Antje Kunst is a specialist EU and international law practitioner, with a focus on EU fundamental rights, international human rights law, and children’s rights.
In the area of EU Law her expertise includes the law which applies to individuals employed by EU agencies and missions and international organisations (EU and International Administrative Law). She regularly represents individuals before the EU courts, before the EU General Court in first instance and on appeal before the Court of Justice, in their disputes with the EU challenging breaches of their rights, including their fundamental rights under the EU Charter.
Through her cases the EU courts provided clarifications on difficult procedural questions, including its jurisdiction, the scope of its judicial review and an individual’s right to an effective judicial protection.
Antje has also represented clients before international courts and tribunals and provided advice on proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and on UN individual complaints procedures under the UN human rights treaties (e.g., the UNCRPD and the UNCRC).
She advises and writes, e.g., at EU law analysis, on the case law of the EU courts including related to individuals’ fundamental rights challenges within the EU Common Foreign Security Policy EU’s CFSP She also provides analysis on the increasing case law of international and regional courts (e.g. the ECtHR) and bodies in climate change cases. She is particularly interested in effective judicial protection for children and young people who suffer wrongfully harm because of the adverse consequences of climate change in breach of EU and international law.
Before Antje started practising with UK based barristers’ chambers, now Garden Court North Chambers and prior to this Bretton Woods Law Chambers and its successor Pavocat Chambers Antje worked for 11 years as a senior legal adviser with the United Nations. She advised the UN on international public law, international human rights and rule of law matters in the Middle East and in Kosovo. Prior to this she worked with law firms in South Africa and India.
Next to her fee-earning practice Antje is active in children’s rights, committed to use and also push the boundaries of the law in the interests of the most vulnerable children. She is an Advisor to iProbono’s program in South Asia to provide supervision and strategic support to further its work in the region, in particular on children’s rights.
She is admitted to the Bar of England and Wales and as a Rechtsanwältin to the Bar of Berlin.
Antje has expertise in various areas of EU law, in particular EU Procedural Law, EU Institutional Law, EU External Relations Law with a focus on fundamental rights under the EU Charter, and actions before the EU Courts, including appeal proceedings. She is regularly instructed to bring direct actions for annulment and compensation on the basis of treaty provisions, actions under an arbitration clause in contracts, interlocutory injunctions (interim measures) before the EU courts, and also defending her clients against third party interventions by the Council of the EU.
Some of Antje’s cases have become landmark cases involving the widening of the European Court of Justice’s acceptance of jurisdiction in the area of the EU’s CFSP (SatCen v KF, C-14/19) and clarification of the scope of the ECJ’s judicial review with respect to decisions taken by EU missions against staff in an administrative context, JF v EUCAP Somalia (T-194/20). One case also concerned whether the rules to access an internal employment board without the possibility of appeal are compliant with the EU treaties and the right to effective judicial protection (KF v SatCen, T-286/15).
Before the Court of Justice, Antje appeared in Case C-730/18 P, SC v Eulex Kosovo and C-14/19, SatCen v KF which became cases of wider importance; the ECJ providing clarifications on the jurisdiction of the Court in CFSP matters and the scope of judicial review for staff serving in EU international missions across the world. In Case C-785/22 P, Eulex Kosovo v SC the Court also provided clarifications on whether it is permissible to appeal a default judgment of the General Court to the Court of Justice, and simultaneously asking the General Court under the specific remedy to set aside its own default judgment.
Before the EU General Court, Antje appeared in proceedings in which the General Court accepted its jurisdiction to judicially review disputes between staff and agencies within the CSDP (KF v SatCen, T-286/15).
She brought proceedings for her clients in which she asked the General Court to clarify its case law, the appropriate procedural route (Art. 263 TFEU annulment actions v Art. 272 TFEU arbitration clause invalidity actions) providing legal certainty and effective judicial protection; JF v EUCAP Somalia (T-194/20), SC v Eulex Kosovo P (C-730/18-P), SC v Eulex Kosovo (T-242/17 RENV).
On behalf of her clients, she requested the Court to widen its scope of judicial review which it accepted in JF v EUCAP Somalia examining the pleas alleging infringements of fundamental rights and general principles of EU law in the context of a contract staff dispute. The JF v EUCAP Somalia case is an important development of the General Court’s case law guaranteeing that the judge will examine all questions of fact and law relevant to the resolution of the contractual dispute, thereby strengthening the principle of effective judicial protection guaranteed by Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The cases concerned complex disciplinary matters, investigations, discrimination claims (e.g., on account of age or nationality) and harassment claims in the workplace of all kinds; whistleblowing and employee victimisation; non-observance of recruitment and selection procedures; breaches of procedural rights, e.g., access to the evidence, right to be heard; unfair or wrongful dismissal; redundancy; breach of contract claims; failure to extend fixed-term contracts.
Antje is an acknowledged expert on International Human Rights Law and has given specialist legal advice on applications to UN treaty bodies, internationals courts and tribunals and amicus curiae. She has regularly advised on how to advance children’s rights through strategic litigation in the courts, including in the European Court of Human Rights and UN treaty-based individual complaint mechanisms; with children at the centre of the complaint.
Her work has covered important rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), ICCPR, ICESCR (e.g., non-discrimination cases), the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Examples include the right to life, and the inherent obligation to conduct an effective investigation (Art. 2 ECHR), the right to a fair trial and to an effective remedy (Arts. 6 and 13 ECHR), the right to inclusive education (Article 14 ECHR, Article 2 of Protocol 1 and the Art. 24 CRPD) and the right to live independently and be included in the community, for children the right to grow up in a family (Article 19 CRPD).
Antje has conducted research, authored publications, and provided guidance on international human rights rulings from international courts and tribunals, in particular from the ECtHR, including related to climate change.
Climate change litigation before the EU courts and international tribunals and courts faces several hurdles. These challenges relate to jurisdiction, standing, i.e. proving that the plaintiff has a legal interest in bringing the claim, justiciability, exhaustion of domestic remedies, causation, proof of individual harm. Antje has a particular interest in writing and advising on those challenges.
In her pro bono practice, Antje is committed to use and also push the boundaries of the law in the interests of the most vulnerable children, in particular disabled and institutionalised children. Her empathy for vulnerable children has been informed by her own family’s long legal battle with public authorities denying the right to education for a disabled child. She takes a strong interest in access to effective remedies for persons in situations of vulnerability, e.g., children.
She is a member of the Law Asia and is a regular speaker at its annual conferences inter alia on human rights.
Antje is an established expert in International Organisations Law, international administrative law and the institutional law of International Organisations (IOs) including their privileges and immunities; and in challenging decisions against individuals serving in IOs.
IOs benefit from privileges and immunities, which generally protect them from being brought before national courts. Many IOs establish internal justice systems to resolve disputes and ensure accountability. As entities formed through multilateral treaties between sovereign states, IOs are governed by public international law. Legal matters involving IOs necessitate specialized legal expertise, which Antje possesses. Through her work with the United Nations for almost a decade she has a deep understanding of the internal functioning of IOs.
In this area of International Organisations Law, Antje was instructed by various employees and staff associations of international organisations, i.e. the United Nations, Pan-American Health Organisation (PAHO), UNICEF, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation (OSCE), International Maritime Organisation (IMO), International Seabed Authority (ISA), European Patent Office (EPO), International Development Law Organisation (IDLO). She also advised international/ regional organisations such as Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO) and the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites. She brought cases before the ILO Administrative Tribunal, the UN Dispute Tribunal and the UN Appeals Tribunal.
Case C-785/22 P Eulex Kosovo v SC, ECLI:EU:C:2024:52.
Court of Justice: EU mission against contracted staff. Simultaneous proceedings against a judgment by default obtained by SC before both first instance court and court of appeal is not permitted.
Case C-14/19 P, SatCen v. KF, ECLI:EU:C:2020:492.
Court of Justice: EU Agency against contracted staff. Effective judicial protection (Art. 47 EU Charter) – Principle of equal treatment.
Case C-780/18 P SC v Eulex Kosovo, ECLI:EU:C:2020.
Court of Justice: Contracted staff against EU mission. Correct Procedural Route – Measure separable from the contract.
Case T-194/20, JF v EUCAP Somalia,. Chamber in Extended Composition, ECLI:EU:T:2022:454.
EU General Court: Contracted Staff against EU mission. Rights to equal treatment in obtaining judicial review – Fundamental rights in contractual disputes – Discrimination on account of nationality (Art. 21.2 EU Charter) – EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement.
Case T-242/17 RENV, SC v Eulex, ECLI:EU:T:2022:637.
EU General Court: Contracted Staff against EU mission. Default procedure – Rights to equal treatment in obtaining judicial review – Selection procedures – Lack of impartiality
Case T-286/15, KF v. SatCen (No. 1), Chamber in Extended composition, ECLI:EU:T:2018:718.
EU General Court: EU contracted staff against EU Agency. Effective judicial protection (Art. 47 EU Charter) – Breach of the rights of defence – Denial to access of the evidence.
Bringing a claim of compensation for harm suffered as a result of alleged psychological harassment by the Head of Mission and his Deputy before the EU Courts: Montanari v Eucap Sahel Niger (Case T-371/22)
Prof. Steve Peers, EU Law Analysis
https://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2024/07/bringing-claim-of-compensation-for-harm.html
30 July 2024
Only one bite at the cherry: Appealing a default judgment of the General Court to the Court of Justice, and simultaneously asking the General Court under the specific remedy to set aside its own default judgment is not permitted: Eulex Kosovo v SC (Case C-785/22 P)
Prof. Steve Peers, EU Law Analysis
https://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2024/06/only-one-bite-at-cherry-appealing.html
27 June 2024
The Council must swiftly implement a legal framework akin to the CEOS for staff employed in CSDP missions: Reflections on the Jenkinson litigation (Case C-46/22 P)
Prof. Steve Peers, EU Law Analysis
https://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-council-must-swiftly-implement.html
30 January 2024
Judicial control over alleged breaches of fundamental rights in the implementation of Eulex Kosovo and Advocate General’s Ćapeta’s Opinion in Joined Cases C-29/22 P and C-44/22 P,
Prof. Steve Peers, EU Law Analysis,
https://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2023/11/judicial-control-over-alleged-breaches.html?m=1
30 Nov 2023
The son of a leading businessperson under the Russian sanctions framework before the CJEU: Ongoing relevance of the Tay-Za case law
Prof. Steve Peers, EU Law Analysis
https://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2023/12/the-son-of-leading-businessperson-under.html
22 December 2022
Our mailing list is dedicated to professionals with an interest in our work.
