‘Human Rights' Are Exploited 59:35 Where Kemi & Tories Stand 1:00:35 The Origin of Suella's Name 1:03:35 Keir Starmer's ‘Management Speak' 1:05:35 Why Suella Lost Her Job 1:07:35 The Jews Love Suella 1:10:35 A Heretic Suella Admires Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of our Cross-Border Catch-Up podcast series, Goli Rahimi (Chicago) and Tatjana Serbina (Berlin) break down Germany's evolving requirements for recording employee working hours. The speakers discuss the 2019 European Court of Justice ruling mandating all EU member states to require employers to establish an objective system of recording employee working hours under the working time directive and how Germany has since implemented this decision in its own laws. The speakers provide practical steps employers should take to ensure compliance—especially in the era of remote and flexible work.

It's Tuesday, October 21st, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Kevin Swanson                    Xi Jinping fired 9 Chinese military commanders China's communist system is in turmoil, as the defense ministry announces the removal of nine very senior military commanders from duty, including a number two general, He Weidong. Since 2023, the communist leader, Xi Jinping, has administered the removal of dozens of senior officers. These moves signal a factionalism from within the party and the Chinese military. Experts question whether Jinping will survive in his position. This week, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China is holding its Fourth Plenary Session where leaders will work out a Five-Year Plan. The outcome of this meeting will reveal Jinping's standing in party politics. Keep in mind: God is in control. Haggai 2:22 says, “The word of the Lord came unto Haggai … I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms. … I will overthrow the chariots, and those that ride in them; and the horses and their riders shall come down, everyone by the sword of his brother.” Pakistani pastor survives murder plot A Pakistani pastor survived a murder attempt in Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, on the morning of Sunday, September 21, reports Barnabas Aid. Pastor Kamran Naz had been traveling by bus, accompanied by his mother, from his home in Gujranwala to lead a church service in Islamabad when he was attacked by two unidentified gunmen. One bullet wounded the pastor in the right leg. A second bullet narrowly missed his head. The attackers then fled on a motorcycle as some church members who were present swiftly came to the pastor's aid and contacted emergency services. Pastor Kamran had previously notified the police of numerous death threats. He was warned to stop ministering at the church or face the consequences.  Pastor Imran Amanat, leader of the Christian advocacy group LEAD Ministries Pakistan, said, “We will not be intimidated or silenced. We demand that the authorities immediately ensure the protection of Christian leaders and hold the criminals accountable. If the government continues to ignore these threats, it becomes complicit in the persecution.” According to Open Doors, Pakistan is the eighth most dangerous country worldwide for Christians. Swedish parents lost custody over kids' required church attendance Certain European nations have now been recognized for their systemic violation of parental rights, especially if the parents happen to be Christian.  Alliance Defending Freedom International is working on a case in Sweden, where parents have lost custody of their children under charges of “religious extremism.” The parents had simply restricted the phone use of their teen children and required attendance at church meetings. After three years of attempts to regain custody, Daniel and Bianca Samson are appealing their case to the European Court of Human Rights. Recently, the High Court has already condemned countries like Spain, Portugal, Italy, Croatia, and Romania for systemic violations in family separation and child welfare cases. Iran threatens Israel Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei took to social media (X) yesterday, effectively taunting the American government, threatening Israel, and asserting independence for the nation's nuclear program. He asked, “What authority do you, Americans, have to dictate what a country should or shouldn't do if it possesses nuclear industry? What position do you hold in the world? How is it any of America's business whether Iran has nuclear capabilities and nuclear industry or not? .. . The U.S. President boasts that they've bombed and destroyed Iran's nuclear industry. Very well, in your dreams!” Trump urges Putin and Zelenskyy to end the war President Donald Trump is urging Ukraine's leader, Volodymyr Zelenskyy to end the war on Russia's terms.  He warned Zelenskyy of Russian President Vladimir Putin's threat to “destroy” Ukraine it there is no agreement.  The Financial Times described the meeting as a “shouting match”, with Trump throwing maps in the room, and “cursing all the time.” Japan greenlights Morning After Pill Japan has just approved the abortifacient drug known as the over-the-counter “morning after” pill. Japan also approved the RU-486 abortion kill pill back in April 2023. Japan recorded 686,000 births in 2024. That's down from 762,000 in 2023, and down from 2,000,000 in 1975. Jeremiah 32:35 speaks of this child sacrifice.  “They built the high places of Baal in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination.” Day 21 of U.S. government shutdown The U.S. government shutdown is rounding its 21st day. With 900,000 employees furloughed, the shutdown represents the most severe in American history.  Indeed, 7,850 flights were delayed due to air traffic control staffing shortages on Sunday.  According to TheHill.com, 13,000 air traffic controllers and 50,000 TSA agents are presently working without pay. Housing bubble has burst The housing bubble has burst in multiple cities across the United States. The median house values in Oakland, California and Austin, Texas have dropped by 24% since the peak in 2022. Significant declines have also been reported in New Orleans, San Francisco, Fort Myers, Florida, and Denver, Colorado, reports WolfStreet.com. Gold and silver hit new record highs Metals continued their journey upwards and onwards in Monday's market activity. Gold hit $4,350 per ounce and silver hit $52 and change per ounce, reports Reuters. Trump's Education Dept. funds conservative ideology at colleges The Trump Education Department is offering preferential funding for those universities willing to bend more conservative. Only Vanderbilt, the University of Arizona, and the University of Texas at Austin have embraced to the idea out of the nine universities approached with the proposal, reports Breitbart.  MIT, Brown University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Southern California have all rejected the Trump administration's encouragement to abolish their departments opposed to conservative ideas.  Major jewel heist at Louvre in Paris, France And finally, a team of four thieves broke into the Louvre Museum in Paris over the weekend. They stole priceless jewels dating back to the 19th Century, reports Reuters. Among the stolen items were a tiara and brooch belonging to Empress Eugénie, wife of Napoleon III, an emerald necklace and a pair of emerald earrings from Empress Marie Louise, Napolean's second wife, and a tiara, a necklace, and single earring from the sapphire set that belonged to Queen Marie-Amelie and Queen Hortense. (Also a brooch known as the "reliquary brooch” was taken). Close And that's The Worldview on this Tuesday, October 21st, in the year of our Lord 2025. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

Welcome to episode 28 of the Blackstone Chambers Litigation Podcast: Litigating War - Ukraine v Russia 2025.This session followed the European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber judgment of 9 July 2025 in which the Grand Chamber revisited its case law on jurisdiction and held Russia responsible for “an unprecedented and flagrant attack on the fundamental values of the Council of Europe” and for widespread violations of the Convention across Ukraine dating back to 2014 and embracing all aspects of the full-scale invasion launched in February 2022. The judgment has been described by a former President of the Court as the greatest in the 65 year history of the Court. The session was chaired by Tim Otty KC, leading counsel for Ukraine, with speakers including Tom Richards KC, Naina Patel KC, Jason Pobjoy KC, George Molyneaux and Isabel Buchanan, all of whom were also part of Ukraine's counsel team.

Last week the EU commission sided with the airlines when it said that Spain was wrong to fine airlines for charging customers to take their bags onto the plane. It could force Madrid to repay nearly €200m to the airlines and end up in the European Court of Justice. Consumer groups aren't so happy about it and want more clarity from the Commission. Joe discusses this further with Agustín Reyna the Director General of European Consumer advocate group BEUC.

'You think the EU would risk all their security because we leave the ECHR?'Laila Cunningham blasts warnings from Lord Wolfson and Barry Gardiner over quitting the European Court of Human Rights, accusing them of scaremongering and ignoring the real threat of illegal migration. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of our Climate series, we look at Mar Menor, the first ecosystem in Europe to gain legal personhood. A unique place for several reasons, Mar Meno is now also the first natural entity to be represented at the European Court of Human Rights by our guest Monica Feria-Tinta, counsel for Mar Menor and a barrister practising in public international law and international arbitration at Twenty Essex Chambers in the UK. Monica told us why the case of Mar Menor is important and how it relates to the growing awareness of environmental justice. If this is interesting, do like, subscribe and leave us a review. Want to find out more? Check out all the background information on our website including hundreds more podcasts on international justice covering all the angles: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/ Or you can sign up to our newsletter: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/newsletters/ Did you like what you heard? Tip us here: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/support-us/ Or want to support us long term? Check out our Patreon, where - for the price of a cup of coffee every month - you also become part of our War Criminals Bookclub and can make recommendations on what we should review next, here: https://www.patreon.com/c/AsymmetricalHaircuts Asymmetrical Haircuts is created, produced and presented by Janet Anderson and Stephanie van den Berg, together with a small team of producers, assistant producers, researchers and interns. Check out the team here: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/what-about-asymmetrical-haircuts/

In this special episode, we take a deep dive into the ideas and career of our esteemed colleague and friend of the podcast, Professor Veronika Fikfak. Following her inaugural lecture as Professor of Human Rights and International Law at UCL's Department of Political Science, we use the occasion to explore broader themes in international law, human rights, and academic life.Veronika brings a wealth of experience from institutions across Europe, including Oxford, Cambridge, Copenhagen, and London. She currently serves as co-director of UCL's Institute for Human Rights and as an ad hoc judge at the European Court of Human Rights. Her leadership of two major European Research Council-funded projects places her at the forefront of cutting-edge human rights scholarship.Mentioned in this episode:Prof Fikfak's inaugural lecture on YouTubeProf Fikfak's staff profile page and publicationsHuman Rights Nudge project UCL's Department of Political Science and School of Public Policy offers a uniquely stimulating environment for the study of all fields of politics, including international relations, political theory, human rights, public policy-making and administration. The Department is recognised for its world-class research and policy impact, ranking among the top departments in the UK on both the 2021 Research Excellence Framework and the latest Guardian rankings.

In EVN Report's news roundup for the week of September 19: The European Court of Human Rights has issued its most significant ruling in regards to the deadly March 1, 2008 crackdown on protesters in Yerevan; the head of Armenia's National Security Service is in Baku leading a delegation participating in an International Security Forum and Netherlands has pledged €14 million in aid to help Karabakh refugees with affordable housing.

Send us a textOn this week of Serious Privacy, Ralph O'Brien of Reinbo Consulting and Dr. K Royal (Paul Breitbarth is travelling) discuss current events in privacy, data protection, and cyber law. Fascinating episode with all the hot stories which seem to follow a theme - adequacy and child online safety, plus some enforcements. Coverage includes the decision on the European Court's decision on the Latombe suit challenging the adequacy of the EU-US thingie, Brazil, Tazania, Argentina, Austrailia, China, ChatGPT, and so much more! If you have comments or questions, find us on LinkedIn and Instagram @seriousprivacy, and on BlueSky under @seriousprivacy.eu, @europaulb.seriousprivacy.eu, @heartofprivacy.bsky.app and @igrobrien.seriousprivacy.eu, and email podcast@seriousprivacy.eu. Rate and Review us! From Season 6, our episodes are edited by Fey O'Brien. Our intro and exit music is Channel Intro 24 by Sascha Ende, licensed under CC BY 4.0. with the voiceover by Tim Foley.

When South African runner Caster Semenya dominated international competitions, sports authorities demanded she prove she was “really” a woman. The rules they created—targeting women with intersex traits or naturally higher testosterone—have since reshaped the future of women's sports.In this episode of Entitled, we unpack the controversial regulations of World Athletics, the recent European Court of Human Rights ruling, and the wider human rights questions at stake. Are these policies about fairness—or about enforcing outdated ideas of gender? Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Does the ECHR really block the UK's ability to implement effective immigration/asylum policies? And why is Nigel Farage doing his best to persuade the foreign US government and its increasingly far right tech bro cronies, to bully the UK over the Online Safety Act, so recently passed by Parliament? And how does this behaviour align with his loudly professed patriotism and promotion of British sovereignty?  This week on Double Jeopardy, hosts Ken Macdonald KC and Tim Owen KC provide expert legal commentary on the Court of Appeal's ruling on the Bell Hotel injunction case and discuss the broader implications of UK and European asylum policies, with special focus on Denmark and Sweden. The episode also covers Nigel Farage's political manoeuvres, the populist claim that we have a "two-tier justice" system and insights from a recent research paper examining the impacts of European Court of Human Rights rulings on UK deportation policies.    Link to the UK in a Changing Europe 2025 article by Dr Alice Donald, Dr Joelle Grogan and Victoria Adelmant located here: https://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/does-the-european-convention-on-human-rights-stop-foreign-criminals-being-removed-from-the-uk/ --- Covering the critical intersections of law and politics in the UK with expert commentary on high-profile legal cases, political controversies, prisons and sentencing, human rights law, current political events and the shifting landscape of justice and democracy. With in-depth discussions and influential guests, Double Jeopardy is the podcast that uncovers the forces shaping Britain's legal and political future.   What happens when law and politics collide? How do politics shape the law - and when does the law push back? What happens when judicial independence is tested, human rights come under attack, or freedom of expression is challenged? And who really holds power in Britain's legal and political system? Get answers to questions like these weekly on Wednesdays.   Double Jeopardy is presented by Ken Macdonald KC, former Director of Public Prosecutions, and Tim Owen KC, as they break down the legal and political issues in Britain. From high-profile legal cases to the evolving state of British democracy, Double Jeopardy offers expert legal commentary on the most pressing topics in UK law, politics, and human rights.   Ken Macdonald KC served as Director of Public Prosecutions from 2003-2008, shaping modern prosecutorial policy and advocating for the rule of law. He is a former Warden of Wadham College, Oxford, a crossbench member of the House of Lords, and a leading writer, commentator and broadcaster on politics and the rule of law.   Tim Owen KC has been involved in many of the most significant public, criminal and human rights law cases over the past four decades.    Both bring unparalleled experience from the frontline of Britain's legal and political landscape. If you like The Rest Is Politics, Talking Politics, Law Pod UK and Today in Focus, you'll love Double Jeopardy.  

Starmer & Cooper Betrayed Britain: Epping Migrant Verdict Fury! KeirStarmer #YvetteCooper #Epping #ECHR #UKPolitics #JonGaunt #UKNews #MigrantCrisisUK Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper are under fire after the Epping Migrant Verdict, with Labour accused of siding with illegal immigrants over the British people. The migrant crisis, Labour's immigration stance, and the ECHR are now at the centre of UK politics and breaking news. Spineless Starmer is back from his holiday. Yvette Cooper has returned from her travels. But instead of standing with the people of Epping, they stood with illegal migrants against local concerns. Has this verdict finally broken the camel's back for Labour's so-called leadership? Is Britain ready to forgive, or are Starmer and Cooper finished? Enough excuses. Enough weakness. The public deserve answers.

Today's guest is a truly remarkable creative – novellist, screenwriter, playwright, producer, past resident of the Royal Court Theatre, co-founder of the Harvard Human Rights Journal, winner of the John Cassavetes Award for film, as well as the first American to receive a fellowship to the European Court of Human Rights. I spoke with Alice Austen about her debut book, 33 Place Brugmann, which is a suspenseful, emotive portrait of a Brussels apartment block during the Second World War. It's always a pleasure to speak with such a fascinating polymath, and I hope you all enjoy listening.Lit with Charles loves reviews. If you enjoyed this episode, I'd be so grateful if you could leave a review of your own, and follow me on Instagram at @litwithcharles. Let's get more people listening – and reading!Alice Austen's four books were:Dubliners, James Joyce (1914)100 Years of Solitude, Gabriel García Márquez (1967)Tropisms, Nathalie Sarraute (1939)Tess of the d'Urbervilles, Thomas Hardy (1891)

As the world turns away from traditional news sources, gay journalist Enrique Anarte is building trust — and an audience — on social media (interviewed by David Hunt). And in NewsWrap: the United Kingdom's first transgender judge Victoria McCloud is taking her country's Supreme Court ruling on the legal definition of “woman” to the European Court of Human Rights, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement must immediately release gay Jamaican refugee Rickardo Anthony Kelly by order of a federal district court judge, a student-sponsored charitable drag show on the campus West Texas A&M University was unconstitutionally banned according to the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, books found to be “suspect” under Florida's expanded “Don't Say Gay” law will be returning to classroom and school library shelves by order of a U.S. federal judge, local officials in more than two dozen Florida cities have been ordered to remove their LGBTQ Pride rainbow crosswalks, and more international LGBTQ+ news reported this week by Sarah Montague and David Hunt (produced by Brian DeShazor). All this on the August 25, 2025 edition of This Way Out! Join our family of listener-donors today at http://thiswayout.org/donate/

For today's episode, Lawfare Senior Editor and General Counsel Scott R. Anderson sits down with Lawfare Contributing Editor and Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor Asaf Lubin and Hebrew University of Jerusalem professor Deborah Housen-Couriel to talk over the European Court of Human Rights' recent decision in Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia.Together, they discuss how the opinion lays new ground in discussing digital rights in wartime, what issues still need to be developed further, and what it all might mean for warfare in the future, both good and bad.For more, read Asaf and Deb's latest piece on Lawfare, “Digital Rights in Armed Conflict and the Ukraine v. Russia Decision.”To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On this episode of the Human Rights Podcast, LLM student Alessandra Cao speaks with Dr Niamh Keady-Tabbal about the topic of “Drift-backs” in the Aegean, the role of Frontex, and the European Court of Human Rights' (ECtHR) failure to hold Greece accountable for serious human rights violations committed in the Aegean during systematic push-back operations. The conversation first introduces the topic of push-backs at the external borders of the EU, the relatively new phenomenon of “drift-backs” in the Aegean Sea and their relation to European “migration management” strategies as well as human rights concerns arising from these practices. The speakers then dive into the recent European Court of Human Rights decision in the case of GRJ v Greece – a push-back case decided in January 2025, in which Niamh was closely involved – to discuss the evidentiary difficulties arising for applicants in push-back cases, and evaluate the way in which the ECtHR – despite explicitly acknowledging them – has failed to adequately accommodate these difficulties. During the conversation, we referenced a number of cases and academic works. You can read more about the various topics in the links below: #1 Journal Article “Weaponising Rescue: Law and the Materiality of Migration Management in the Aegean” by Niamh Keady-Tabbal and Itamar Mann (Leiden Journal of International Law, 2023): access https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/leiden-journal-of-international-law/article/weaponizing-rescue-law-and-the-materiality-of-migration-management-in-the-aegean/068B225CF16390CCBA5FFD10FC3CEF8C?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_source=bookmark #2 Blog Post “Tents at Sea: How Greek Officials Use Rescue Equipment for Illegal Deportations” (Just Security, 2020): access https://www.justsecurity.org/70309/tents-at-sea-how-greek-officials-use-rescue-equipment-for-illegal-deportations/ #3 Forensic Architecture study about the practice of “drift-backs”: access https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/drift-backs-in-the-aegean-sea #4 Journal Article “The Enforced Disappearance of Migrants” by Valentina Azariva, Amanda Danson Brown, and Itamar Mann (Boston University International Law Journal, 2022): access https://www.bu.edu/ilj/files/2022/08/Vol.-40.1-Azarova-et-al.-online-unprinted.pdf #5 European Court of Human Rights Judgment in GRJ v Greece: access the original judgment in French , and the official summary in English https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-243431%22]} https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre-press?i=003-8124872-11378023 #6 European Court of Human Rights Judgment in ARE v Greece: access the original judgment in French , and the official summary in English https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-238636%22]} https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre-press#{%22itemid%22:[%22003-8124877-11378031%22]} The podcast was produced by Alessandra Cao, Gráinne McGrath and Kirsten Larson. Intro Music: 'Smarties Intro - FMA Podcast Suggestions' by Birds for Scale (Attribution - ShareAlike 4.0 international License). Outro Music 'Smarties Outro - FMA Podcast Suggestions' by Birds for Scale (Attribution - ShareAlike 4.0 international License).

The European Court of Justice shocked RCBI industry earlier this year, with their ruling against Malta's popular CBI program. They appeared to call out golden visas at their core when compelling Malta to end theirs.  The ECJ accused the CBI program of essentially commercializing nationality (and by extension European Union citizenship). They called it "transactional," and lacked a "genuine link" to the country. In response, Malta has been tackling ideas of ways someone can formally prove themselves worthy of citizenship, without being accused of just performing a transaction.  How does one show a genuine link to a country they've fallen in love with, but were not born in? In what way does someone audition to be a citizen? And what kind of citizen does a nation need? Malta has been fast-tracking their Citizenship by Merit program with answers to these questions. Dr. James Muscat Azzopardi sits down with Mona and Rebecca to discuss what one will now have to do to become Maltese.

Crypto Week in Washington is heating up and so is the market! On today's episode I, RA George, break down everything you need to know:✅ U.S. House Voting – Crypto Bills: 3 key acts in play — GENIUS Act (stablecoin rules), CLARITY Act (defining SEC vs. CFTC), and the Anti‑CBDC Act to stop a Federal Reserve surveillance coin. The drama? 210 Democrats voted NO on Anti‑CBDC while only three — Mary Peltola, Marie Perez, and Jared Golden — backed it. After a messy Tuesday vote, Trump pressure flipped GOP votes on Wednesday and now the GENIUS Act is heading for a full vote with the others to follow.

The European Court of Human Rights has delivered a historic ruling that finds Russia is responsible for the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 in 2014. The court's judgement is in response to four cases brought by Ukraine and the Netherlands against Russia since the start of the conflict in 2014.

Morse code transcription: vvv vvv Caster Semenya South African double Olympic champion wins partial victory at European Court of Human Rights in her long legal battle over athletics sex eligibility rules. Sycamore Gap tree trunk installed at The Sill Package holidays to Spain, Cyprus and Turkey soar in price I cant drink the water life next to a US data centre Four arrested in connection with M and S and Co op cyber attacks How was wanted man Roy Barclay free to kill Anita Rose UK faces rising and unpredictable threat by Iran, report warns Migrant deal will be seen as failure if numbers dont fall Children queuing for supplements killed in Israeli strike in Gaza, hospital says Ban some foreigners from sickness benefits, Badenoch urges

The European Court of Human Rights has delivered a historic ruling that finds Russia is responsible for the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 in 2014. The court's judgement is in response to four cases brought by Ukraine and the Netherlands against Russia since the start of the conflict in 2014. The ruling is largely symbolic, but comes as Russia ramps up attacks on Ukraine, launching a record 728 drones into the country in a single night. - Європейський суд з прав людини виніс історичне рішення, в якому визнав Росію відповідальною за збиття літака малайзійської авіакомпанії MH17 у 2014 році. Рішення суду є відповіддю на чотири позови, подані Україною та Нідерландами проти Росії з початку конфлікту в 2014 році. Рішення має переважно символічний характер, але було ухвалено на тлі ескалації атак Росії на Україну, яка за одну ніч запустила в бік країни рекордну кількість безпілотників – 728.

Morse code transcription: vvv vvv Caster Semenya South African double Olympic champion wins partial victory at European Court of Human Rights in her long legal battle over athletics sex eligibility rules. Package holidays to Spain, Cyprus and Turkey soar in price Sycamore Gap tree trunk installed at The Sill UK faces rising and unpredictable threat by Iran, report warns How was wanted man Roy Barclay free to kill Anita Rose Ban some foreigners from sickness benefits, Badenoch urges Four arrested in connection with M and S and Co op cyber attacks I cant drink the water life next to a US data centre Migrant deal will be seen as failure if numbers dont fall Children queuing for supplements killed in Israeli strike in Gaza, hospital says

Morse code transcription: vvv vvv UK faces rising and unpredictable threat by Iran, report warns Sycamore Gap tree trunk installed at The Sill Migrant deal will be seen as failure if numbers dont fall Caster Semenya South African double Olympic champion wins partial victory at European Court of Human Rights in her long legal battle over athletics sex eligibility rules. Ban some foreigners from sickness benefits, Badenoch urges How was wanted man Roy Barclay free to kill Anita Rose Children queuing for supplements killed in Israeli strike in Gaza, hospital says Four arrested in connection with M and S and Co op cyber attacks Package holidays to Spain, Cyprus and Turkey soar in price I cant drink the water life next to a US data centre

JonGaunt #UKImmigrationCrisis #MigrantCrisisUK #Starmer #Macron #NigelFarage Keir Starmer has signed a surrender deal with France and President Macron.  This "one in, one out" migrant deal will do nothing to stop illegal crossings of the Channel by small boats. The UK is in a border crisis.  We don't need weak deals—we need to declare a national emergency, close our borders, and take serious action. As Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, demands—put the troops on the beaches of Dover, deploy the Navy in the Channel, and stop the migrant taxi service! We need tough deterrents like Rwanda deportations.  End the UK's image as a “migrant El Dorado” by closing the migrant hotels, speeding up deportations, and leaving the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) immediately.  It's time to act like a sovereign nation again. Do you agree with Jon Gaunt? Leave your comments below!  #JonGaunt #MigrantCrisisUK #Starmer #Macron #NigelFarage #ReformUK #UKPolitics #NationalEmergency #SmallBoats #ImmigrationUK #UKBorderControl #France #EU #StopTheBoats #LeaveECHR #RwandaPlan #UKImmigrationCrisis  Farage, Reform UK, Starmer, Macron, EU, France, Jon Gaunt, UK immigration crisis, migrant crisis UK, illegal immigration UK, Channel migrant crossings, small boats UK, Keir Starmer immigration, Macron UK visit, UK politics 2025, Nigel Farage, UK national emergency, stop the boats UK, Labour immigration policy, UK border control, UK migrant deal, Brexit betrayal, political betrayal UK, migrant invasion UK, emergency powers UK, UK migrant news,  #JonGaunt #MigrantCrisisUK #Starmer #Macron #NigelFarage #ReformUK #UKPolitics #NationalEmergency #SmallBoats #ImmigrationUK #UKBorderControl #France #EU #StopTheBoats #LeaveECHR #RwandaPlan #UKImmigrationCrisis Farage, Reform UK, Starmer, Macron, EU, France, Jon Gaunt, UK immigration crisis, migrant crisis UK, illegal immigration UK, Channel migrant crossings, small boats UK, Keir Starmer immigration, Macron UK visit, UK politics 2025, Nigel Farage, UK national emergency, stop the boats UK, Labour immigration policy, UK border control, UK migrant deal, Brexit betrayal, political betrayal UK, migrant invasion UK, emergency powers UK, UK migrant news,

WOKE European court allows Caster Semanya to race against women DESPIT admitting to having TESTICLES

Australia correspondent Nick Grimm spoke to Lisa Owen about the reaction to the news that the European Court of Human Rights has found Russia responsible for shooting down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over Ukraine. 38 Australians and two New Zealanders were among those who died eleven years ago.

The European Court of Human Rights has delivered a historic ruling that finds Russia is responsible for the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 in 2014. The court's judgement is in response to four cases brought by Ukraine and the Netherlands against Russia since the start of the conflict in 2014. The ruling is largely symbolic, but comes as Russia ramps up attacks on Ukraine, launching a record 728 drones into the country in a single night.

Today, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered its highly anticipated judgement in the case of Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia–a watershed moment in international human rights law. In this episode, Just Security Executive Editor and professor at American University Washington College of Law Rebecca Hamilton, and Just Security editorial board member and professor of International Law at the Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy Tom Dannenbaum join Just Security co-editor-in-chief Ryan Goodman to break down the Court's reasoning, the legal standards applied, and the potential ramifications for the ongoing conflict and the future of international justice. Show Note: Tom Dannenbaum's “Legal Frameworks for Assessing the Use of Starvation in Ukraine” in Just SecurityOlga Butkevych, Rebecca Hamilton, and Gregory Shaffer's “International Law in the Face of Russia's Aggression in Ukraine: The View from Lviv” Ryan Goodman and Ambassador (ret) Keith Harper's “Toward a Better Accounting of the Human Toll in Putin's War of Aggression” in Just Security The Just Security Podcast: ICC Arrest Warrants for Russian Attacks on Ukraine's Power Grid with Kateryna Busol, Rebecca Hamilton, and Paras Shah Case of Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia Judgement (July 9, 2025) 

How can we turn great ideas into lasting social impact? In this episode of the OECD Podcast, Shayne MacLachlan speaks with Jeroen Jutte, Head of the European Social Fund Coordination Unit at the European Commission. They explore how the EU is using its flagship funding instrument to support and scale social innovation—from pilot projects in disadvantaged communities to multi-country initiatives reaching millions. With funding of over €2 billion dedicated to social innovation, the ESF+ offers a powerful model for using public investment to solve social challenges. Tune in to learn how Europe is taking ideas from the ground and turning them into lasting change. To learn more on ESF+: https://european-social-fund-plus.ec.europa.eu/en https://european-social-fund-plus.ec.europa.eu/en/social-innovation Discover the Local Development Forum: https://www.oecd.org/en/networks/oecd-local-development-forum.html Read the report Starting, Scaling and Sustaining Social Innovation: Evidence and Impact of the European Social Fund: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/starting-scaling-and-sustaining-social-innovation_ec1dfb67-en.html Host: Shayne MacLachlan, Public Affairs and Communications Manager at the OECD Centre for Entrepreneurship, SMEs, Regions and Cities Guest: Jeroen Jutte leads the European Social Fund Plus coordination unit in the Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion DG of the European Commission. He has also led units dealing with Romania/Bulgaria, the European Semester (EU economic governance), and one dealing with budget discharge as well as relations with the European Court of Auditors. Mr. Jutte is a macro economist by training. To learn more about the OECD, our global reach, and how to join us, go to www.oecd.org/en/about.html To keep up with latest at the OECD, visit www.oecd.org/ Get the latest OECD content delivered directly to your inbox! Subscribe to our newsletters: www.oecd.org/en/about/newsletters.html

On another exciting* episode of What the Trans?! your hosts Ashleigh and Flint take you through all the details of: Pond Hoppin' talks about the Skrmetti case before the US Supreme Court. Spoiler alert: Didn't go well.  Good news for trans rights from the European Court of Human Rights, which bodes well for... no particular reason... More findings from TACC about the anti-trans "institutional capture" of the EHRC. One day, we'll get to do a whole-ass episode without talking about the EHRC. But not this time.  The inside story from the mass lobby event at the UK Parliament on June 25th, from participants and MP's brought to you by our woman on the spot: Alyx!  Zines! What are they, what's the history of them, why they're awesome and why you should make and enjoy them. *listener's definition of "exciting" may differ from the podcast team's definition.  References: https://whatthetrans.com/ep134  

John joins Paul Coleman, John Steenhof and Kristen Waggoner for a powerful discussion on the state of religious freedom in the West. Together, they explore the rise of hate speech laws, the weaponisation of anti-discrimination regimes, the erosion of conscience rights, and the emergence of a new secular orthodoxy that punishes dissent. Drawing on major legal cases across Europe, the US, and Australia, the panel reveals how fundamental freedoms are being redefined — and what must be done to reclaim them.Paul Coleman is a British lawyer and Executive Director of ADF International, a legal advocacy organisation based in Vienna. He specialises in international human rights and European law, and has worked on more than 20 cases before the European Court of Human Rights. Coleman has also authored submissions to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the International Criminal Court, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the UN Human Rights Committee, and various national courts. Kristen Waggoner is CEO, President, and General Counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom, the world's largest legal organisation defending religious liberty and free speech. She has argued several landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases, including Masterpiece Cakeshop and 303 Creative, securing major victories for freedom of expression. Waggoner also oversees ADF's international work, advancing human rights and defending the rule of law around the world. John Steenhof is the Principal Lawyer at the Human Rights Law Alliance, a legal firm dedicated to defending religious freedom and free speech in Australia. With a background in commercial law and non-profit leadership, he now focuses on protecting the rights of individuals to live out their faith without legal penalty.

In the aftermath of the Elon Musk chainsaw gutting the United States Agency for International Development, LGBTQ+ people around the world were robbed of more than a hundred programs geared to promote their health, safety and human rights. UCLA Law School's Williams Institute senior fellow and director of international programs Ari Shaw worries that the days of U.S. leadership on global queer rights are over (interviewed by David Hunt). And in NewsWrap: the Czech Republic's sterilization pre-requisite for a transgender or nonbinary person seeking to change their legal gender is condemned by the European Court of Human Rights, researchers find young bisexual women leading the way in the surging numbers of Australians over the age of 15 who openly identify as “L-G-B-plus,” World Pride 2025 climaxes with a joyous parade and a defiant International March on Washington for Freedom, Tel Aviv's LGBTQ Pride is canceled in expectation of retaliation for Israel's airstrikes against Iran, 52 U.S. Congressional Democrats demand proof of life for renditioned gay Venezuelan make-up artist Andry José Hernández Romero, U.S. Air Force veteran Gina Ortiz Jones becomes the first out LGBTQ candidate to be elected Mayor of San Antonio, and more international LGBTQ+ news reported this week by Michael Taylor Gray and Sarah Montague (produced by Brian DeShazor). All this on the June 16, 2025 edition of This Way Out! Join our family of listener-donors today at http://thiswayout.org/donate/

In today's episode, we cover the Trump's meeting with Al-Sharaa, European Court of Justice's ruling on the EU Commission, Hungary's 'foreign agents' bill, Cyril Ramaphosa's response to Afrikaners being welcomed by Trump in the US as ‘refugees'.Watch TLDR's latest videos here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgR2nxrfKVIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-X1xeNGN-w&t=1shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tlyMhTVhh4 TLDR's Daily Briefing is a roundup of the day's most important news stories from around the world. But we don't just tell you what's happening, we explain it: making complex topics simple to understand. Listen to the Daily Briefing for your global news bulletin every weekday.Pre-order the next edition of Too Long, TLDR's print magazine, here: https://toolong.news/dailyProduced and edited by Scarlett WatchornHosted byWritten by Rory Taylor and Nadja LovadinovMusic by Epidemic Sound: http://epidemicsound.com/creator//////////////////////////////Sources:✍️ Trump Meets Al-Sharaahttps://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trump-meet-syrian-president-saudi-before-heading-qatar-2025-05-14/https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-ahmed-al-sharaa-mohammid-bil-salman-syria-israel-us-riyadh/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/14/trump-meets-syria-president-after-lifting-us-sanctions ✍️ EU Commission Loses All Counts in Pfizergate Casehttps://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/05/14/eu-commission-loses-on-all-counts-in-pfizergate-legal-case?fromBreakingNews=1 ✍️ Orban Introduces ‘Foreign Agents' Billhttps://www.politico.eu/article/viktor-orban-fidesz-party-hungary-russia-democracy-transparency-public-life-civil-society/ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/hungary-viktor-orban-ngos-budapest-fidesz-b2750741.html ✍️ Ramaphosa Denounces South African Refugeeshttps://www.euronews.com/2025/05/14/south-africas-president-ramaphosa-says-afrikaners-resettling-in-us-are-cowards ✍️ China Criticises US-UK Trade Dealhttps://www.ft.com/content/52f7be1c-e708-4b01-b486-7f189a52c842 See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This week, John and Elliot discuss remarks for the former head of CISA and an open letter from JP Morgan Chase's CISO about cybersecurity, allegations from the European Public Prosecutor's Office about corruption in the European Court of Auditors, a GAO report about the need of Inspectors General for beneficial information to detect fraud in federal programs, reports of law enforcement opposition to the rollback of the CTA, and other items impacting the financial crime prevention community.

Today we present Bryan Safi’s Series of Unfortunate Events as he attempts to fix his broken MacBook at the Apple Genius Bar, deals with a car breakdown, and realizes multiple financial mistakes from the last few years. We also share some straight culture with a B-side Neil Young song that should never existed. Erin tells us about a woman who took her divorce case to the European Court of Human Rights because French courts held her responsible for “breach of martial duties and obligations”. Bryan is furious with the cowards at Target for caving to conservatives and ending their DEI programs and goals, and praises companies like Costco for pushing forward. For this week's bonus This New Thing We’re Doing! visit www.patreon.com/attitudesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.