The European Union’s legally binding objective of climate neutrality by 2050 represents its most ambitious response to the escalating global climate crisis and a central expression of its commitments under the 2015 Paris Agreement. This originates in the European Green Deal’s agenda, which placed climate and environmental challenges as this generation’s defining task. More recently, the European Commission has advanced an intermediate 2040 target of a 90% net reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to 1990 levels, in line with the Clean Industrial Deal agenda for a fully decarbonized economy. Public procurement emerges as a key instrument in the EU’s climate transition within this evolving framework. However, its potential remains constrained by legal, structural, and practical barriers that hinder the full integration of environmental objectives. This article explores these limitations to demonstrate that, in spite of the several solutions undertaken, a fully-fledged commitment demands taking the principle of environmental integration seriously, a principle which is long recognized but underutilized in EU environmental law as well as in the public procurement sector. This article argues that taking the principle of integration seriously is a necessary step toward aligning public procurement law with the EU’s broader climate commitments and anchors its argument on scrutinizing the procurement legislative framework and developing pathways to operationalize the Environmental Integration Principle (EIP). Ultimately, this analysis underscores the EIP’s potential as a catalyst for embedding climate objectives into procurement law and policy, thereby contributing to the transformative changes required to achieve EU climate neutrality.
The hydrogen and gas decarbonization package introduces a legal framework for hydrogen transmission. To enable a hydrogen market in Europe as a key building block on the way to a climate neutral economy, a cross-border pipeline infrastructure must be constructed, which demands harmonized regulation. This article analyses how far the new legal framework strikes a balance between flexibility, which is needed to ramp up a new infrastructure, legal predictability, which is needed to facilitate long-term investments and strategies, and harmonization, which is needed for cross-border energy infrastructure. The analysis is based on a general discussion of flexibility, predictability and harmonization in the context of hydrogen transmission and the examination of core rules in various areas of network regulation, operator duties, planning and more. It identifies major trends and mechanisms to enable flexibility or implement predictable harmonization. In particular, the transitional period until 2032, the special financing mechanisms for hydrogen transmission and the rules on repurposing existing natural gas pipelines are discussed. The analysis concludes that the new legal framework is based on a coherent approach, which seeks a balance between flexibility, harmonization and predictability. The timeframe and the connection to the natural gas regime limit flexibility.
The article tracks a change of approach taken by national courts within and across legal systems to assessing climate actions in tort. The polycentric nature of climate policy, which had proven fatal to plaintiffs’ earlier cases in common law jurisdictions, has rarely struck judges in continental Europe as a particularly effective defence. Nonetheless, to civil courts, too, the difficulties of linking individual harm to a specific greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter have until recently made the adverse effects of climate change appear conceptually inapt for redress by means of tortious liability. This seems to be changing. If last year’s judgment by the Higher Regional Court of Hamm in Lliuya v. RWE, explicitly admitting the possibility of a successful tortious claim, may have been seen as an isolated artefact (especially against the background of the Federal Court of Justice’s recent orders in BMW and Mercedes-Benz cases), the order by the Supreme Court of New Zealand in 2024 and that by the Cantonal Court of Zug in December 2025 to admit climate-related tort claims to trial suggest an emerging pattern. Its most ‘salient feature’, to use a term from Australian tort jurisprudence, is the courts’ willingness to adopt a variant of the material contribution or material increase in risk tests for establishing causation – which, however, does not guarantee plaintiffs success.
Natural gas markets are heavily shaped by their pricing mechanisms, and such mechanisms are one of the clear markers of a liberalized natural gas sector.The EU and its Member States have been continuously striving for the liberalization of natural gas pricing, all while keeping protective mechanisms for certain end-customers, and more recently so after the 2022 energy crisis. Directive 2024/1788 comes as the latest framework in regards to natural gas pricing, and reflects a strong willingness from the EU at achieving this balance, which can be mistakenly interpreted as a re-regulation of natural gas prices.As such, this article retraces the evolution of the pricing mechanisms among EU Member States before and after liberalization of their natural gas sectors via the Gas Directives. Incentives behind the progressive liberalization of natural gas pricing will also be exposed, all while delving into the subtle balance achieved by Directive 2024/1788 between competitive, dynamic market-based pricing and stable, protective tariffs.
This article examines the evolution of EU policies aimed at protecting vulnerable consumers within the electricity market. Since the liberalization of the electricity market in the 1990s, Member States are required to adopt adequate safeguards, including specific measures to prevent electricity disconnection. However, the regulatory framework among Member States is not homogeneous, raising challenges to the consistency and effectiveness of EU legislation. This challenge emerged in the context of the decarbonization process promoted by the European Commission through the Winter Package and the European Green Deal.After examining safeguards against electricity disconnection adopted during the liberalization process, the article turns to the energy transition, with an analysis of the Directive (EU) 2024/1171. Through a comparison of Italian and Irish systems, it highlights differing regulatory approaches among EU Countries, identifying common challenges as well as potential pathways for the electricity market in transition.
The European Commission with a Communication called ‘Maritime safety: at the heart of clean and modern shipping’ intended to amend the legal structure on maritime safety and sustainability with the review of all the relevant legislation. Significant amendments have been introduced in areas such as maritime safety, pollution prevention, digitalization and decarbonization and are analysed in this paper. Furthermore, the development of the European port strategy and organization is considered for its importance in the energy transition and its cooperation with the trans-European transport network since the ambition and the ultimate goal of the EU is to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to contribute on the development of sustainable transport infrastructures. Finally, the English national approach related to port structure and development of the Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) for the achievement of marine safety, efficiency of navigation, and protection of the marine environment within the broader European context is presented.
This paper develops and applies a governance-centred legal-administrative framework to evaluate Dutch green subsidy schemes, focusing on the established Incentive Scheme for Sustainable Energy Production and Climate Transition (SDE++) and the forthcoming two-way Contract for Difference (CfD). It also discusses how these financial tools are situated within the European Union (EU) legal framework. Moving beyond cost-effectiveness and political-economy analyses, it offers a novel framework that operationalizes good governance through four observable indicators – policy design, administrative procedure, oversight and review, and stakeholder engagement – linking classic normative principles such as transparency, participation, accountability, and effectiveness to concrete features of subsidy practice. The paper further conceptualizes subsidy governance as not merely procedural but inherently strategic: the design and implementation of subsidy schemes determine both their domestic legitimacy and the Netherlands’ contribution to Europe’s strategic autonomy in a fragmenting geopolitical order. Drawing on Dutch administrative law, delegated instruments, and implementation practice, the paper finds that while SDE++ has mobilized large-scale renewable investment, its cost-based design and complex procedures favour established actors. The forthcoming CfD promises price stability but risks similar barriers without clearer rules, proportionate access, open data, and independent review. The paper suggests how embedding good governance principles more systematically would enhance the fairness, effectiveness, and legitimacy of Dutch green subsidies while reinforcing their coherence with Europe’s broader ambition of achieving strategic autonomy and a just energy transition.
The European Commission published the Clean Industrial Deal in February 2025 with a view to bridge climate action and competitiveness under one overarching growth strategy. This article critically analyses the Clean Industrial Deal as a key component of the EU’s evolving industrial strategy, focusing on its implications for achieving broad sustainability goals. It draws on the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) to allow for a structured and theoretically supported analysis of how different aspects of the Deal may contribute to, or hinder, systemic change. In doing so, the article analyses whether the measures proposed in the Clean Industrial deal shift the regulatory balance in ways that compromise the EU’s environmental commitments put forward in the 2019 Green Deal, particularly in cases where speed and flexibility are prioritized over precaution and long-term ecological considerations. It finds that the Clean Industrial Deal has major potential to mainstream and integrate particularly climate change objectives into EU industrial, trade and competition policy. However, the jury is still out on how the Clean Industrial Deal fares in terms of other sustainability objectives such as biodiversity, pollution and resource sufficiency, but it nevertheless offers both opportunities and risks for sustainability.
The accelerating green and digital transitions have dramatically increased the European Union’s (EU’s) demand for critical raw materials (CRMs), exposing the vulnerabilities of its external supply chains. In response, the EU adopted the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA), a far-reaching regulation aimed at strengthening domestic capacities and reducing strategic dependencies. While much attention has been given to the CMRA’s industrial and geopolitical ambitions, this article examines a less explored but crucial question: can the EU – or its Member States – lawfully restrict the export of domestically produced CRMs to preserve internal supply? Addressing this issue requires navigating complex tensions between the EU’s internal market freedoms and the imperative of strategic autonomy. The article assesses the legal basis for export restrictions under EU law, particularly in crisis scenarios, and considers how new instruments such as the Internal Market Emergency and Resilience Act (IMERA) may reshape the legal framework. In this context, joint procurement, strategic stockpiling, and coordinated industrial policy emerge as essential tools – but must be carefully designed to comply with EU competition rules. While the CRMA represents a significant step toward greater resilience, its success will depend on the EU’s ability to act cohesively – balancing legal constraints with urgent geopolitical and economic imperatives.
The escalating climate crisis poses serious threats to the environment and fundamental human rights. While environmental degradation increasingly affects rights such as life, health, and property, especially for vulnerable populations, international legal protection remains somewhat fragmented. This article explores the recognition of the right to a healthy environment as an autonomous, enforceable human right. Using a comparative legal method, the article analyses national and international legislation, judicial practice, and doctrinal developments. Special attention, among other matters, is devoted to the European Union’s engagement through instruments like the European Climate Law and the ‘Fit for 55’ package, as well as recent United Nations resolutions affirming environmental protection as a universal human right. The article assesses whether this right can evolve from policy aspiration to legal entitlement, and what implications such recognition holds for states, individuals, and global governance frameworks. Ultimately, it offers a forward-looking perspective on the role of law in addressing climate-related human rights challenges.
This article zooms in on an area of EU energy law which relates to a particularly complex and technical matter, i.e., energy infrastructure planning law, and offers its systematic overview through the prism of a multi-dimensional principle of integration. In such a way, the article allows bringing together and explaining the common logic, normative content and implementation issues pertaining to several discreet instruments of EU energy infrastructure planning such as Member State-level network development plans (NDPs), EU-wide ten-year network development plans (EU-TYNDPs) and the Union list of projects of common and mutual interest (PCI/PMI list). As part of this exercise, the principle of integration, its three dimensions and their various aspects are developed in an effort to provide a helpful analytical framework for assessing the current state of this body of law and its evolution.
In many climate change litigation cases, courts are asked to consider scientific evidence, such as the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in their decision Klimaseniorinnen v. Switzerland may have misunderstood some aspects in those reports. The International Court of Justice’s (ICJ’s) advisory opinion on the obligations of states regarding climate change was written after the judges had consulted members of the IPCC on the science; possibly, that helped them to a better understanding. This article examines how the ECtHR understood the IPCC reports on the matter of national carbon budgets and discusses whether a court expert could have helped them. While such an expert consultation may have contributed to the ICJ’s understanding, it concludes that the mere presence of a court expert would not guarantee a perfect understanding on the side of the court. Instead of mandatory experts, it suggests, courts should themselves be allowed recourse to experts, where they – honestly – consider fit.
This article focuses on appraising recent legislative efforts by the European Union (EU) to combat commercial practices that serve to mislead consumers about the environmental attributes and impacts of products, namely the practice of greenwashing. Notably, the Union has sought to bring in two legislative measures intended to reduce and minimize the influence and presence of deceptive commercial conduct regarding environmental product claims continuing to be a significant factor in the EU internal market place, specifically the 2024 Empowering of Consumers Directive (Directive 2024/824) and the prospective Green Claims Directive. Yet, there remain a number of outstanding challenges for the EU to address in relation to tackling the problem of greenwashing and ensuring that EU consumer law becomes more closely aligned to and integrated within the legal and political architecture of EU environmental protection policy.
Within the EU, a complex web of legal avenues exists to address breaches of environmental law. This paper critically examines the judicial and non-judicial mechanisms available for litigating such breaches, focusing on the ‘legitimacy assets’ that characterize these mechanisms: independence, accessibility, material scope, and powers. This contribution therefore delves into the action for annulment and the preliminary reference procedure before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the internal review procedure foreseen under the Aarhus Regulation, the complaint before the European Ombudsman (EO), the review mechanism of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC), and the possibility of bringing cases to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It reveals strong suits and drawbacks for each avenue, ultimately advocating for a renewed attention for the non-judicial mechanisms.
p class="MsoNormal"Environmental crime is today one of the largest criminal activity in the world and among the most profitable. In addition to the high level of environmental criminality, environmental pollution in general remains a major issue in the European Union (EU). Two Directives aim to address environment damages and environmental crimes in a horizontal manner, in order to instore a sufficiently deterrent and efficient system of environmental protection. The Environmental Crime Directive (ECD) and the Environmental Liability Directive (ELD) both improved the legal system for environmental protection in the EU but some major gaps remain such as the lack of possibility for affected persons to access to justice under these Directives and the lack of implementation and enforcement of these provisions within Member States. This paper proposes a solution to build a stronger and more comprehensive legal system for environmental protection at the EU level, which is to put in place a toolbox including criminal, administrative and civil tools to protect the environment. The interplay of these different regimes allow for a more comprehensive legal framework capable of responding to a variety of cases in the most efficient manner. In order for this toolbox to function efficiently, two measures need to be implemented: a harmonized data collection system for both Directives and mandatory financial security.o:p/o:p
p class="MsoNormal"As Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies advance, they offer fascinating opportunities for environmental protection, conservation, and climate adaptation, yet also introduce risks such as high energy consumption and potential environmental degradation. This paper investigates how AI can be harnessed to support the EU’s dual goals of digital innovation and green transformation while addressing the environmental and climate challenges associated with its use. The emerging concept of ‘Green AI’ provides a framework to examine these challenges and opportunities, particularly how AI can contribute to the EU’s twin transitions of digital and green transformation. Given that the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act) does not tackle AI as an environmental challenge per se, the paper focuses on mapping regulatory pathways for integrating environmental sustainability into AI development and use in the field of EU environmental and climate law. Through mechanisms like Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodologies, impact monitoring, and mandatory sustainability assessments, the paper advocates for robust measures to ensure that AI is developed and used in alignment with the growing normative demand for a sustainable society. Ultimately, it essential to transition towards a regulatory approach that not only maximizes AI’s environmental benefits while minimizing its ecological footprint, but also advances a digitized industry that actively supporting sustainability and climate neutrality in line with the EU Green Deal.
p class="MsoNormal"While air pollution is a fertile terrain of intense scholarly scrutiny in its outdoor perspective, the indoor one is still devoid of an extensive discussion. In a contribution that appears to be, the first one to devote time to this niche area, the purpose of this study is to discuss and analyse the legislative state-of-the-art of this new discipline. In examining the very limited judgments available on this topic, the focus of the paper is on the different jurisdictions where the matter has drawn the attention of Courts, first and foremost the British Isles. However, upon further scrutiny, the paper shows that, given the Court decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, there are obvious constitutional law implications entailed to this subject.
p class="MsoNormal"Among the key pieces of legislation of the ‘Fit for 55’ package delivering on Europe’s strategy to achieve its green transition there is the FuelEU Maritime Regulation, promoting the use of renewable and low carbon fuels in shipping, as well as the RefuelEu Aviation Regulation on decarbonization of the air transport sector that equally promote the production and uptake of sustainable alternative fuels both in maritime transport and aviation. Alongside with those Regulations the European Commission has introduced the legal framework on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure for transport sector and logistics placed with the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure (AFIR) Regulation which ensures an efficient, multimodal, and high-quality transport infrastructure across the EU.o:p/o:p
The Energy Efficiency First Principle (EE1 Principle) is fundamental to the European Union’s (EU’s) energy policy, highlighting energy efficiency initiatives over supply-side alternatives. This article analyses the development, implementation, and obstacles of the EE1 Principle within the EU’s legislative framework. It examines the principle’s incorporation into essential legislative texts, and its influence on decision-making processes, using hydrogen as an example.Notwithstanding its elucidation in legal texts in recent years, the execution and implementation of the EE1 Principle is lacking in various Member States. However, the article posits that the EE1 Principle can assist in the development of the hydrogen market, whilst balancing this objective with promoting a more integrated, efficient, secure and carbonneutral EU energy system. Its implementation at the EU level, particularly during the process for: (1) integrating the EU-wide ten-year network development plans (TYNDP) for electricity, gas and hydrogen; and (2) selecting the Projects of Common and Mutual Interest, is of the upmost importance.The article concludes that although the EE1 Principle is a helpful tool for establishing a sustainable, diverse and resilient energy system, overcoming the associated implementation obstacles is crucial for its success. The efficient implementation and oversight of the EE1 Principle will be vital for promoting a broad and sustainable energy mix.
The European Union (EU) is facing the dual challenge of ensuring energy security and compliance with environmental commitments in the wake of geopolitical upheaval. Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine prompted a reassessment of the EU’s energy situation and revealed the intricate web of connections between energy and environmental policies. To address this unprecedented crisis, the EU launched the REPowerEU plan, representing a big step towards energy transition and reducing dependency on Russian fossil fuels.Amidst the urgency of addressing energy security, the challenge of avoiding environmental deregulation comes to the forefront and there is an imperative need to find the right legal tools to conduct a delicate balancing exercise ensuring that energy security measures align with the commitment to environmental sustainability.In this direction, this paper examines the impact of the REPowerEU plan and its accompanying legislative instruments on EU Environmental Law, focusing on Regulation (EU) 2023/435, Directive 2018/2001, and Council Regulation 2022/2577. It explores whether these legislative amendments present an impermissible retreat from environmental standards and considers ways to manage the challenges of balancing environmental protection with energy security, with the application of the emerging principle of nonregression.
