Summaries of judgments: OT v Council of the European Union | Abramovich v Council

Summaries of judgments made in collaboration with the Portuguese judges and référendaire of the General Court (Maria José Costeira, Ricardo Silva Passos and Esperança Mealha)
 ▪

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition), 10 April 2024, Case T-301/22, Petr Aven v Council of the European Union

Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in view of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine – Freezing of funds – List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources – Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists – Concept of ‘support for actions or policies’ – Article 2(1)(a) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP – Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 – Concepts of ‘material or financial support for Russian decision-makers’ and ‘benefit’ from those decision-makers – Article 2(1)(d) of Decision 2014/145 – Article 3(1)(d) of Regulation No 269/2014 – Error of assessment

Facts

The Council of the European Union (‘the Council’) adopted, following the military aggression carried out by the Russian Federation (‘Russia’) against Ukraine on 24 February 2022, several measures by which it added the applicant’s name to the lists of persons, entities and bodies supporting actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (“the lists at issue”), adopted by the Council since 2014.

On 28 February 2022, the Council imposed on the applicant, Mr. Petr Aven, an oligarch of Russian and Latvian nationality, the freezing of his banking funds and assets, in accordance with Article 2(1) and (2) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014[1].

The Council took such actions on the ground that he is a major shareholder of the Russian conglomerate ‘Alfa Group’, one of Russia’s main banks. As such, the applicant is one of the most influential persons in Russia and has links with the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, supporting the Russian regime. According to the Council, the Russian President rewarded the Alfa Group for its loyalty to the Russian authorities by promoting the group’s investment plans abroad.

Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: OT v Council of the European Union | Abramovich v Council”

Editorial of May 2024

By the Alessandra Silveira (Editor)

“Europe is mortal”: recovering the original impetus for loyal co-operation of Article 4(3) TEU

Last April 25, while the Portuguese were celebrating the 50th anniversary of their democracy, French President Emmanuel Macron delivered a speech at the Sorbonne University urging the European Union (EU) to urgently rethink its economic and defence models, otherwise it will become irrelevant on the world stage value-wise – that is the meaning of the metaphor according to which the Europe we have come to know could die.[1] The rules of the game have changed on several fronts – including geopolitics, economy, trade and culture – and in this context, the “European way of life” is under threat and could fall into decay. Moreover, fighting Western values is the more or less declared plan of those who want a new illiberal international order.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine marks the beginning of a new phase for European integration, the shape of which is not yet fully understood. But one thing is certain: in this new phase, loyal co-operation between European institutions and Member States – as well as their loyalty to each other – is particularly important. This is not a time for friction or dispute between Europeans and their representatives, because in the face of the barbarity of war, what is at stake is always of an existential nature. In other words, it is always a matter of life and death, also for European values and their relevance in the world. Against this backdrop, it is important to identify the new winds that are blowing across the relations of articulation and interdependence between the legal-constitutional order of the EU and the legal-constitutional order of the Member States.

Continue reading “Editorial of May 2024”

New digital manifestations of financial services and European integration: what benefits for the European citizen

Ana Filipa Machado Ribeiro (Student at the School of Law of the University of Minho | Winner of the 2023 UMinho Award for Undergraduate Research) 
           

Initial considerations

In an era where digital transformation is reshaping the financial landscape, the European Union (EU) has taken a pivotal step towards harmonising the burgeoning realm of crypto-assets with the introduction of the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) Regulation. As we delve into the intricacies of the MiCA Regulation, it is essential to understand its objectives, the classification of crypto assets it covers, and the broader implications for European citizens and the digital economy at large. The following discussion offers a comprehensive exploration of the MiCA Regulation, also considering criticisms of the legislative adoption practised by the Union, while seeking to ascertain what advantages (if any) it offers European citizens.

MiCA – Statement of reasons

The EU has presented a Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Markets in Crypto-assets – MiCA Regulation. This legislative proposal is part of the Digital Finance Package, understood by the EU itself as a set of measures that include a new strategy on digital finance for the EU financial sector,[1] aimed at promoting and supporting the potential of digital finance in terms of innovation and competition, while simultaneously mitigating inherent risks. Thus, the EU is prioritising the preparation of Europe for the digital age and creating a future-ready economy, serving its citizens.

Continue reading “New digital manifestations of financial services and European integration: what benefits for the European citizen”

Summaries of judgments: L.G. (Continued holding of a judicial office) | GN (Ground for refusal based on the best interests of the child)

Summaries of judgments made in collaboration with the Portuguese judge and référendaire of the CJEU (Nuno Piçarra and Sophie Perez)

 ▪

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2023, L.G. (Continued holding of a judicial office), Case C‑718/21 ,EU:C:2023:1015

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 267 TFEU – Concept of ‘court or tribunal’ – Criteria – Izba Kontroli Nadzwyczajnej i Spraw Publicznych (Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs) of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) – Reference for a preliminary ruling from a panel of judges without the status of an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law – Inadmissibility

Facts

In Poland, judges who wish to continue to perform their duties after reaching the age of retirement are required to declare their wish to do so to the Krajowej Radzie Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary, the ‘KRS’).

In 2020, L.G., a judge within the Sąd Okręgowy w K. (Regional Court, K., Poland), notified the KRS of his wish to continue to perform his duties beyond the date of his 65th birthday. The KRS declared that there was no need to rule on the application, after finding that it had been lodged after the expiry of the time limit imposed by law. Hearing an appeal brought by L.G., the Sąd Najwyższy (Izba Kontroli Nadzwyczajnej i Spraw Publicznych) (Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court, Poland), turned to the CJEU to request clarification regarding the principles of the irremovability of judges and judicial independence as enshrined in EU law.

Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: L.G. (Continued holding of a judicial office) | GN (Ground for refusal based on the best interests of the child)”

European security and defence: the role of the European Peace Facility in building a “strategic autonomy”

Bruna Barbosa (Master in European Union Law by UMinho) 
           

The outbreak of new conflicts in the vicinity of Europe highlighted its dependence on the United States (US) in terms of security and defence. However, the redefinition of the US geopolitical strategy has resulted in a gradual reduction of its investments in Europe. This is driven by a shift in US geostrategic priorities to regions far from Europe, such as the Indo-Pacific, due to the emergence of new powers, including China.

This circumstance demands a more active approach from the European Union (EU) in matters related to European security and defence. European thinking has undergone significant changes, notably by recognising the importance of investing in its strategic autonomy .[1], [2]

It is therefore essential to understand how the EU can position itself as a prominent “actor” in security and defence issues on an international scale. And also how the European Peace Facility (hereinafter EPF) effectively contributes to increasing the EU’s strategic autonomy.

In this context, the 2022 Strategic Compass – a document that outlines the EU’s strategic direction over the next decade – stands out to reinforce European security and defence ,[3] seeking to balance its power of influence (soft power) with its military capacity (hard power), in an environment of cooperation between all Member States, allowing for a reinforcement of the Union’s internal stability, in particular, vis-à-vis its neighbouring States.[4]

Continue reading “European security and defence: the role of the European Peace Facility in building a “strategic autonomy””

From the Official Journal to the Diário da República: the role of correlation tables and Lei 44/2023 in the transposition of EU Law into Portuguese Law

Pedro Petiz Viana (Master in Law and Informatics from UMinho / LL.M. in European Law from Leiden University / EU Affairs Advisor in the Portuguese Parliament) 
           

Under Articles 258 and 260(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and in accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), Member States have the obligation to notify the European Commission of the national measures transposing a Directive.

As affirmed by the Court of Justice of the European Union, this notification must “contain sufficiently clear and precise information on the substance of the national rules which transpose a Directive”,[1] so that the Commission is in a position to ascertain whether the Member State has genuinely and completely implemented the Directive.[2]

As stated by the Court in Commission v. Belgium, this notification may encompass acorrelation table”.[3] The European Commission, in its “Better Regulation Guidelines” also affirmed that this obligation to communicate may include the so-called “correspondence tables”.[4] [5]

Continue reading “From the Official Journal to the Diário da República: the role of correlation tables and Lei 44/2023 in the transposition of EU Law into Portuguese Law”

The EU Directive on violence against women and domestic violence – fixing the loopholes in the Artificial Intelligence Act

Inês Neves (Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, University of Porto | Researcher at CIJ | Member of the Jean Monnet Module team DigEUCit) 
           

March 2024: a significant month for both women and Artificial Intelligence

In March 2024 we celebrate women. But March was not only the month of women. It was also a historic month for AI regulation. And, as #TaylorSwiftAI has shown us,[1] they have a lot more in common than you might think.

On 13 March 2024, the European Parliament approved the Artificial Intelligence Act,[2] a European Union (EU) Regulation proposed by the European Commission back in 2021. While the law has yet to be published in the Official Journal of the EU, it is fair to say that it makes March 2024 a historical month for Artificial Intelligence (‘AI’) regulation.

In addition to the EU’s landmark piece of legislation, the Council of Europe’s path towards the first legally binding international instrument on AI has also made progress with the finalisation of the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law.[3] As the EU’s cornerstone legislation, this will be a ‘first of its kind’, aiming to uphold the Council of Europe’s legal standards on human rights, democracy and the rule of law in relation to the regulation of AI systems. With its finalisation by the Committee on Artificial Intelligence, the way is now open for future signature at a later stage. While the non-self-executing nature of its provisions is to be expected, some doubts remain as to its full potential, given the high level of generality of its provisions, and their declarative nature.[4]

Continue reading “The EU Directive on violence against women and domestic violence – fixing the loopholes in the Artificial Intelligence Act”

Editorial of March 2024

By the Alessandra Silveira 

On inferred personal data and the difficulties of EU law in dealing with this matter

The right not to be subject to automated decisions was considered for the first time before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the recent SCHUFA judgment. Article 22 GDPR (on individual decisions based solely on automated processing, including profiling) always raised many doubts to legal scholars:[1] i) what a decision taken “solely” on the basis of automated processing would be?; ii) would this Article provide for a right or, rather, a general prohibition whose application does not require the party concerned to actively invoke a right?; iii) to what extent this automated decision produces legal effects or significantly affects the data subject in a similar manner?; iv) will the provisions of Article 22 GDPR only apply where there is no relevant human intervention in the decision-making process?; v) if a human being examines and weighs other factors when making the final decision, will it not be made “solely” based on the automated processing? [and, in this situation, will the prohibition in Article 22(1) GDPR not apply]?

To these doubts a German court has added a few more. SCHUFA is a private company under German law which provides its contractual partners with information on the creditworthiness of third parties, in particular, consumers. To that end, it establishes a prognosis on the probability of a future behaviour of a person (‘score’), such as the repayment of a loan, based on certain characteristics of that person, on the basis of mathematical and statistical procedures. The establishment of scores (‘scoring’) is based on the assumption that, by assigning a person to a group of other persons with comparable characteristics who have behaved in a certain way, similar behaviour can be predicted.[2]

Continue reading “Editorial of March 2024”

The Italy–Albania Protocol on migration management: between new schemes of asylum externalisation and risks of systematic violations

Valentina Faggiani (Associate Professor of Constitutional Law at University of Granada) 
           

The trend towards the externalisation of migratory policy has been reaffirmed in the recent Italy–Albania Protocol, whose objective is to institute a new model. This Protocol aims at intervening to overcome a real problem: the systemic crisis of asylum that Italy is suffering. The idea that inspires it and the scheme are clear and have some original profiles: if the situation in the reception centres in Italy is unsustainable, why not transfer migrants in irregular situation and asylum seekers to reception centres instituted outside the Italian territory, but managed, controlled and financed by Italy? In this country, particularly in frontline areas such as Lampedusa, on the one hand, foreigners suffer serious and systematic violations of fundamental rights; on the other hand, there has been a strong feeling of uneaseamong the local population, who live in an unsafe environment characterised by the proliferation of criminality and situation of violence.

The idea has the characteristic of extrema ratio: the purpose of building a new model of migratory flux management. Regarding the innovation profiles, it is interesting to observe that in this case Italy does is not delegating, as it did in the Memorandum of Understanding with Libia, the liability for controlling the fluxes and for pushing back the migrants to their country of origin, but it assumes the management of all phases, and it extends the jurisdiction and the cost that it implies. It is a much more extensive and complex project. Indeed, the political and economic context of Albania apparently offers more guarantees than other countries.

Continue reading “The Italy–Albania Protocol on migration management: between new schemes of asylum externalisation and risks of systematic violations”

Summaries of judgments: OT v Council of the European Union | Abramovich v Council

Summaries of judgments made in collaboration with the Portuguese judges and référendaire of the General Court (Maria José Costeira, Ricardo Silva Passos and Esperança Mealha)
 ▪

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition), 15 November 2023, Case T-193/22, OT v Council of the European Union

Facts

Following the military aggression perpetrated by the Russian Federation (‘Russia’) against Ukraine on 24 February 2022, the Council of the European Union (‘the Council’) adopted several acts by which it added the applicant’s name to the lists of persons, entities and bodies supporting actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, adopted by the Council since 2014.

The Council imposed on the applicant, OT, a businessman of Russian nationality, the freezing of his banking funds and assets, in accordance with Article 2(1) (d) and (g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014[1], on the ground that, he is a major shareholder of the Russian conglomerate ‘Alfa Group’, one of Russia’s largest taxpayers. As such, the applicant is considered to be one of the most influential persons in the country and has links with the Russian President. According to the Council, Vladimir Putin rewarded the Alfa Group for its loyalty to the Russian authorities.

Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: OT v Council of the European Union | Abramovich v Council”