Abstract Until robots and humans mostly worked in fast-paced and yet separate environments, occupational health and safety (OHS) rules could address workers’ safety largely independently from robotic conduct. This is no longer the case: collaborative robots (cobots) working alongside humans warrant the design of policies ensuring the safety of both humans and robots at once, within shared spaces and upon delivery of cooperative workflows. Within the European Union (EU), the applicable regulatory framework stands at the intersection between international industry standards and legislation at the EU as well as Member State level. Not only do current standards and laws fail to satisfactorily attend to the physical and mental health challenges prompted by human–robot interaction (HRI), but they exhibit important gaps in relation to smart cobots (“SmaCobs”) more specifically. In fact, SmaCobs combine the black-box unforeseeability afforded by machine learning with more general HRI-associated risks, towards increasingly complex, mobile and interconnected operational interfaces and production chains. Against this backdrop, based on productivity and health motivations, we urge the encoding of the enforcement of OHS policies directly into SmaCobs. First, SmaCobs could harness the sophistication of quantum computing to adapt a tangled normative architecture in a responsive manner to the contingent needs of each situation. Second, entrusting them with OHS enforcement vis-à-vis both themselves and humans may paradoxically prove safer as well as more cost-effective than for humans to do so. This scenario raises profound legal, ethical and somewhat philosophical concerns around SmaCobs’ legal personality, the apportionment of liability and algorithmic explainability. The first systematic proposal to tackle such questions is henceforth formulated. For the EU, we propose that this is achieved through a new binding OHS Regulation aimed at the SmaCobs age.
{"title":"Encoding the Enforcement of Safety Standards into Smart Robots to Harness Their Computing Sophistication and Collaborative Potential: A Legal Risk Assessment for European Union Policymakers","authors":"Riccardo Vecellio Segate, Angela Daly","doi":"10.1017/err.2023.72","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2023.72","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Until robots and humans mostly worked in fast-paced and yet separate environments, occupational health and safety (OHS) rules could address workers’ safety largely independently from robotic conduct. This is no longer the case: collaborative robots (cobots) working alongside humans warrant the design of policies ensuring the safety of both humans and robots at once, within shared spaces and upon delivery of cooperative workflows. Within the European Union (EU), the applicable regulatory framework stands at the intersection between international industry standards and legislation at the EU as well as Member State level. Not only do current standards and laws fail to satisfactorily attend to the physical and mental health challenges prompted by human–robot interaction (HRI), but they exhibit important gaps in relation to smart cobots (“SmaCobs”) more specifically. In fact, SmaCobs combine the black-box unforeseeability afforded by machine learning with more general HRI-associated risks, towards increasingly complex, mobile and interconnected operational interfaces and production chains. Against this backdrop, based on productivity and health motivations, we urge the encoding of the enforcement of OHS policies directly into SmaCobs. First, SmaCobs could harness the sophistication of quantum computing to adapt a tangled normative architecture in a responsive manner to the contingent needs of each situation. Second, entrusting them with OHS enforcement vis-à-vis both themselves and humans may paradoxically prove safer as well as more cost-effective than for humans to do so. This scenario raises profound legal, ethical and somewhat philosophical concerns around SmaCobs’ legal personality, the apportionment of liability and algorithmic explainability. The first systematic proposal to tackle such questions is henceforth formulated. For the EU, we propose that this is achieved through a new binding OHS Regulation aimed at the SmaCobs age.","PeriodicalId":46207,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Risk Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135636456","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The purpose of this contribution is to briefly present the content of the EU–US Data Privacy Framework recently adopted by the European Commission and then to assess whether it meets the expectations expressed by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its Schrems II judgment and related case law.
{"title":"EU–US Data Privacy Framework: A First Legal Assessment","authors":"Sergi Batlle, Arnaud van Waeyenberge","doi":"10.1017/err.2023.67","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2023.67","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The purpose of this contribution is to briefly present the content of the EU–US Data Privacy Framework recently adopted by the European Commission and then to assess whether it meets the expectations expressed by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its Schrems II judgment and related case law.","PeriodicalId":46207,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Risk Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136382102","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Increasing interest from stakeholders has brought new focus on risk governance and risk regulation, such as the regulator’s execution of duty and tangible results on safety and environmental protection in oil and gas industry. One recent example, from 2019, is the Office of the Auditor General Norway’s (OAG) investigation of the Petroleum Safety Authority’s (PSA) follow-up on health, safety and the environment in the petroleum industry, where the regulatory regime in Norway resting on functional requirements was questioned. Simplistically speaking, there are two current traditions or main schools in regulatory regimes: use of functional requirements associated with co-regulation and use of normative requirements associated with prescriptive regulation. In this paper, we introduce a generic model from an attribute perspective on contrasting, gauging or evaluating the two different regulatory regimes. Furthermore, this approach may explain the controversy regarding the favouring of functional or prescriptive regulatory regimes by the different players in the industry. Our case is based on regulations relating to offshore oil and gas operations, in particular focusing on the Norwegian sector. We use the OAG’s investigation of the PSA and the public reaction as our material because this material is proposed to provide a thorough and valid description of how the effects of the Norwegian regulatory regime are perceived from the outside. We believe that the generic concept presented here is applicable when performing investigations in other industries involved in hazardous activities.
{"title":"An Attribute Perspective on Regulatory Regimes in Risk Governance","authors":"Morten A. Langøy, Geir Sverre Braut","doi":"10.1017/err.2023.68","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2023.68","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Increasing interest from stakeholders has brought new focus on risk governance and risk regulation, such as the regulator’s execution of duty and tangible results on safety and environmental protection in oil and gas industry. One recent example, from 2019, is the Office of the Auditor General Norway’s (OAG) investigation of the Petroleum Safety Authority’s (PSA) follow-up on health, safety and the environment in the petroleum industry, where the regulatory regime in Norway resting on functional requirements was questioned. Simplistically speaking, there are two current traditions or main schools in regulatory regimes: use of functional requirements associated with co-regulation and use of normative requirements associated with prescriptive regulation. In this paper, we introduce a generic model from an attribute perspective on contrasting, gauging or evaluating the two different regulatory regimes. Furthermore, this approach may explain the controversy regarding the favouring of functional or prescriptive regulatory regimes by the different players in the industry. Our case is based on regulations relating to offshore oil and gas operations, in particular focusing on the Norwegian sector. We use the OAG’s investigation of the PSA and the public reaction as our material because this material is proposed to provide a thorough and valid description of how the effects of the Norwegian regulatory regime are perceived from the outside. We believe that the generic concept presented here is applicable when performing investigations in other industries involved in hazardous activities.","PeriodicalId":46207,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Risk Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136381160","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This article analyses how emergency legislation has affected law-making and regulatory quality principles (RQPs) before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic (2019–2021) from stakeholders’ perspectives. It takes Slovakia as a case study, as this country was considered a high performer in the adoption of RQPs before the crisis, while empirical findings suggest a subsequent decline in their use. We argue that formal RQPs are not deeply embedded and are vulnerable to crises. In doing so, we conceptually distinguish between standard (fully following the RQPs), emergency (modified to accommodate crisis) and non-standard law-making (violating formal rules and the RQPs). In the transition from a crisis to a post-crisis context, the deployment of both emergency and non-standard law-making has become relatively permanent without proper justification having been provided. This reinforces the notion that RQPs and governance legitimacy became less important for the executive than in the pre-crisis period and emergency and non-standard regulatory law-making became institutionalised as new norms of swift law-making. All of these factors prevent stakeholders from being informed and from engaging in deliberation, which jeopardises the legitimacy of post-crisis law-making governance.
{"title":"Post-crisis Emergency Legislation Consolidation: Regulatory Quality Principles for Good Times Only?","authors":"Katarina Staronova, Nina Lacková, Matúš Sloboda","doi":"10.1017/err.2023.69","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2023.69","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article analyses how emergency legislation has affected law-making and regulatory quality principles (RQPs) before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic (2019–2021) from stakeholders’ perspectives. It takes Slovakia as a case study, as this country was considered a high performer in the adoption of RQPs before the crisis, while empirical findings suggest a subsequent decline in their use. We argue that formal RQPs are not deeply embedded and are vulnerable to crises. In doing so, we conceptually distinguish between standard (fully following the RQPs), emergency (modified to accommodate crisis) and non-standard law-making (violating formal rules and the RQPs). In the transition from a crisis to a post-crisis context, the deployment of both emergency and non-standard law-making has become relatively permanent without proper justification having been provided. This reinforces the notion that RQPs and governance legitimacy became less important for the executive than in the pre-crisis period and emergency and non-standard regulatory law-making became institutionalised as new norms of swift law-making. All of these factors prevent stakeholders from being informed and from engaging in deliberation, which jeopardises the legitimacy of post-crisis law-making governance.","PeriodicalId":46207,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Risk Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135367706","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
此内容的摘要不可用，因此提供了预览。有关如何访问此内容的信息，请使用上面的获取访问链接。
{"title":"Brexit and Agriculture by Ludivine Petetin and Mary Dobbs, London, Routledge, 2022, 374 pp.","authors":"Miranda Geelhoed","doi":"10.1017/err.2023.65","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2023.65","url":null,"abstract":"An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.","PeriodicalId":46207,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Risk Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135854072","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Not since 2018 and the “New Deal for Consumers” package has the European Union (EU) seemed so close to stepping up the enforcement of consumer protection rules. The European Commission is expected to unveil a new “consumer enforcement package” by the end of the year, which should include revisions of the Regulation on Consumer Protection Cooperation, the Directive on Consumer Alternative Dispute Resolution and the Regulation on EU Online Dispute Resolution. In parallel, the Representative Actions Directive came into force recently. This paper examines these different initiatives and assesses whether these evolutions can truly be the first steps towards a brighter future for the enforcement of consumer protection rules in the EU or whether they are likely to remain a series of missed opportunities.
{"title":"The Age of Consumer Law Enforcement in the European Union: High Hopes or Wishful Thinking?","authors":"Alexandre Biard","doi":"10.1017/err.2023.66","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2023.66","url":null,"abstract":"Not since 2018 and the “New Deal for Consumers” package has the European Union (EU) seemed so close to stepping up the enforcement of consumer protection rules. The European Commission is expected to unveil a new “consumer enforcement package” by the end of the year, which should include revisions of the Regulation on Consumer Protection Cooperation, the Directive on Consumer Alternative Dispute Resolution and the Regulation on EU Online Dispute Resolution. In parallel, the Representative Actions Directive came into force recently. This paper examines these different initiatives and assesses whether these evolutions can truly be the first steps towards a brighter future for the enforcement of consumer protection rules in the EU or whether they are likely to remain a series of missed opportunities.","PeriodicalId":46207,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Risk Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135094848","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Given the state of the climate emergency, European Union (EU) cities must find innovative ways to achieve a sustainable and decarbonised urban mobility trajectory. This requires integrated and cross-sectoral approaches that enable all sectors influencing such mobility to contribute to this goal. Building on the concept of the climate-connected city and drawing on an extensive empirical investigation of two Dutch cities (Rotterdam and Maastricht), this study reflects on how decarbonisation targets are integrated with other sustainability objectives across all policies and levels involved in reconfiguring mobility towards an environmentally sustainable model. The study finds that spatial development tools and processes, in combination with regulatory instruments imposing strict limits on emissions, can strengthen cross-sectoral support for the behavioural changes needed to decarbonise urban mobility. However, this integrative dynamic may be countered by local economic actors and by national and EU economic and fiscal instruments, whose narrow focus on reducing vehicle emissions and expanding road capacity forces cities to dilute their sustainable mobility policies. This suggests that in order to accelerate the decarbonisation of urban mobility, these instruments should be aligned with a broader set of sustainability goals and solutions and be combined with greater attention being given to the urban dimension into national and European transport policies.
{"title":"Understanding the Policy Integration Challenges of Sustainable Urban Mobility in the Context of Rapid Decarbonisation","authors":"Carlo Maria Colombo, Marc Dijk","doi":"10.1017/err.2023.62","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2023.62","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Given the state of the climate emergency, European Union (EU) cities must find innovative ways to achieve a sustainable and decarbonised urban mobility trajectory. This requires integrated and cross-sectoral approaches that enable all sectors influencing such mobility to contribute to this goal. Building on the concept of the climate-connected city and drawing on an extensive empirical investigation of two Dutch cities (Rotterdam and Maastricht), this study reflects on how decarbonisation targets are integrated with other sustainability objectives across all policies and levels involved in reconfiguring mobility towards an environmentally sustainable model. The study finds that spatial development tools and processes, in combination with regulatory instruments imposing strict limits on emissions, can strengthen cross-sectoral support for the behavioural changes needed to decarbonise urban mobility. However, this integrative dynamic may be countered by local economic actors and by national and EU economic and fiscal instruments, whose narrow focus on reducing vehicle emissions and expanding road capacity forces cities to dilute their sustainable mobility policies. This suggests that in order to accelerate the decarbonisation of urban mobility, these instruments should be aligned with a broader set of sustainability goals and solutions and be combined with greater attention being given to the urban dimension into national and European transport policies.","PeriodicalId":46207,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Risk Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135350474","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This policy-oriented article explores the sustainability dimension of digitalisation and artificial intelligence (AI). While AI can contribute to halting climate change via targeted applications in specific domains, AI technology in general could also have detrimental effects for climate policy goals. Moreover, digitalisation and AI can have an indirect effect on climate policy via their impact on political processes. It will be argued that, if certain conditions are fulfilled, AI-facilitated digital tools could help with setting up frameworks for bottom-up citizen participation that could generate the legitimacy and popular buy-in required for speedy transformations needed to reach net zero such as radically revamping the energy infrastructure among other crucial elements of the green transition. This could help with ameliorating a potential dilemma of voice versus speed regarding the green transition. The article will further address the nexus between digital applications such as AI and climate justice. Finally, the article will consider whether innovative governance methods could instil new dynamism into the multi-level global climate regime, such as by facilitating interlinkages and integration between different levels. Before implementing innovative governance arrangements, it is crucial to assess whether they do not exacerbate old or even generate new inequalities of access and participation.
{"title":"Artificial Intelligence, Climate Change and Innovative Democratic Governance","authors":"Florian Cortez","doi":"10.1017/err.2023.60","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2023.60","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This policy-oriented article explores the sustainability dimension of digitalisation and artificial intelligence (AI). While AI can contribute to halting climate change via targeted applications in specific domains, AI technology in general could also have detrimental effects for climate policy goals. Moreover, digitalisation and AI can have an indirect effect on climate policy via their impact on political processes. It will be argued that, if certain conditions are fulfilled, AI-facilitated digital tools could help with setting up frameworks for bottom-up citizen participation that could generate the legitimacy and popular buy-in required for speedy transformations needed to reach net zero such as radically revamping the energy infrastructure among other crucial elements of the green transition. This could help with ameliorating a potential dilemma of voice versus speed regarding the green transition. The article will further address the nexus between digital applications such as AI and climate justice. Finally, the article will consider whether innovative governance methods could instil new dynamism into the multi-level global climate regime, such as by facilitating interlinkages and integration between different levels. Before implementing innovative governance arrangements, it is crucial to assess whether they do not exacerbate old or even generate new inequalities of access and participation.","PeriodicalId":46207,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Risk Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135815585","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Artificial Intelligence (AI) has started to impact many facets of the economy and people’s routine activities. This article contributes to our understanding of how the legal system is reacting to the ongoing uptake of AI and the disputes or right infringements this uptake creates. Select legal cases regarding the use of AI technology for automated decisions are reviewed, with a focus on filings in Europe and the USA. This exercise reveals which type of legal challenges can be expected when it comes to deploying automated systems in these jurisdictions. Additionally, incipient regulatory efforts targeting AI on both sides of the North Atlantic are introduced and briefly discussed. The paper sheds light on how different legal systems accommodate an emerging technology with disruptive potential and offers a mapping of exemplary legal risks for prospective actors or organisations seeking to develop and deploy AI.
{"title":"Adjudication of Artificial Intelligence and Automated Decision-Making Cases in Europe and the USA","authors":"Elif Kiesow Cortez, Nestor Maslej","doi":"10.1017/err.2023.61","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2023.61","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Artificial Intelligence (AI) has started to impact many facets of the economy and people’s routine activities. This article contributes to our understanding of how the legal system is reacting to the ongoing uptake of AI and the disputes or right infringements this uptake creates. Select legal cases regarding the use of AI technology for automated decisions are reviewed, with a focus on filings in Europe and the USA. This exercise reveals which type of legal challenges can be expected when it comes to deploying automated systems in these jurisdictions. Additionally, incipient regulatory efforts targeting AI on both sides of the North Atlantic are introduced and briefly discussed. The paper sheds light on how different legal systems accommodate an emerging technology with disruptive potential and offers a mapping of exemplary legal risks for prospective actors or organisations seeking to develop and deploy AI.","PeriodicalId":46207,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Risk Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135815581","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Administrative Tribunal of Luxembourg, 15 July 2022, case no 44377 and Court of Appeal of Luxembourg, 31 March 2023, case no 47873C On 15 July 2022, the Administrative Tribunal of Luxembourg annulled the decisions by which the Luxembourg Minister for Agriculture, Viticulture, and Consumer Protection had banned all glyphosate-based products. On 31 March 2023, the Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of the Administrative Tribunal. The ground of annulment was the breach by the Luxembourg State of the adversarial principle enshrined in Article 9 of the Grand-Ducal Regulation of 8 June 1979. Yet, for the sake of completeness, the Administrative Tribunal and the Court of Appeal verified the compliance of the decisions banning glyphosate-based products with Articles 36, 41 and 44 of Regulation no 1107/2009. Against this backdrop, this case note provides a critical assessment of the rulings of the Administrative Tribunal and the Court of Appeal from the perspective of European Union law. This analysis might prove to be useful as it enables us to shed light on the conditions allowing Member States to withdraw the authorisation of plant protection products under Regulation no 1107/2009 as well as to identify the hurdles that Member States might need to overcome when banning glyphosate-based products from their territory.
{"title":"The Glyphosate Saga in Luxembourg: The Annulment by the Judiciary of the Legislative Ban of Glyphosate-Based Products – A Breach of European Union Law?","authors":"Alessandra Donati","doi":"10.1017/err.2023.63","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2023.63","url":null,"abstract":"Administrative Tribunal of Luxembourg, 15 July 2022, case no 44377 and Court of Appeal of Luxembourg, 31 March 2023, case no 47873C On 15 July 2022, the Administrative Tribunal of Luxembourg annulled the decisions by which the Luxembourg Minister for Agriculture, Viticulture, and Consumer Protection had banned all glyphosate-based products. On 31 March 2023, the Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of the Administrative Tribunal. The ground of annulment was the breach by the Luxembourg State of the adversarial principle enshrined in Article 9 of the Grand-Ducal Regulation of 8 June 1979. Yet, for the sake of completeness, the Administrative Tribunal and the Court of Appeal verified the compliance of the decisions banning glyphosate-based products with Articles 36, 41 and 44 of Regulation no 1107/2009. Against this backdrop, this case note provides a critical assessment of the rulings of the Administrative Tribunal and the Court of Appeal from the perspective of European Union law. This analysis might prove to be useful as it enables us to shed light on the conditions allowing Member States to withdraw the authorisation of plant protection products under Regulation no 1107/2009 as well as to identify the hurdles that Member States might need to overcome when banning glyphosate-based products from their territory.","PeriodicalId":46207,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Risk Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136060927","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：