Ana Filipa Ribeiro (master’s student in European Union Law at the School of Law of University of Minho and ENDE Research Grant Holder – ref. UMINHO/BIM/2026/33) and Renan Bendel Vaughan (master’s student in European Union Law at the School of Law of University of Minho and ENDE Research Grant Holder – ref. UMINHO/BIM/2026/40)

Setting the scene: a small model in a large problem

On 1 July 2026, the Portuguese Government presented AMALIA,^[1] the first open large language model (LLM) developed in European Portuguese, developed by a consortium of national universities and research institutions with an investment of 5.5 million euros funded under the Recovery and Resilience Plan.^[2] The Minister of State and Administrative Reform framed the launch as a deliberate choice for digital sovereignty and the country’s technological autonomy.^[3]

The moment is politically charged. On 3 June 2026, the European Commission adopted its Communication on European Tech Sovereignty, acknowledging that the European Union (EU) remains structurally dependent on external suppliers for more than 80% of its products, services, infrastructures, and intellectual property in the digital domain.^[4] On 7 July 2026, the Action Plan on Cybersecurity and Artificial Intelligence acknowledged, more explicitly, that “frontier capabilities are mainly developed outside of the EU, and their availability is often determined by non-transparent, foreign-led processes”.^[5]

The strategic salience of this moment is not contained within the Union’s normative framework. The NATO summit held in Ankara on 7 and 8 July 2026, although its official programme scarcely mentioned the issue, was shaped by access to frontier artificial intelligence (AI) models as an unofficial undercurrent of the discussions: the United States controls access to the most advanced AI capabilities and determines unilaterally which allies may obtain them, leaving European allies dependent on technology they do not govern and whose availability may be curtailed by an external political decision.^[6]

Continue reading “Sovereignty by proxy? EU technological capacity and the first Portuguese Open Large Language Model” →

Ana Cardoso (PhD candidate & Master’s in European Union Law at the School of Law of University of Minho. FCT research scholarship holder – 2025.06747.BD.) and Gonçalo Martins de Matos (PhD candidate & Master’s in Judiciary Law at the School of Law of the University of Minho)

In March 2026, the Portuguese Parliament started a rollback of the protection of trans and intersex persons in the country, by repealing Law no. 38/2018 of the 7^th of August,[1] and introducing several bills that – if approved – will mean a major regression on LGBTIQA+[2] people’s rights.[3] As we come out of Pride Month, we must ask if Portugal’s recent position is compatible with the foundational values of the EU and recent developments of the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”).

The potential rollback of rights being discussed in Portugal is not dissimilar from the Hungarian legislation that targeted LGBTIQA+ rights and which gave rise to the recently delivered Judgment C-769/22 Commission v. Hungary.[4] Following an infringement procedure filed against Hungary, the CJEU was called upon to rule on the conformity of that legislation with the fundamental values of the EU. Beyond the issues relating to the specific EU law provisions applicable, the main question underlying this infringement procedure was the consideration of a breach of Article 2 TEU as a self-standing ground for finding an infringement of EU law, i.e. granting justiciability to Article 2.[5] 

The CJEU found that the values set out in Article 2 TEU “lay down legally binding horizontal obligations within the Union and define the very identity of the Union as a common legal order”,[6] which is why, considering the principle of mutual trust, no Member State is to exercise its powers in a way that would go against those values. These were accepted on a reciprocal basis by the Member States, have freely and voluntarily been subscribed, and mean an obligation of respect and promotion.[7] In that sense, the CJEU ruled that “Such stigmatisation and marginalisation, which is tantamount to establishing, maintaining or reinforcing the social ‘invisibility’ of some members of society, runs counter to the values of respect for human dignity, equality, and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, as referred to in Article 2 TEU”.[8]

Continue reading “The recent legislative alterations in Portugal relating to trans and intersex persons’ rights: a violation of Article 2 TEU?” →

Vitória Menezes Sanhudo (master’s student in European Union Law at the School of Law of the University of Minho)

Over the last decade, the regulatory environment for corporate sustainability in the European Union (EU) has been increasingly reflecting a mindset shift regarding the concept of corporation. The analysis presented here is based on that premise. Despite recent legislative changes resulting from the Omnibus Package, it still seems reasonable to assume that the paradigm of corporate environmental (and social) responsibility in the EU has changed from a shareholder centred approach to a stakeholder-centred and sustainability-oriented approach.

We aim to analyse the ongoing transformation of corporate governance in the EU and the path that appears to be taking shape for the future, while remaining fully aware – against the backdrop of this central issue –, of the changes resulting from the Omnibus Package, which have simplified certain reporting and due diligence obligations regarding sustainability in response to criticism of growing regulatory complexity, mainly deriving from corporations’ limited administrative capacity. The objective is to determine whether the growing integration of sustainability into EU law merely represents increased regulatory density regarding the sustainability of the traditional corporate model or if it signals a structural transformation of the very concept of the commercial corporation towards a model in which sustainability, and perhaps purpose-driven models, assume primacy.

The traditional corporate model

The for-profit business corporation has evolved over time in both its legal and social conception. Nevertheless, during a period that may be broadly defined as extending from the late 1990s and early 2000s until 2014 (with reference to the European legislation to be analysed below), a broad consensus emerged regarding the primacy of the shareholder-oriented model. However, although this deference to shareholders’ interests is not presented as a unilateralist point of view –  detached from the reality in which it operates and solely focused on the goal of generating profit –, it ultimately has that effect. In other words, even if, under any legal system, a business corporation is never viewed as a self-contained entity that exists in complete abstraction from its impacts on society, consideration of its effects on the outside world and on the community is ultimately neglected in the practical conduct of its business activities, causing evident harm.[1]

Continue reading “From shareholder primacy to sustainability preeminence in corporate governance: what the Omnibus package does not change” →

Ana Filipa Ribeiro (master’s student in European Union Law at the School of Law of University of Minho and ENDE Research Grant Holder – ref. UMINHO/BIM/2026/33) and Renan Bendel Vaughan (master’s student in European Union Law at the School of Law of University of Minho and ENDE Research Grant Holder – ref. UMINHO/BIM/2026/40)

Setting the scene: a first fine and an open question

On 28 May 2026, the European Commission adopted a non-compliance decision against Temu, imposing a fine of 200 million euros for breach of its obligations under the Digital Services Act (DSA).[1] The decision is significant for several reasons. It is the first major fine imposed on an electronic commerce platform under that instrument and confirms that the public enforcement mechanism of the DSA is fully operational. It is important, however, to bear in mind that the procedure is not closed: under Article 75 DSA, Temu has until 28 August 2026 to submit an action plan to the Commission aimed at remedying the infringement, following which the European Board for Digital Services issues an opinion. The decision remains open to challenge before the Union courts.[2] 

What Temu was fined for

The decision concerns Temu’s failure to properly identify, analyse and assess systemic risks linked to the dissemination of illegal products through its online marketplaces.[3] In October 2024, the Commission opened a formal investigative procedure; in July 2025, it adopted preliminary findings of infringement; and in May 2026, it confirmed those findings in a non-compliance decision.[4]

The Commission’s findings are detailed. The risk assessment conducted by Temu for the 2024 exercise was based on generic information about the electronic commerce sector, rather than on specific evidence concerning the service itself; it seriously underestimated the frequency with which Union consumers encounter illegal products on the platform; and it failed to consider the manner in which its recommendation systems and promotion by digital influencers could amplify the dissemination of hazardous products.[5] An independent mystery shopping exercise, carried out in the scope of the investigation, confirmed that a markedly elevated proportion of the tested chargers failed basic electrical safety assessments, and that a significant proportion of baby toys posed medium to high risks.[6] The fine of 200 million euros was calculated by reference to the nature, gravity and duration of the infringement.[7]

Continue reading “When a fine is not enough: Temu, the Digital Services Act, and the problem of redress” →

Renan Bendel Vaughan (master’s student in European Union Law at the School of Law of University of Minho and ENDE Research Grant Holder – UMINHO/BIM/2026/40)

Setting the scene: eight days in April, one contradiction

In April 2026, two events gave rise to a situation that European Union law has not yet addressed in its entirety. On the 21st, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), sitting as a full court, delivered its judgment in Commission v. Hungary (C-769/22) and recognised for the first time an autonomous and self-sufficient violation of Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU): the Hungarian legislation stigmatising and marginalising LGBTI+ people was held to be contrary to “the very identity of the Union as a common legal order in a society in which pluralism prevails.”[1] Article 2 TEU thereby acquired the status of a justiciable provision with genuine normative force, capable of constituting an autonomous ground of infringement in its own right, provided that the violation is manifest and particularly serious – a threshold the Court held to be crossed in the Hungarian case on account of the cumulative and coordinated character of the breaches of Articles 1, 7, 11, and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of European Union (CFREU).[2]

Eight days later, on the 29th, the European Parliament adopted a resolution which examined the European Commission’s 2025 Rule of Law Report, and noted that 93% of the Commission’s recommendations are repeats from previous years, with only 6% having been fully implemented; furthermore, it condemned the use of spyware as a persistent and systematic threat to the rule of law, requiring binding response mechanisms.[3]

Read together, these two instruments reveal a contradiction that is constitutionally precise. Article 2 TEU acquired, in April 2026, an operative density that goes beyond declaratory commitment. The Parliament confirmed, at that same moment, that one of the most elementary structural conditions of the rule of law – judicial independence – remains exposed to a threat that Union law has yet to address: the clandestine surveillance of members of the judiciary by spyware tools operated by the Member States themselves. The legal basis for imposing a positive obligation has just been consolidated, yet the very problem that would call for such imposition remains without an articulated legal response. This text argues that construction is already possible – and that the time has come to undertake it.

Continue reading “Surveillance of the judicial function by the EU Member States themselves” →

Ana Filipa Ribeiro [master’s student in European Union Law at the School of Law of University of Minho and ENDE Research Grant Holder (ref. UMINHO/BIM/2026/33)]

On 1 July 2026, the transitional period provided for under the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCAR)[1] will expire across the European Union,[2] meaning that providers wishing to continue serving EU clients must either hold a MiCAR authorisation, benefit from another entitlement recognised under the Regulation,[3] or cease the provision of those services.[4] This date marks a decisive moment in the legal ordering of crypto-asset markets, since it is the point at which Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 becomes a concrete legal condition for access to the European market. More specifically, it is the moment at which national authorisation begins to operate as a Union-wide market-access decision with consequences for providers, competitors, users and host Member States across the internal market.

The legal significance of this transition lies in the regulatory architecture chosen by MiCAR. The Regulation seeks to overcome the previous fragmentation of national regimes by establishing uniform rules on authorisation, governance, conduct, prudential requirements, supervision and client protection.[5] Yet, it does so through a model in which authorisation is granted by national competent authorities,[6] while the effects of that authorisation may extend throughout the internal market by means of the European passport.[7] National administrative decisions, thus, acquire a Union-wide market-access function, insofar as an authorisation granted by one competent authority may determine the ability of a crypto-asset service provider to operate across several Member States.

That structure gives rise to a central tension in the legal ordering of EU crypto-asset markets. MiCAR presupposes that decentralised authorisation can coexist with integrated market access, provided that national supervisory practices remain sufficiently convergent.[8] The expiry of the transitional period places that assumption under practical scrutiny. If national authorities apply authorisation requirements with materially different levels of intensity, speed or interpretative strictness, operators subject to the same Regulation may enter the internal market under unequal supervisory conditions.[9] Hence, the concern extends beyond administrative coordination and reaches the conditions of competitive neutrality within the market framework that MiCAR is intended to create.

Continue reading “After the crypto deadline: who gets to enter Europe’s digital finance market?” →

Helder Matos (master’s student in Human Rights at the School of Law of the University of Minho)

Introduction

In March 2024, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) revealed that the European Commission, the institution assuming the role of global vanguard in the matter of digital rights, violated the EU’s own data protection regulation due to its structural dependency on the Microsoft 365 ecosystem.[1]

Although the EDPS closed the case in July 2025 after the Commission updated its licensing agreements with Microsoft, this episode brings to the surface the underlying problem that this article proposes to address.[2]

Even as it received the green light to proceed with business-as-usual, the European Commission admitted its deep concerns regarding the crippling dependence on a non-European company for the digital platforms needed for normal day-to-day functioning.[3] The European Union (EU) does not control the technological infrastructure it runs on, as it is forced to negotiate the terms of its own data security with foreign corporations.

Continue reading “Quo Vadis, Imperium? EU technological sovereignty as the sine qua non for democratic survival against the techno-authoritarian drift” →

Vitória Menezes Sanhudo (master’s student in European Union Law at the School of Law of University of Minho)

The harmonisation of corporate sustainability disclosure criteria has become increasingly relevant as a guarantee of a level playing field among companies and for the efficiency of the Internal Market. In this context, Directive (EU) 2022/2464 (CSRD) amends previous provisions, aiming to promote a more standardised sustainability reporting obligation, using the double materiality principle (DMP). It is deemed as necessary to analyse the conceptual evolution of materiality, from its origin in accounting to double materiality (enshrined in the CSRD Directive), its enforcement in the Directive under consideration, to evaluate the benefits and challenges of this dual perspective from a theoretical approach and, subsequently, to assess it from a more practical viewpoint, taking into account conclusions that can already be drawn from its introduction in the CSRD Directive.

The research question is as follows: in what way does the evolution of materiality in sustainability reporting prove to be positive, particularly with the incorporation of the DMP in the CSRD?

The concept of materiality

For a complete understanding of the CSRD Directive and the DMP, firstly, it is crucial to establish the conceptual basis that underpins them: materiality as a legal principle. The concept of material information emerged in the field of accounting at the beginning of the 20^th century, and its importance and scope have expanded over the years. In the EU, the Accounting Directive[1] is the central instrument for corporate financial reporting. Generally, all definitions formulated imply that information is material when its omission or misrepresentation can influence the economic decisions of the users that this concept aims to inform and benefit. Naturally, the definition of materiality varies according to the objective pursued by the reporting.[2]

Continue reading “The double materiality principle in the context of sustainability reporting – a positive development? (Some insights on the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive 2022/2464 – CSRD)” →