Abstract This article examines whether EU environmental law recognises a principle of non-regression and analyses the relationship between non-regression and contemporary deregulation initiatives. It argues that, despite growing support for the principle in international and comparative environmental law, EU primary and secondary law, as well as the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, do not recognise a general prohibition preventing the EU legislator from reducing previously established levels of environmental protection. The article distinguishes between non-regression as a normative concept and deregulation as a legislative practice, illustrating through numerous examples that the EU has repeatedly adopted measures lowering or modifying environmental protection standards. It further assesses recent legislative developments following the European Green Deal, with particular attention to agricultural, chemicals and sustainability legislation. The analysis concludes that while recent policy has introduced selective deregulatory measures—especially in the agricultural sector—these developments do not reflect the abandonment of an established legal principle of non-regression, because such a principle has not formed part of the EU legal order.
The ESPR enables the regulation of both chemicals as a product group and the presence of substances of concern in products. An examination of several key elements of the ESPR demonstrates that regulating chemicals and substances of concern from a sustainable product perspective raises questions regarding the delineation of scope and interaction between the ESPR and EU chemicals legislation. By analyzing these questions, this article identifies a need for greater clarity, coordination and alignment at the interface between the ESPR and EU chemicals legislation, which may be placed within a broader context of the Safe and Sustainable by Design approach and the EU's ambition of creating a coherent legal framework regulating the life cycle of chemicals, materials and products.
The waste hierarchy constitutes a core principle of EU waste policy. Enshrined in Article 4 of the Waste Framework Directive (WFD), it prioritises prevention over preparation for re-use, recycling, recovery and disposal, and functions as a normative framework for advancing circularity. Since the adoption of the 2015 Circular Economy Package, the traditional 4R framework has been conceptually expanded through the introduction of numerous additional "R-concepts", often articulated within a 10R circular hierarchy. This paper examines how such R-concepts are incorporated within three key regulatory instruments: the Waste Framework Directive, the Ecodesign Regulation, and the Construction Products Regulation. Many of these concepts are not explicitly embedded in the waste hierarchy. The analysis assesses whether their use privileges higher-order circular strategies, such as prevention and reuse, or continues to emphasise recycling. The paper evaluates the normative alignment of EU waste and product law with circularity and implications for legal certainty.
Recent EU legislative developments on product design and consumer protection - most notably Regulation (EU) 2024/871 on ecodesign for sustainable products and Directive (EU) 2024/1799 on common rules promoting the repair of goods- seek to embed circularity obligations and to equip consumers with new repair-related rights. This article examines whether these measures amount to a genuine "right to repair" or remain a set of fragmented tools centred on information and transparency. By analysing manufacturers' obligations, the role of product design and the limits of enforceability, it questions both the effectiveness and the universality of this emerging legal concept within the EU's circular-economy agenda.
Abstract The purpose of this study is to determine whether Articles 17–19 of the 2016 Act can be effectively incorporated into the corporate instruments of foreign subsidiaries of Polish state-controlled enterprises and how national corporate law constraints affect such incorporation. Using a systematic approach that combines legal analysis, comparative law, and synthesis, the study evaluates how Polish regulations align with different governance models, particularly dualistic systems in Germany and France versus monistic frameworks elsewhere. The findings show that while the Act adapts well to dualistic structures, its implementation in monistic models is hindered by the absence of supervisory bodies or restrictive national laws. At the same time, EU environmental initiatives require state-owned enterprises to integrate climate, spatial planning, and emission reduction goals into governance practices. The study concludes that harmonization with EU norms and innovative supervisory mechanisms are essential for effective governance and sustainable competitiveness.
Abstract Amid the transition from the fossil-fuel based energy system to alternative energy sources, batteries play a key role enabling electricity-based transport and reliance on renewable energy. However, the battery supply chain faces many challenges, not least the ones related to environmental and societal concerns. This article analyses the regulatory framework governing mandatory environmental due diligence of batteries in the EU. The article further examines how due diligence can contribute to creating an environmentally sound battery supply chain. The regulatory instruments examined are the Batteries Regulation and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. The article compares these instruments and analyses their connection with one another. Based on the analysis, the article argues that environmental due diligence spanning along the supply chain advances the legal responsibilities private companies have towards the environment. This also indicates a shift of the boundaries between private and public law in this context.
The article explains how the circular economy creates a new link between producer and consumer and asks whether this development has also an impact on the consumer's right to make direct claims against the producer with whom the consumer has no contract. It identifies the classical direct claim, accepted in some legal systems, as a claim that is either based on the 'accessory theory' or on fairness considerations. In both cases, the direct claim is limited by the terms of the contract between the producer and the first seller. It contrasts this classical direct claim with the new type of direct claim, the eco direct claim, that is introduced in the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation and the Right to Repair Directive, the objectives of which are consumer protection and stimulating private enforcement. On this basis, the article hypothesizes that direct claims could be facing a new era.
Public procurement can function as a powerful governance tool for embedding circular economy principles in the construction sector and reducing its environmental impacts. Digital Product Passports (DPPs) are increasingly promoted as a key mechanism to support this transition, as they provide product-specific data on material composition, environmental performance, repairability and end-of-life pathways, enabling procurement decisions based on lifecycle considerations rather than price alone. The EU is leading this development by mandating DPPs for construction products under the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation and the revised Construction Products Regulation, requiring public authorities to engage with DPP data in tendering and contract award processes. This paper argues that DPPs are not neutral technical tools but regulatory instruments that redistribute responsibilities across construction supply chains and reconfigure data governance and accountability. Drawing on comparative examples, it identifies key legal, technical and institutional challenges and proposes recommendations to ensure DPPs support circular construction outcomes.
Chapter VI of the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) introduces the concept of the destruction of unsold consumer products. The Regulation defines destruction to include recycling, other recovery operations and disposal, while excluding preparation for reuse, such as refurbishment or remanufacturing. Although this distinction appears clear, it is difficult to apply because the boundaries between waste management operations are often blurred and key concepts in EU Waste Law remain vague. Effective application of the destruction concept requires a precise understanding of the waste categories on which it relies, as each carries distinct legal consequences. This clarity is essential not only for implementing the ESPR, but also for applying Directive (EU) 2024/1799 on the promotion of repair, which relies on ESPR definitions. This paper analyses the scope of the destruction concept, argues for its systematic integration into EU Waste Law, and examines its implications for legal coherence and certainty.
The goal of this paper is to examine how the principle of proportionality, when applied alongside EU primary law environmental principles, supports ambitious environmental measures such as those introduced by the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR). We start by highlighting the significant restrictions the transition to the circular economy imposes on the fundamental rights to property and freedom to conduct a business. The second section analyses CJEU case law on proportionality in environmental matters and explores the integration of environmental principles into proportionality assessments. The third section applies this analysis to the ESPR, arguing that ecodesign requirements represent a natural evolution of EU environmental policy in light of the essentially preventative nature of the polluter-pays principle. We conclude that ecodesign requirements are grounded in EU primary law and that the proportionality test serves not only to limit excessive regulation but also to affirm the legitimacy of ambitious environmental action.
The new EU environmental crime directive must be implemented within Member States by May 2026, and has many strengths compared to the Directive it replaced. But problem areas are identified. The definitions of crimes, the provisions on sentencing options, sentencing practice, prosecutorial discretion and the need for transparent detailed data on environmental prosecutions all need addressing if the Directive is to secure its potential. But by focusing so much on the criminal law, the Directive fails to acknowledge that a sophisticated and effective sanctioning system integrates criminal, administrative and civil responses, even when the responsibility of different bodies within a Member State.
Besides economic, social, and human consequences, the war in Ukraine has also caused significant ecological damage. During the first 12 months of the war, CO2 emissions amounted to 120 million tons, equivalent to the total annual emissions of Belgium. Thousands of explosions and drones are damaging habitats. 30% of the land area has been damaged by bombing, oil spills, or military maneuvers. The blowing up of part of the Kakhovka Dam destroyed river and riparian ecosystems. This caused significant desalination of the northwestern Black Sea. The flooded area covers over 600 square kilometers and is significantly contaminated with oil, chemicals, and wastewater. This meets the definition of ecocide with consequences for future generations, and the full assessment can only be made after the liberation of the occupied territories. The Supreme Court ruled in case No. 308/9708/19 of April 14, 2022 that Russia, as an aggressor, cannot invoke any state immunity. Armed aggression falls outside the scope of state immunity. Consequently, such claims for damages can be heard by the Ukrainian courts. Otherwise, there would be a violation of the right to effective access to a court (Article 6 ECHR).
In 2024, the Danish government, political parties, trade unions, farming, industry, and conservation groups agreed to reshape Denmark's countryside fundamentally. The agreement, the Green Tripartite Agreement (`GTA'), includes prima facie ambitious goals: converting i0% of Denmark's total area into `nature and forests, introducing the world's first CO2e levy on farming, significantly reducing nitrogen emissions, and deploying technological solutions to limit agricultural emissions. This article examines the GTA and its commitments. It argues that the Agreement is a paradigmatic shift for Denmark's countryside governance, realised in a politically difficult context. It concludes, however, that the GTA leaves many questions unanswered and falls short of delivering a truly transformative shift in agricultural practices and environmental regulation.
There is increasing evidence that small-scale nature has a significant role to play for achieving climate adaptation and mitigation, for safeguarding biodiversity and for fostering human wellbeing. The question arises, however, to what extent the law also recognizes that potential, rather than focussing primarily or exclusively on protecting ‘top’ (large-scale) nature. This article looks at the law that applies to the Flemish Region and offers a first and selective discussion of the most important avenues through which the law is increasingly supportive in mobilizing the contribution of small-scale nature and of the challenges that come with this. It also exposes a number of knowledge gaps, thus formulating suggestions for a research agenda. The article goes beyond mapping the contribution of nature protection law, but also considers planning law, and briefly looks at the potential of civil law and general administrative (subsidy) law. It ends with suggestions for future research.
Over 300 cities are inscribed on the World Heritage List. While each site has its unique challenges and opportunities, in each of them a balance must be achieved in protecting heritage values and meeting demands of modern life, including the demand for energy efficiency and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. This article uses Visby (Sweden) as a case study to examine how conservation laws implementing the World Heritage Convention in light of international commitments to mitigate climate change can influence the balance between cultural heritage preservation and energy measures in historic sites. International laws must be implemented by states. But these national laws must be applied locally, in each heritage site. It is therefore important to examine how regional and local decision makers, including individual property owners, navigate and understand their obligations stemming from international laws in order to understand the impact and challenges in meeting sustainability goals in heritage sites. We find that while Visby’s World Heritage status promotes a high level of cultural heritage protection, restrictive laws alone fall short in achieving sustainability. Supportive factors such as funding, planning tools, knowledge support and dissemination, and community engagement help bridge these gaps. We recommend further support for financial incentives, place-based technological solutions, and collaboration amongst experts and others to help officials and property owners make choices that are sustainable from both energy and heritage perspectives.
