Considering the biodiversity and climate crises, an upscaling of ecosystem restoration has come to the forefront of international and European policies. Although restoration obligations are present in existing EU law, such as the Birds and Habitats Directives, a more concrete and detailed legal framework was necessary. The Nature Restoration Regulation (NRR) adopted in 2024 provides such a framework and is a pioneer law for pro-active positive restoration obligations. The NRR does not replace existing legislation, but complements it, including through, among others, providing definitions, concrete targets and deadlines, restoration obligations outside Natura 2000 and the implementation through national restoration plans.
The article examines the relationship between the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), focusing in particular on the role of regulatory sandboxes as instruments for fostering innovation while safeguarding fundamental rights. The data-intensive nature of contemporary AI systems creates inherent tensions with core GDPR principles, such as purpose limitation, data minimisation, and the protection of data subject rights. Against this background, the article addresses three key questions: how the sandbox provisions of the AI Act should be reconciled with the GDPR; whether these provisions operate as lex specialis or rather as a contextual clarification of existing rules; and whether regulatory sandboxes can achieve a meaningful balance between innovation and data protection. The analysis shows that, if properly designed, sandboxes can support trustworthy AI through a cooperative and proportionate regulatory approach.
The Court of Justice recently rendered a landmark judgment on processing the biometric data of a mere suspect by law enforcement authorities. This judgment, legally based on relevant provisions of the Law Enforcement Directive and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, deals with the collection of biometric data, the obligation of law enforcement authorities to state reasons for such collection and the penalty for refusal of data subjects to consent thereto.
The right of the child to be heard and to participate in civil proceedings concerning them is a consolidated acquisition of children’s rights law, which also applies to international child abduction proceedings subject to the 1980 Hague Convention and, eventually, EU law. At the same time, granting participation rights in the context of return proceedings may present more difficulties which are connected with their nature, purpose and rapidity needs. The ECtHR had never expressly stated a general obligation for national authorities to consider the opportunity to hear children in return proceedings, stemming from Article 8 ECHR, until the case M.P. and others v Greece. This article analyses the implications of this judgment for international child abduction proceedings.
This article presents and assesses the enforcement architecture of the law of artificial intelligence in Europe from the perspective of gender equality and non-discrimination law. It builds on two previous articles (Lütz, ERA 23(1)(2022):33-52/25(1)(2024):79-95) answers the question how the fundamental rights enforcement bodies could implement the substantive provisions, addressing biases and algorithmic discrimination. Furthermore, the article investigates the potential reform of the AI Act resulting from the digital AI Omnibus and the recent Recommendation on equality and artificial intelligence of the Council of Europe that is reinvigorating the European enforcement framework regarding equality and societal impacts of AI.
Unilateral parallel algorithmic behaviour describes market outcomes in which competing firms, each deploying its own pricing system, converge on supra-competitive prices without agreement, communication, or data sharing. The result is economically indistinguishable from cartel conduct, yet it falls outside Article 101 TFEU as now understood. This article argues that the gap is doctrinal, not merely evidential. It maps the relevant CJEU and national case law, explains why MiFID II, the Market Abuse Regulation, the AI Act, and the DMA do not close the problem, and examines the comparative position in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. It then proposes a limited reform package aimed at supervision, information, and remedies in EU financial services.
To what extent do judges in Europe feel they are independent and that their independence is respected in society? Do they feel judgments are adhered to? What factors actually affect their independence? This article reports the outcomes of the Survey among Judges of Europe, conducted by the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary in the first quarter of 2025. While judges express positive views about independence overall, their answers reflect, in particular, increasing tensions between the state powers. These concern lack of respect for judicial independence, lack of implementation of judicial decisions and difficult working conditions at the courts due, foremost, to lack of funding.
This article discusses the crime of illicit enrichment, i.e. a significant increase in wealth that cannot be rationally explained, the establishment of which is recommended by the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. It is proposed to structure it in full compliance with fundamental rights (a compliance-based approach) or as a legitimate exception to the right to silence, not to incriminate oneself and to the presumption of innocence (an exception-based approach). In this context, the EU proposal for a minimum definition of ‘enrichment from corruption offences’ is presented, which aims to reconcile respect for fundamental rights with reducing evidentiary difficulties.
This article aims to the assess the interplay between the State aid discipline and the development and uptake of artificial intelligence in the European Union. To this end, the article examines the possible role of State aid in the EU’s AI strategy as well as the main implications for competition, and the emergence of AI in State aid law and soft law, finally proposing some forward-looking possible avenues for the relationship between State aid and AI in the EU.
The digital market poses significant challenges to the traditional conception of EU consumer law. This article adopts a foundational perspective, focusing on the core question underlying the consumer-law framework: who is the consumer worthy of protection? In traditional consumer transactions, the binary distinction between ‘consumer’ and ‘trader’ has generally been clear. In digital markets, however, this binary classification is increasingly blurred, as individuals may assume more active or hybrid roles. Beyond the protection of such active market participants, the article also addresses the need for an appropriate framework to protect passive individuals who do not engage in consumption in a traditional (economic) sense.
This article describes origins and status of the Solvency II (SII) Directive review, the insurance sector’s core single market directive (Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25.11.2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) [2009] OJ L335/1 (SII Directive)). It analyses key amendments: the new proportionality regime, changes in group and cross-border supervision and pays attention to provisions regarding governance and reporting. Major implementation challenges for Member States, (re)insurance undertakings, and national supervisory authorities (NSAs) to operationalise the revised provisions, based on tight deadlines, continued framework complexity, the use of unclear concepts, and the confusion of the Commission’s simplification exercise, make this a challenge in time and effort.
This article critically analyses a leaked European Commission proposal to shift the supervision of Crypto-Asset Service Providers (CASPs) from National Competent Authorities (NCAs) to centralised control under the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). The paper argues that this move, presented as a technical adjustment, is a scale-shifting constitutional change that fundamentally undermines the careful balance of the original Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), which relied on NCA supervision and ESMA coordination. The critique concludes that centralised supervision is legally questionable, structurally incoherent, and operationally harmful, risking excessive bureaucracy, the erosion of national expertise, and a direct contravention of the principle of subsidiarity. The paper concludes by advancing a reinforced model for supervisory convergence and cooperation as a superior alternative.
This article examines the evolving intersections between artificial intelligence (AI) and EU financial regulation, focusing on the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II). Grounded in the principle of technological neutrality, MiFID II seeks to enhance investor protection, safeguard market integrity, and ensure that innovation develops within competitive and well-regulated markets across the Union. The article argues, however, that while this neutrality renders the framework functionally enabling, it also leaves it normatively silent in the face of the distinctive and evolving risks introduced by financial AI. As AI applications become increasingly heterogeneous—both across the financial functions in which they are deployed and in their underlying lifecycles and value chains—MiFID II’s activity-based logic increasingly struggles to accommodate their diverse and evolving risk profiles. Reflecting the EU’s broader shift toward risk-based AI governance, the article outlines an initial taxonomy of financial AI applications designed to guide the proportionate alignment of regulatory obligations with AI-related risks, thereby supporting the continued adaptability, coherence, and future-proofing of EU financial services law.
In Petrov and earlier cases, the Court prioritised the right to satire weaponising negative stereotypes despite harm done to highly vulnerable communities. Recognising that harm, it deemed it an insufficient reason to curtail highly visible public interest satire. In Petrov, the Court refused to hear the case on its merits based on how unimportant it considered the target’s ‘understandable’ offence. In earlier cases, it penalised the authorities for listening to the affected communities’ dissent and disallowing hurtful caricatures and curbing digital VAWP. Conversely, contemporary standards require engagement with communities’ lived experience and victim-centric, victim-defined responses to discrimination. The ECHR right to humour should not cancel victims’ say on their own dignity.
This article discusses the changing nature of the notions of creativity and, in particular, the impact of generative artificial intelligence on human creativity. The article starts by examining what creativity is and the entrenched human-centric nature of creativity before moving on to evaluate the notion of AI creativity. In the context of the changing nature of creativity and what that entails, the author teases out the interconnectedness of human creativity, originality and copyright protection of works. In that context, the prevalent academic debates in respect to copyright and artificial intelligence are overviewed, arguing that the issue of human creativity and preservation of human-only creative skills are paramount to humans and society as a whole. Finally, reasons for the preservation of human creativity in the face of artificial intelligence and its ability to generate original outputs are presented.
Since 2004, European institutions have put in place formal procedures to address complaints of their staff members concerning workplace harassment, including by members of the institutions. These internal procedures are framed by the administration’s duty of assistance towards their staff. The Court of Justice of the EU scrutinises respect of the right to be heard in these administrative procedures as part of the general principle of the rights for defence and in correlation to the right of access to the file. This article reviews the evolution of the case law in that field.
Information technology (IT) and artificial intelligence (AI) have two sides when we are talking about courts. Firstly, courts use different IT and AI tools. Despite the fact that courts are usually considered to be conservative, courts around the world have already made big efforts to make the best use of them. For now, IT and AI are, however, seen as additional help to judges, not as a replacement for human judges. Secondly, courts draw lines for the rest of the society – what is and what is not allowed when using IT and AI. It is clear that both sides pose several challenges to traditional understanding of administration of justice.
Technical, market, and regulatory fragmentation drive cooperation in decentralised finance globally. This paper focuses on the third country multi-party issuance of stablecoins under the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA). It identifies the parallel issuance and syndicate models as legally accepted archetypes of crypto cooperation under MiCA and analyses the corresponding regulatory requirements. The discussion addresses the need for a policy response to multi-issuer crypto schemes involving third-country issuers as requested in October 2025 by the European Systemic Risk Board. Token holder protection calls for detailed disclosures on the participating parties and their accountability, and an appropriate organisational structure for cooperation should be ensured. Systemic risk concerns warrant a close look at reserve handling and outsourced relationships with technical service providers and developer firms. However, an objective-based interpretation of Article 34 MiCA, Article 5(1)(l), 19(6) of the second Payment Services Directive (PSD2), and the application of the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) provide the means to mitigate such risks. Looking ahead, the integration of important crypto infrastructure providers in the Eurosystem framework for financial market infrastructure, as well as the introduction of a substituted compliance/equivalence framework into MiCA, would further strengthen regulatory coherence.
