European Law Journal最新文献

The ongoing implementation of the EU's Sustainable Finance Strategy has led to a significant development of EU law to finance and facilitate the transition of the real economy towards sustainability. We argue first that this strategy, at its core, is a data strategy, requiring the datafication of the entire European financial, production and services sectors. The ongoing process of datafication will extend to data concerning externalities previously not incorporated into quantitative financial models and analysis. Second, we look at other datafication processes in finance to identify regulatory lessons for the EU's Sustainable Finance Framework in light of the European Commission's Simplification and Burden Reduction agenda in finance. We recommend the implementation of digital reporting standards developed in tandem by industry and regulators; the utilisation of Green RegTech and SupTech, centralised and enabled via digital reporting infrastructure; and the facilitation of the use of official estimates to both ensure proportionality and reduce the regulatory burden of reporting entities, with a focus on small and medium enterprises.

The article examines whether the relationship between EU (or national) competition law and intellectual property rights may undergo any developments following the recent set of decisions by the French Competition Authority against Google. In these decisions, competition law was used to improve the effectiveness of press publishers rights granted by the Directive on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market. Therefore, competition law had rather a supporting role vis-à-vis certain intellectual property rights, instead of constituting an external layer and limiting excessive forms of exercise of intellectual property rights. We argue that while there is no shift in paradigm on the interface between EU competition law and intellectual property rights, the discussed decisions do contribute to this debate by putting that relation in a different context when intellectual property holder suffers from anti-competitive conduct and might pave the way to a fruitful interface in the future.

Despite the uniform application of EU competition law being an essential feature of the EU's functioning, the globalisation and digitalisation of the EU economy has led to problematic diversifications in EU competition enforcement. Against this backdrop, this paper suggests revising the binding effects of European Commission decisions under Art.16(1), Regulation 1/2003. While the ‘traditional interpretation’ of Art.16(1) necessitates subjective and objective identity between national and EU proceedings for Art.16(1) to apply and qualifies its effect as a positive obligation, the ‘new interpretation’ considers ‘objective identity’ to be singularly sufficient and turn the effect of Art.16(1) into a negative obligation. This shift would maximise the uniformity and effectiveness of EU competition law, enhance the Commission's role as guardian of the Treaties, reinforce the ECJ's jurisdiction, ensure legal certainty, augment the discretion of national courts and solve the underlying clash with the nemo iudex in causa sua principle.

This paper explores the evolving role of participatory enforcement in combating economic crimes, focusing on tax offences, money laundering and sanctions evasion. It examines how EU law increasingly relies on private actors as agents of transparency, particularly through reporting obligations aimed at disclosing and addressing these crimes. Through case studies, the paper highlights the decentralisation of enforcement mechanisms. In the context of taxation, it investigates obliged entities' and—at times—citizens' reporting obligations in combating tax evasion and/or avoidance. Regarding money laundering, it examines both obliged entities as well as the dual role of employees in financial institutions as both mandated reporters and voluntary whistleblowers. For sanctions evasion, the paper explores the unprecedented expansion of reporting duties in the post-Ukraine conflict era, including the EU's reliance on both citizens and (non-EU) sanctioned individuals. By analysing these areas of EU law, the paper evaluates the balance between compliance obligations and individual rights and examines the conditions underpinning disclosure requirements. It also assesses the consistency of the EU's reliance on non-state actors to report economic crimes, raising critical questions about the present and the future of its enforcement mechanisms.

Despite the increasing recognition of data protection rights across the European Union (EU), evidence suggests they are often underenforced, thereby undermining the effectiveness of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This article shows that an often neglected aspect in GDPR enforcement is the variability in transparency exhibited by data protection authorities across EU Member States concerning the disclosure of fines. To bridge this research gap, we gathered data from 23 out of 27 EU data protection authorities (DPAs) and built an indicator to measure their level and quality of fines' disclosure. Our research uncovers disparities in the disclosure of GDPR fines across the EU. We examine the consequences of different levels of disclosure for individuals, entities, regulatory authorities and the data protection system. We argue that harmonised standards of transparency are necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the GDPR and the fundamental right to data protection across the EU.

EU antitrust is at the crossroads. It faces calls to be more supportive of corporate sustainability initiatives and, since the publication of the Draghi Report, increased pressure not to stand in the way of the global competitiveness of European industries. This article develops a pragmatic plan to reap the full environmental potential of EU competition policy. It draws attention to the instrumental and institutional constraints encountered when actively pursuing sustainability through antitrust. Relying on the theory of economic policy and from a pro-enforcement standpoint, the article ponders how the instruments and principles devised in the ongoing antitrust reform may be used to encourage sustainable technology and, in turn, boost growth. The aim is to find a path towards an eco-friendly yet effective competition policy.

As the United States retreats from global rule-making, the European Union (EU) must decide whether to shape global legal regimes actively or rely on its market power. Optimists claim that EU norms spread passively as a result of the Brussels Effect (BE), while sceptics point to transnational processes such as conditionality, policy learning and hybridization—core to Transnational Legal Orders (TLO) theory. This article tests these competing explanations in a doubly most likely case: competition policy, where BE is seen as pervasive, and Singapore, cited as a model BE case. The findings support TLO theory over BE. Although Singapore's competition law includes EU-like provisions, these are not the result of BE-style diffusion but emerge from broader transnational interactions. This suggests that the EU cannot rely on passive regulatory spillovers to extend its legal influence. Active engagement remains necessary to sustain global convergence with EU norms.

The European Whistleblowing Directive is one of the most consequential acts of Union law in the last decade and has created lasting effects across the European Union. After almost all Member States have failed to meet the transposition deadline of 17 December 2021, the limits of a Directive's direct effects as a means to enforce Union law have once again become apparent both to the public as well as on an institutional level. The following analysis will outline the consequences, costs and complications caused by late transposition, why the traditional approach of EU institutions towards Member States' deliberate inaction falls within a temporal void of the enforcement of Union law and how changing the method of calculating sanctions in infringement proceedings could address the problem.

Integration is a problematic concept when applied to migrants but could be effective if guided by equality, non-discrimination, and fundamental rights as in Article 2 TEU. This article argues for a transformative rights-centric shift in integration. It reviews the EU’s evolving approach to integration and the status of long-term resident third-country nationals (TCNs) over the decades, highlighting the shift from accommodating State interests in migration control to adopting a rights-based perspective. The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) bridges gaps between legally residing TCNs and EU citizens, limiting Member States’ discretion under EU migration law while broadening individuals’ rights. The proposed recast Long-Term Residence Directive (2003/109) contains provisions to further enhance TCNs’ rights and transform them into rightful actors in European integration. However, the EU Council’s decision to halt negotiations temporarily blocks progress, showing that TCNs’ full inclusion in the European polity remains a difficult challenge.