This article examines whether European Union (EU) rule-of-law principles constrain the introduction and application of Scope 3 greenhouse gas assessment obligations within environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedures. Although the EIA Directive does not expressly require the assessment of downstream emissions, Member States retain considerable discretion to adopt broader climate-related assessment requirements. The article argues that EU law does not preclude such developments but conditions the manner in which they may be introduced and applied. The permissibility of reassessment mechanisms depends on factors including foreseeability, proportionality, finality, and the degree of reliance attached to existing authorizations. By distinguishing between new projects, authorized but unimplemented projects, and operational projects, the article demonstrates how EU law seeks to reconcile climate-transition objectives with rule-of-law guarantees.
This article examines the evolving role of the Transmission System Operator (TSO) in the aftermath of the 2021–2022 energy crisis with a particular focus on their involvement in the financial electricity markets through Electricity Price Area Differential (EPAD)-coupling. The Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/1719 of 26 September 2016 Establishing a Guideline on Forward Capacity Allocation (FCA Regulation) requires that the national regulatory authorities intervene when market failure is detected, this intervention requires that the TSOs take steps to ensure liquidity in the market. The article questions whether the role of the TSO as a provider of liquidity in the financial electricity market clashes with the fine-tuned structure of EU’s market design. Through an analysis of recent disputes between national regulators the article illustrates legal and structural concerns associated with the TSOs involvement, potentially creating conflicts of interest for TSOs and challenging the principle of unbundling which is fundamental to EU`s electricity market design (EMD). The article argues that the expansion of TSO responsibilities through financial transmission rights (FTRs) and now through EPAD-coupling, marks a shift in the regulatory understanding of the TSO’s role, with limited public debate on the implications.
This article examines the evolving role of the Transmission System Operator (TSO) in the aftermath of the 2021–2022 energy crisis with a particular focus on their involvement in the financial electricity markets through Electricity Price Area Differential (EPAD)-coupling. The Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/1719 of 26 September 2016 Establishing a Guideline on Forward Capacity Allocation (FCA Regulation) requires that the national regulatory authorities intervene when market failure is detected, this intervention requires that the TSOs take steps to ensure liquidity in the market. The article questions whether the role of the TSO as a provider of liquidity in the financial electricity market clashes with the fine-tuned structure of EU’s market design. Through an analysis of recent disputes between national regulators the article illustrates legal and structural concerns associated with the TSOs involvement, potentially creating conflicts of interest for TSOs and challenging the principle of unbundling which is fundamental to EU`s electricity market design (EMD). The article argues that the expansion of TSO responsibilities through financial transmission rights (FTRs) and now through EPAD-coupling, marks a shift in the regulatory understanding of the TSO’s role, with limited public debate on the implications.
This article focuses on appraising the progress of efforts by the European Union (EU) to address the issue of invasive alien species (IAS) affecting the Union. IAS have been identified as being a significant challenge for environmental authorities world-wide in seeking to uphold, develop and promote policies concerning biodiversity protection. In 2014, the Union first adopted a legislative instrument intended to provide the basis for the EU to apply its objective on ensuring that effective measures are deployed to eliminate or at least minimize the environmental threats posed by the intended or unintended introduction of biotic species of flora or fauna with invasive impacts into the Union, namely Regulation 1143/2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of IAS (the IAS Regulation) . After over a decade since the EU regulation’s adoption, the European Commission has the opportunity to present an appraisal of the fortunes of the IAS Regulation and signal its preference for any prospective legislative reforms to be made. The prospective second implementation report on the IAS Regulation, expected in late 2026, should shed some light on the Commission’s thinking about the current and future role the IAS Regulation should play in contributing to the evolution of EU biodiversity policy.
