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”

New UNIO issue now online

By the Editorial Team

The Editorial Board is happy to announce that a new issue of the UNIO – EU Law Journal is now online. The 9(2) issue of UNIO includes contributions from various highly respected scholars and young academics and addresses issues such as i) regulation and governance of artificial intelligence; ii) the European data market; iii) the influence of European Union personal data protection standards in Latin America; iv) decentralised energy production and its intersection with the right to the city and environmental, climate, and energy-related concerns; v) the European Union’s strategy for the circular economy; and vi) European cyberculture.

We hope this new issue is relevant for our readers and would like to remind you that we are accepting submissions at UNIO and also at our blog.

You may find UNIO’s 9(2) issue here.

Editorial of February 2024

By the Editorial Team 

The Autumn Eurobarometer and the expectations of European citizens

The Eurobarometer is an instrument used by the institutions of the European Union (EU) to find out and assess the state of European public opinion. Strictly speaking, it is a method of collecting public perceptions, like a survey or poll. Naturally, it focuses on issues and problems that directly concern European integration, but it also covers issues that are relevant from a political, economic, and social point of view. It is a kind of “pulse measuring” of the EU and its citizens. The rigour of the method used, and its credibility make Eurobarometer particularly representative of currents of thought and opinion, with relevance and use in the decision-making and political actions of the EU institutions.

This type of survey – when at all credible, despite the volatility of people’s feelings, emotions, and reactions, which are increasingly moulded by immediacy in the media – is also a factor in good governance. It therefore helps to enliven democracy. It brings the frame of mind of citizens (and therefore voters) closer to political decision-makers. It should be noted that we are increasingly moving towards post-modern democracy – in the sense of post-national, post-State democracy. This means that, with all the (relative) imprecision of the terms now used, democracy and the “popular will” can no longer be circumscribed, imprisoned, reduced to a mere electoral expression, a sporadic vote, preceded by an electoral process (campaign). Furthermore, permanent interaction between elected representatives and voters, as well as an understanding of the people’s messages and way of thinking, are integral factors in a desired democracy and political activity that is sound, transparent and fruitful in terms of satisfying the needs and aspirations of those who are governed. Knowing the reality is fundamental to defining public policies – and the people’s way of feeling and thinking is an inescapable element of that reality.

Continue reading “Editorial of February 2024”

Dr. Strangelove or: What Lights Sheds Kubrick on Today’s Union

Gonçalo Martins de Matos (Master in Judiciary Law by the University of Minho) 
           

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, Stanley Kubrick’s political satire black comedy film, completed, in the past Monday, 60 years of age since its release on 29th January 1964. Often considered one of the best comedies ever made and, arguably, the best political satire of the 20th century[1], the depths of human stupidity are surgically dissected by the keen, sagacious mind of Stanley Kubrick. More than that, Kubrick’s cautionary tale about nuclear apocalypse exposes humans in what they tragicomically have more contradictory, hypocritical and idiosyncratic.

Encompassing a wide spectrum of themes, Dr. Strangelove remains very present, shedding, like all great Art, some light on contemporary issues and events. More so in recent years, with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, bringing to the Old Continent the dark fog of war again. Since Russia is a nuclear power, the fear of nuclear escalation invaded once again people’s hearts, reminding the great powers of the Cold War’s Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD – a fittingly ironic name, as well) doctrine. NATO members have been (well) cautious, as to avoid a backslide to the obscurity of the Cold War. Obscurity is the right word to describe the surroundings of war: freedom is suffocated, barricades are erected, and truth is the first victim.

Continue reading “Dr. Strangelove or: What Lights Sheds Kubrick on Today’s Union”

The New EU Pact on Migration and Asylum: from political (dis)agreements to a last chance

Inês Neves (Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, University of Porto | Researcher at CIJ | Member of the Jean Monnet Module team DigEUCit ) and Rita Ferreira Gomes (Associate at Morais Leitão)
           

Setting the scene

From 2020 onwards, migration and asylum have been central to both national and European Union (‘EU’) political agendas. 2023, however, was key and ended with major challenges for 2024.

By the end of 2023, the European Parliament and the Council had reached a political agreement on several key proposals included in the (New) Pact on Migration and Asylum[1] (‘New Pact’), in particular, Proposals for Regulations: i) introducing a screening of third country nationals at the external borders[2] (‘Screening Regulation’); ii) on the establishment of ‘Eurodac’[3] (‘Eurodac Regulation’); iii) on a common procedure for international protection in the Union[4] (‘Asylum Procedures Regulation’); iv) on asylum and migration management[5] (‘Asylum Migration Management Regulation’), and v) addressing situations of crisis and force majeure in the field of migration and asylum[6] (‘Crisis and Force majeure Regulation’).

Some question whether “the legislative proposals [will] have the same fate as the reform package that had been presented by the Commission in 2016[7]. Others see the New Pact as a final opportunity to get it right, or at least deserving of “a chance to succeed[8]. In her 2023 State of the Union speech, President von der Leyen referred to a “historic opportunity to get it over the line”, and compassionately, urged us all to get it done and prove that “Europe can manage migration effectively and with compassion[9].

Continue reading “The New EU Pact on Migration and Asylum: from political (dis)agreements to a last chance”

Editorial of January 2024

By Alessandra Silveira (Editor) 

An omen for 2024: the deepening of the European Social Union (in memory of Jacques Delors)

According to the Eurobarometer published in December 2023[1] – six months before the 2024 European Elections –, more than one third of EU citizens see the fight against poverty and social exclusion (36%) and public health (34%) as the main topics the European Parliament (EP) should prioritise. Socio-economic hardships still affect Europeans’ everyday lives: 73% think that their standard of living will decrease over the next year, of which 47% say that they have already witnessed a reduction. Over a third of Europeans (37%) have difficulties paying bills sometimes or most of the time.

This diagnosis is not exactly new. During the sovereign debt crisis, the German sociologist Ulrich Beck suggested the following: if Europeans want to perceive the experience of integration as something that actually makes sense to them, the way forward is more social security through more Europe.[2] And why is that? Because the social dimension of European integration is at the heart of the legitimate concerns that have been expressed by European citizens.

Continue reading “Editorial of January 2024”

A specter is haunting Spain — the specter of illiberalism: A young democracy facing its ghosts

Rubén Díez (Professor of Sociology at Complutense University)
           

Populism shows a natural tendency to strain the independence of public functions, the autonomy of civil society and media, as well as the institutional mechanisms regulating the civil sphere in liberal democracies. Obama reminded us of this during the funeral of Republican John McCain in September 2018, implicitly referring to President Trump. A portion of Obama’s eulogy highlighted the rules and principles of rational-legal legitimization that govern our democracies. These include adherence to the duties and responsibilities of public office, as well as the norms regulating voting and the party system. Civil organizations, alongside the political class, must take responsibility for safeguarding these principles to prevent populism from taking root within their ranks and political entities. As Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt remind us in “How Democracies Die”, more essentialist forms of democracy—with demagogic speeches and leaders, populist organizations, plebiscitary practices, and Caesarism—civil institutions see a reduction in their mediating and arbitrating capacity for the multiplicity of material and ideal interests, hindering the expression of civil solidarity. The leader, party, or movement positions itself as the voice of the people, appealing to collective identities exclusively articulated in a binary key of belonging.

Illiberalism in its most extreme forms, especially when it seizes power, thrives by co-opting civil institutions and intermediate spaces. In addition, it silences or sidelines those who articulate alternative positions to its political project. This is achieved by subverting the law and discrediting dissenting voices often through the civil exclusion of discordant voices. If the ultimate expression of this idealized political project successfully materializes in a specific place and time, it opens the door for an anti-democratic populist project to crystallize. Some recent examples include traits of this ideal definition of illiberal scenarios: the leadership of Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Law and Justice in Poland, the Brexit referendum in 2016, the declaration of independence in Catalonia in 2017, and the Trump administration in the USA. Sadly, a progressive and accelerated trend of democratic degradation may be observed in Spain as 2023 ends, following the formation of a new coalition government led by the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE) with the support of left-wing populist, nationalist, and separatist forces.

Continue reading “A specter is haunting Spain — the specter of illiberalism: A young democracy facing its ghosts”

Summaries of judgments: Asociaţia «Forumul Judecătorilor din România» | Juan

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

 ▪

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 September 2023, Asociaţia «Forumul Judecătorilor din România», Case C‑216/21, EU:C:2023:628

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Decision 2006/928/EC – Mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption – Article 2 TEU – Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU – Rule of law – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 47 – Independence of judges – National legislation altering the scheme for the promotion of judges

Facts

In 2019, the Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii (Superior Council of Magistracy, Romania) (CSM) altered the procedure for the effective promotion of judges to the regional courts and the courts of appeal by replacing the old written exams with an assessment of candidates’ work and conduct during their last three years of service. The Asociaţia «Forumul Judecătorilor din România» (‘Forum of Judges of Romania’ Association) and YN brought an action before the referring court, the Curtea de Apel Ploiești (Court of Appeal, Ploieşti, Romania), for partial annulment of that decision.

Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: Asociaţia «Forumul Judecătorilor din România» | Juan”