Navigating the black box: AI bias and the future of the burden of proof in the EU

On March 27, 2026 By officialblogunioIn EssaysLeave a comment

Mariana Lima Rodrigues Carneiro (Masters in European Union Law from the School of Law of University of Minho)

The deployment of xAI’s Grok chatbot has become a focal point of systemic risk within the European digital landscape. The European Commission first opened formal proceedings against X in December 2023.[1] In January of 2026, the scope of this regulatory oversight was significantly expanded under the Digital Services Act (DSA) to investigate Grok’s functionalities.[2] This investigation specifically targets risks such as the dissemination of non-consensual sexual deepfakes and antisemitic discourse. These controversies reveal a programmed tendency towards neutral language that masks structural biases within AI systems.[3]

This article explores how this systemic opacity creates an insurmountable barrier for individuals seeking legal redress against algorithmic discrimination. The core objective is to analyse the failure of the current reversal of the burden of proof mechanism, as provided by European anti-discrimination directives, when faced with high-dimensional mathematical optimisation. Ultimately, this text examines the necessity of technical solutions to harmonise automated processing with the values of justice and equality that underpin the European legal order.

Continue reading →

Wait before hallooing: some remarks on the EU’s response to the rise of AI

On March 20, 2026March 20, 2026 By officialblogunioIn EssaysLeave a comment

Robert Junqueira [Executive Coordinator of the Research and Scientific Careers Bureau of the Research Centre for Justice and Governance (JusGov)] [1]

As AI systems are developed and used by a wide range of individuals and organisations – not least military bodies, as recent events in Iran attest[2] –, it can become unclear who is responsible when something goes wrong. At its core, the debate surrounding responsibility for harm caused by a system (biological or otherwise) with a fractured or nonexistent legal personality is not unprecedented. Well before the age of algorithmic governance, legal and moral reasoning laid considerable groundwork for determining liability under circumstances wherein the link between intent and outcome is obscured by technical artefacts, chains of command, organisational setups, and status-based asymmetries.

In ancient Rome, for instance, legal issues around agency and liability were frequently addressed, prompting the legal order to evolve and respond with gradually emerging solutions. While not necessarily providing us with ready-made schemes, such precedents nonetheless draw our attention to the fact that legal issues involving responsibility have traditionally arisen and remedies were found as a result of incremental steps rather than by means of abrupt, one-off changes. This fact, the problems faced by our ancient peers, and the ways in which they managed them, offer valuable lessons and useful models when tackling today’s pressing AI regulatory challenges.[3]

Continue reading →

“War, lies and international law” (regarding the four years since the invasion of Ukraine)

On March 13, 2026 By officialblogunioIn ReviewsLeave a comment

Alessandra Silveira [Editor of this blog, Coordinator of Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence “Digital Citizenship and Technological Sustainability” (CitDig), University of Minho]

In the week marking the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, a new book by Francisco Pereira Coutinho, Professor of public international law and European constitutional law at NOVA University Lisbon, was launched in Portugal. I had the pleasure of presenting the work on February 26, together with Pedro Froufe, editor of this blog. Right at the beginning of the book, entitled “Guerra, mentiras e direito internacional”[1] – which directly translates to English as “War, lies and international law” –, the author explains what his main motivation was: he wanted to tell the story of the invasion of Ukraine from the perspective of an expert in international law. He then gathered the questions that his colleagues and journalists had asked him – as he is also a commentator for CNN Portugal – and the result is, in my view, a compelling and courageous manifesto in defence of international law.

As the metaphor on the book cover says, international law does not cease to exist because it is violated, just as grammar does not disappear because someone writes poorly. However, continuous violations of the rules can render them meaningless. This is because law (in general) is an abstraction – it only works when those subject to the rules recognise their legitimacy and comply with them, above all because they understand that it is worth maintaining peace, security, order and justice. But in the (specific) field of international law, the weaknesses of the law are more evident, because the recipients of the rules are sovereign states, which, if they have sufficient strength to do so, simply abandon their moral compass and cease to comply with the agreed rules – and who is going to rise up against brute force?

Continue reading →

Article 13 TFEU: Between symbolism and effectiveness, animal sentience in European constitutionalism (on the EU-Mercosur Free Trade agreement)

On March 6, 2026March 7, 2026 By officialblogunioIn EssaysLeave a comment

Ana Luísa Azevedo Lopes (master’s student in European Union Law at the School of Law of the University of Minho)

1. Introduction

The protection of animal welfare has become an increasingly visible element of European Union (“EU”) action, particularly in policy areas traditionally dominated by economic considerations. The signing in January 2026 of the EU–Mercosur Free Trade Agreement (“EMTA”)[1] has made this a particularly salient issue for animal rights organisations and European citizens, serving as a contemporary example of how animal welfare is addressed both internally, and in the Union’s external action. Late in February 2026, President Ursula Von der Leyen announced that the Commission is moving forward with the provisional implementation of the agreement, although she stated that it can only be fully concluded after consent from the European Parliament.[2] This decision makes the subject of this article even more timely, as we shall examine the potential effects of such agreement on animal welfare matters across the EU.

That being said, whilst EU legislation has long addressed animal welfare in sectors such as agriculture, transport, and slaughter, the introduction of Article 13 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”) marked a significant symbolic development at the level of EU primary law, formally recognising animals as sentient beings.^[3] Despite this recognition, the legal status and practical relevance of Article 13 TFEU remain uncertain. The provision does not establish concrete obligations or enforceable rights but rather requires that animal welfare be taken into account in the definition and implementation of certain Union policies. This raises a fundamental question as to how animal welfare operates within the EU legal order when it comes into tension with other objectives pursued by the Union, particularly those linked to economic integration and trade.^[4]

Continue reading →