Cecília Bojarski Pires (PhD candidate at the School of Law of University of Minho. FCT research scholarship holder - 2023.01072.BD)

In July 2026, the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre presented the first EU-wide assessment^[1] of where and to what extent the main soil degradation processes occur, drawn up by the EU Soil Observatory (EUSO). According to this assessment, around 62 per cent of EU soils are degraded, based on the 19 soil degradation indicators used in the EUSO Soil Degradation Scoreboard. These findings highlight the ongoing urgency of soil protection and raise questions about the adequacy of the legal framework recently adopted by the European Union (EU).

The trajectory of European soil protection policy illustrates a tension between environmental ambition and economic competitiveness. Has the EU’s recent legislative approach, culminating in Directive (EU) 2025/2360 (Soil Monitoring Law), prioritised efficiency and deregulation over the transformative goals of the European Green Deal? This text traces the development of EU soil policy, examining the shifting rationalities behind legislative choices and their implications for the future of environmental protection in Europe.

In 2006, the Commission of the European Communities proposed a Directive^[2] to establish a framework for soil protection. At that time, no specific EU legislation addressed soil as the vital non-renewable resource it is, despite growing evidence of degradation and its importance to human activity and ecosystems.

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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54499/2025.06747.BD.]

I.

The Critical Raw Materials Act (“CRMA”) aims to give a comprehensive response to the challenges of ensuring a secure and sustainable supply of the indispensable materials that are at the basis of the 2030 and 2050 objectives of the ecological and digital transitions; these are essential for the European Union’s (“EU”) economy and a wide set of necessary technologies for strategic sectors such as renewable energy, and the digital, aerospace and defence sectors.^[1]

 Within the recent push towards making its economy more independent and strategically relevant, the EU approved a number of projects with recognised strategic importance, the proposed Savannah Lithium Barroso Mine in the Trás-os-Montes region of northern Portugal being one of them.^[2] Additionally, the European Commission has launched a large deregulation effort in the form of the Omnibus Packages in order to encourage investment and facilitate the activity of private actors in sectors that push forth the ambitious objectives of a technologically advanced and climate-neutral economy.^[3] A push that has mostly relegated issues relating to climate, the environment, and the European Green Deal (“EGD”), into obscurity.^[4]

Nevertheless, there is hope to be found, as the Commission’s President Ursula von der Leyen dedicated part of her recent State of the European Union (“SOTEU 2026”) address to the issue of climate change. Recognising that “[s]cience is clear. Europe is warming at double the global rate. Of course, the transition is complex. And we will need to adjust and learn along the way. But there is no doubt: Europe can, must and will stay the course on its climate targets”. Still, focus heavily leaned towards resilience and preparedness aiming to “make Europe the champion in adaptation technologies – a huge emerging market”,^[5] and not so much on the EGD and its early ambitious initiatives.

Angélica Lomba (master's student in European Union Law at the School of Law of University of Minho and Legal Intern specialising in Digital Law, with a particular focus on the GDPR and the AI Act)

Introduction 

As we enter the digital age, more services are becoming entirely digital, especially in the video game industry. This is a trend we have been seeing recently, even with Nintendo games, where the “physical” version is no longer physical – because even if you bought the box with the cartridge, you would not be able to play the game until you have downloaded it. The game is not inside the box; it is just a “digital key” that allows you to download and, subsequently, access the game.

Following this trend, Sony recently announced the cessation of the disc format releases starting in January 2028,^[1] citing players’ growing preference for digital versions over physical media. 

This development raises serious concerns, both regarding consumer protection and the issue of property rights. We may be entering a period in which the right to property, whilst formally recognised, is becoming increasingly hollow. This right is well established in European law: it is addressed by Article 345 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

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]

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]

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]