Search

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2023 8(1), 349-352 | What Should Have Said | (Abstract) This preface to the new series What ... Should Have Said: Rewriting Landmark Judgments of the European Court of Justice introduces the project and its rationale. Legal scholars typically critically analyse court judgments so as to provide a ‘soft power based’ check on judicial reasoning and provide doctrinal and normative guidance for courts in future cases. Notwithstanding the merits of legal scholarship, especially scholarly critiques of case law invites the question of how these scholars concretely would have decided the respective cases. What ... Should Have Said provides a new way of ‘doing EU law’ by asking both junior and senior EU legal scholars to literally rewrite landmark judgments of the European Court of Justice.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2017 2(1), 403-410 | European Forum Insight of 21 May 2017 | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. - II. The White Paper. - III. The Free Trade Agreement. - IV. The customs agreement. - V. Conclusion. | (Abstract) The 29 March 2017 is now set to become the historical day Art. 50 TEU was triggered for the first time ever. Equally, unprecedented negotiations, in which the United Kingdom and the European Union will settle their divorce, will follow. With the aim of proving that the UK Government has the necessary negotiating strategy, it recently published a White Paper on its exit from and new partnership with the EU. Despite the promises, this Paper is far from providing certainty and clarity. However, it is also a step away from a previous superficial and simplistic approach to Brexit. In this Insight, I explain why the White Paper is riddled with contradictions and why, nonetheless, this confusing and vague exposition of what the UK will be seeking to achieve from its withdrawal is a welcome though disguised acknowledgment of the complexities that Brexit will entail.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2023 8(2), 665-687 | Article | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. – II. Regulating innovation in the digitalised age. – II.1. Impact of regulation on innovation. – II.2. Crypto-assets as innovation: a moving target. – III. The regulation of crypto-assets in the EU. – III.1. The MiCA framework, its objectives and challenges. – III.2. Activity-and risk-based approach to regulating crypto-assets. – IV. Future-proofing the EU regulation of crypto-assets. – IV.1. The challenge of future-proofing a regulatory intervention in innovative markets. – IV.2. Activity-based regulation of crypto-assets: future-proofing the regulatory perimeter. – IV.3. Risk-based approach to regulating markets in crypto-assets. - V. Conclusion. | (Abstract) The 2023 EU regulation of markets in crypto-assets (MiCA) is a timely and ambitious response to the regulatory challenges of a fast-developing and technology-intensive field. The new regulation expands the regulatory perimeter, thus enabling EU-wide supervision of crypto-asset service providers and issuers of the so-called “stablecoins”. As such, the MiCA is in line with the key objectives of the 2020 EU Digital Finance Strategy: it updates the existing EU regulatory framework to facilitate digital innovation while protecting European consumers. “Same activity, same risk, same rule” approach is at the core of the MiCA regime. The new regulatory intervention, however, is to be put to test by the incessant technological and business model innovation within the crypto industry. Is this new regulation future-proof? This paper identifies and explores the two main points of vulnerability that often undermine the future-proof nature and, ultimately, the effectiveness of regulatory interventions in innovative sectors. First, it analyses the structures that define the scope of the new framework, and their capacity to adjust to and incorporate innovation falling outside of the regulatory perimeter. Second, the paper explores the mechanisms that ensure the regulatory and supervisory framework under the MiCA remains relevant and able to address the changes in the amplitude and sources of risks. Against this background, the paper discusses two features indispensable for a future-proof regulation: the openness of the regulatory perimeter, and the regulatory capacity for risk anticipation.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2023 8(2), 803-808 | European Forum Highlight of 28 November 2023 | (Abstract) This paper seeks to address the question of the future of the Ukrainian territories that have recently been or are currently being occupied by Russia primarily through the prism of relevant rules of international humanitarian law. After briefly recalling the conditions for the beginning of a belligerent occupation, the focus will be on the modalities for its termination, which will be examined and discussed with reference to the case of Ukraine.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2024 9(1), 105-116 | European Forum Insight of 20 May 2024 | (Table of Contents) I. Introducing the impact of Artificial Intelligence. – II. The AI Act: the risk architecture. – III. Further AI policies: development incentives and state regulatory frameworks. – IV. Proposals for legislation and other measures in Italy. – V. The human-centric approach. | (Abstract) The development of new emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, has sparked a scientific debate on their risks and benefits. This debate necessitates legal and regulatory considerations, particularly regarding the balance between technological growth and the protection of human rights. This Insight analyses the legal framework established by the European Union in its initial regulatory measures. The Insight highlights the importance of considering the human-centric perspective and adopting a risk-based methodology in the Artificial Intelligence Act. It also mentions the AI regulatory measures proposed by Member States, with a particular focus on Italy.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2024 9(1), 87-103 | European Forum Insight of 10 May 2024 | (Table of Contents) I. A December revolution. - II. The competition law of sports competition regulations. - III. ISU: a restriction by object trough two turns. - IV. ISU as a platform case and paradigm shift. - V. Who is the ultimate arbiter? - VI. Through the ice? | (Abstract) This judgment provides the foundations for applying art. 101 TFEU to rules or sporting organisations related to competing organisations. At hand was a rule that banned athletes from competing in non-approved skating competitions. The Commission found this rule to be a restriction of competition by object, which was largely upheld by the General Court. This judgment largely confirms the Commis-sion’s assessment and sheds light on what sporting organisations can do within the bounds of compe-tition law. It is a highly relevant judgment not only for those interested in the interaction between sports regulation and competition law, but also for people with a more general focus on competition law as it contains several clarifications and innovations as regards the interpretation of art. 101 that have implications beyond sporting organisations and may also impact the application of art. 102. Final-ly, the Court sheds some light on the compatibility of arbitration with the EU legal order.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2024 9(1), 69-86 | European Forum Insight of 02 May 2024 | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. - II. Frontex under scrutiny: allegations, investigations, and the rule of law dilemma. - III. From Aleppo to the CJEU: WS et al. challenge Frontex in Court. - IV. The findings of the Court: no direct causal link. - V. Legal remedies and litigation avenues before the CJEU. - VI. In light of precedent: evolving perspectives on causation and joint liability. - VII. Consequences of WS for Frontex Accountability. - vii.1. Rapid reactions and resounding criticism. - vii.2. Unaddressed aspects: what the Court didn't say. - vii.3. Frontex Liability under the Competence Model. - VIII. Broader Consequences of WS for EU Law. - viii.1. The ecosystem of integrated administration. - viii.2. Is there space in EU law for joint liability?. - IX. Conclusion: shaping the EU joint liability landscape? | (Abstract) The Insight delves into the CJEU judgment of WS et al. v Frontex, the first action for damages against the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, Frontex, for human rights violations at the EU's external borders. Despite the prevalence of systemic violations and heightened attention to the agency's accountability, the Court, applying a stringent causality threshold, dismissed the claim, sidestepping crucial questions of positive obligations and responsibility attribution. The analysis critiques the judgment's shortcomings in causality assessment, emphasising its broader repercussions for EU law, particularly concerning liability frameworks and accountability dynamics within the new multi-actor reality of EU integrated administration. The Insight underscores the pressing need to reevaluate the existing competence model of determining liability in EU law to address its limitations and introduces the classification of these limitations as the binary of causality and the binary of jurisdiction. The CJEU’s reluctance to establish an effective framework for joint liability not only perpetuates contested accountability gaps but also risks establishing precarious areas devoid of accountability, thereby compromising the foundational principles of the Rule of Law in the European Union. The Insight concludes with a call to address these shortcomings, emphasising that rectification is not merely a matter of procedural refinement but a crucial step towards ensuring robust accountability mechanisms in EU law.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2024 9(1), 53-68 | European Forum Insight of 2 May 2024 | (Table of Contents) I. Le contexte des interventions devant la CIJ. – II. Les modalités d’intervention devant la CIJ. – II.2. L’intervention en interprétation de l’art. 62 du Statut de la CIJ. – II.2. L’intervention en interprétation de l’art. 63 du Statut de la CIJ. – III. Les principaux arguments des interventions. – III.1. La question centrale de la compétence de la Cour: art. IX de la Convention. – III.2. L’interprétation des arts I et VIII de la Convention. – III.3. L’interprétation des arts II et III de la Convention. – IV. Impact procédural des interventions multiples devant la CIJ. – IV.1. Le double objectif des déclarations d’intervention des États membres de l’Union européenne. – IV.2. Une crainte de retard rapidement rassurée. – IV.3. L’ordonnance du 5 juin 2023. – V. Conclusion. | (Abstract) In the context of the litigation relating to the Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v Russian Federation) before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the Member States of the European Union (EU) have in turn filed a declaration of intervention on the basis of art. 63 of the Statute of the ICJ. Scarcely deployed in practice, this procedure allows third parties’ States to the proceedings to declare the interpretation they adopt on the convention in dispute to which they are parties. In the present case, the States, on the one hand, interpret the convention in such a way as to ensure the jurisdiction of the Court and, on the other hand, that the use of armed force without the authorization of the Security Council is not a means of prevention or repression, even in the case of a potential genocide. In doing so, the intervening States openly show their support for Ukraine. Furthermore, the massive use of the declaration of intervention also tends to look like a instrumentalization of the law, directed towards Russia.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2024 9(1), 39-52 | European Forum Insight of 15 April 2024 | (Table of Contents) I. The complexity of the geopolitical matter. - i.1. EU gas policy before 2022. - i.2. The Russian retaliation after the invasion. - II. The measures adopted in response (and their opposers). - ii.1. The first steps: saving gas. - ii.2. Gently steering the market. - ii.3. Joint purchases of gas. - ii.4. Enforcing solidarity. - III. The most debated aspect: what limits to market intervention? - iii.1. Regulation 2022/2578: another round of the price cap debate. - iii.2. A balancing solution? - IV. The effectivity of the measures: the impact assessments and the comments. - iv.1. After the emergency: the situation after one year. - iv.2. The energy community (was) now: was the EU prepared? - iv.3. The legal issues. - iv.4. The return of geopolitics and the future of an open(?) strategic autonomy. | (Abstract) This Insight offers an overview of the EU's evolving energy policy in the face of the energy crisis which followed the Russian illegal invasion of Ukraine, highlighting the critical interplay between legal measures, market dynamics, and geopolitical strategy. In the first section, the Insight will examine the history of the EU policy on gas and its inherent risks, presenting the supply shock which occurred after the invasion February 2022. In the second section, the Insight details the legislative measures adopted under RepowerEU in the field of gas, describing the various approaches such as reducing consumption, ensuring storage, and fostering interstate solidarity, highlighting how the political debates between member states have contributed to shape the Regulations on the matter. In the third section, the Insight also explores the complex dynamics of market interventions, particularly the debated Market Correction Mechanism (MCM) and its implications for EU energy markets. In the final section, the Insight examines the impact of these measures, noting the mixed outcomes highlighted in the EU commissioned reports and presenting the criticism of other stakeholders, highlighting the legal challenges in implementing coordinated energy policies among Member States with diverse interests. Moreover, reflecting on the post-crisis landscape, the Insight advocates for a transition from emergency measures to strategic foresight in energy policy. It argues for the EU's need to balance national autonomy with collective energy security, suggesting a shift towards more integrated energy policies also in light of preserving the EU’s strategic autonomy in response to emerging geopolitical challenges.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2024 9(1), 21-38 | European Forum Insight of 15 April 2024 | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. - II. Context. - III. The draft regulation in detail. - III.1 Category 1 NGT plants. - III.2 Category 2 NGT plants. - III.3. Provisions for delegated and implementing acts as well as guidance material. - IV. Assessment of different scientific aspects in the regulation. - IV.1. Scientific reasoning of equivalence criteria as given in Annex I. - IV.2. Scientific reasoning of risk assessment criteria as given in Annex II. - V. Assessment of different legal aspects in the draft regulation. - V.1. Deliberate releases of cat 1 plants and committee procedure. - V.2 Precautionary principle. - V.3. Cartagena protocol. - v.4. Amendment of Annex I via delegated act. - VI. Ongoing discussion | (Abstract) This Insight explains in detail, yet easily understandable, the contents of the European Commission’s draft regulation on plants obtained by certain new genomic techniques and their food and feed. It critically comments on the underlying scientific considerations and discusses potential legal issues – the precautionary principle being one of them, though arguably not the most important one. Finally, the Insight summarizes the ongoing discussions and developments regarding the draft regulation. The Authors also hint at potential amendments, which might resolve some of the remaining problems.