Author: officialblogunio

“Action Plan for Affordable Energy” – a solution for citizens or a win for big corporations?

On By officialblogunioIn EssaysLeave a comment 
Cecília Pires (PhD Candidate at the School of Law of the University of Minho | FCT research scholarship holder – 2023.01072.BD)

In February 2025, the European Commission presented the “Action Plan for Affordable Energy”,[1] a strategy developed within the framework of the “Competitiveness Compass for the European Union (EU)”, which aims to reorient the work of the European Commission over the next five years with a view to reviving economic dynamism in Europe.[2]

With the clear intention of reducing the number of European citizens affected by energy poverty, tackling the near doubling of retail electricity prices for industrial consumers, as well as mitigating the difference in energy prices between the EU and its main competitors[3] – a circumstance that could generate a movement towards deindustrialisation and disinvestment in Europe –, the “Action Plan for Affordable Energy” provides for a series of measures to promote the reduction of energy costs for citizens, businesses, industries and communities across the EU, guaranteeing access to cheap, efficient and clean energy for all Europeans.

The new European energy strategy focuses on four pillars, and the respective actions – materialised in the form of revised directives, new directives, strategies, among other instruments – will be adopted over time, some of which are expected to start immediately.

Continue reading ““Action Plan for Affordable Energy” – a solution for citizens or a win for big corporations?” →

Editorial of April 2025

On By officialblogunioIn EditorialsLeave a comment

“Readiness 2030” vs. “Disney power”

(European security and defence on the subject of the 72-hour survival kit)

Pedro Froufe [Editor of this blog and Key Staff Member of Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence “Digital Citizenship and Technological Sustainability” (CitDig)]

“Readiness 2030” is the new name for Europe’s security and defence plan. In fact, the specific programme, presented by the President of the Commission on 4 March, for a total amount of 800 billion euros, is called “SAFE”.  Thus, “Readiness 2030” is the overall plan – which includes “SAFE” – that aims to propel Europe towards a dimension of power, also of “hard-power”, capable of having “strategic autonomy” in matters of common security and defence.[1]

But what may be a curious note is the fact that this “Readiness 2030” plan has been renamed – insofar as Ursula von der Leyen initially presented it as simply the “ReArm Europe” plan. It was changed from “Rearmament” to “Readiness” under the influence of Italy and Spain. Giorgia Meloni made it clear that she did not like the term “rearmament”, as it would be a misleading name for citizens; Europeans are called upon to strengthen their defence capabilities, but that does not just mean buying arms in a trivial way. For Meloni, the focus should be broader, encompassing operability, essential services, energy infrastructures, supply chains – everything that cannot be done simply with weapons. Pedro Sánchez shared the same view, in the sense that “rearmament” would be an incomplete view of the problem of security and defence.

Continue reading “Editorial of April 2025” →

Judicial independence and judges’ remuneration: echoes of the “Portuguese Judges” judgment in the joined cases C-146/23 and C-374/23

On By officialblogunioIn Case notesLeave a comment 
João Pedro Sousa (master’s student in European Union Law at the School of Law of the University of Minho)

1. Preliminary considerations

Judicial independence is a fundamental pillar of the rule of law enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). It guarantees that judges are free from external pressures – whether from the executive, legislative branches, or private interests –, allowing them to adjudicate cases impartially and fairly. In the European Union (EU) context, judicial independence transcends the internal affairs of Member States; it is an essential safeguard to ensure the full application of EU law and effective judicial protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has consistently emphasised that national courts act as “European courts”,[1] applying and upholding EU law within their jurisdictions. Consequently, any impairment to the judicial independence in a Member State poses a national constitutional issue and a direct threat to the European legal order.[2]

The recent joined cases C-146/23 (Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku) and C-374/23[3] (Adoreikė) come at a pivotal moment as concerns over the rule of law rise in certain Member States. These joined cases addressed whether budgetary measures impacting the remuneration of judges in Poland and Lithuania, introduced through national legislation, violated EU law by undermining judicial independence. Their significance is heightened by the fact that they coincide with the seventh anniversary of the “Portuguese Judges” judgment [Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v. Tribunal de Contas (ASJP)],[4] a landmark case that firmly established judicial independence as a fundamental element of the rule of law under EU law. As highlighted in a recent analysis on this blog, understanding the legacy of the “Portuguese Judges” judgment is essential to contextualising the challenges facing the judiciary today.[5] 

Continue reading “Judicial independence and judges’ remuneration: echoes of the “Portuguese Judges” judgment in the joined cases C-146/23 and C-374/23” →

7 years of the “Portuguese Judges” judgment – understanding where we come from so we know where we are going

On By officialblogunioIn EssaysLeave a comment
Free Close-up of a wooden judge's gavel on a black desk, symbolizing justice and law. Stock Photo
Juan Gálvez Galisteo (PhD student at the University of Seville, undertaking a research stay at the University of Minho)

I.

27 February 2018. This is the date on which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down its landmark judgment in the “Portuguese Judges” case [Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v. Tribunal de Contas (ASJP)].[1] Seven years have passed since that crucial judgment in the ongoing process of European integration. Was its importance foreseeable at the time? Could anyone have predicted that it would have such a profound impact on democratic coexistence within the European Union (EU)? What consequences did this judgment have? Does it still have an impact in the current European context? What considerations should be weighed up for the future?

This text aims to analyse these issues, albeit briefly, in order to contribute to and encourage the academic debate on the constitutionalisation of the European Union and the defence of its values, as set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), with special attention, for obvious reasons, to the rule of law.

Continue reading “7 years of the “Portuguese Judges” judgment – understanding where we come from so we know where we are going” →

Summaries of judgments: TP v Commission | Bindl v Commission

On By officialblogunioIn Summaries of judgmentsLeave a comment 
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 (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) 18 December 2024,

Case T-776/22 TP v Commission

Public procurement – Financial Regulation – Exclusion from the proceedings of awarding of public contracts and the concession of grants financed by the Union’s budget and by the European Development Fund (EDF) for a period of two years – Significant deficiencies in complying with main obligations in the implementation of a prior contract – Article 136 (1)(e) of the Financial Regulation – No automatic link between a finding of a failure to comply with contractual obligations by the court having jurisdiction over the contract and the adoption of an exclusion measure by the authorising officer responsible – Obligation to conduct a specific and individual assessment of the conduct of the person concerned – Prior contract awarded to a group of economic operators – Joint and several contractual liability

Facts

The General Court (henceforth “GC”), ruling in extended composition, ruled, for the first time, on the question of whether article 136(1)(e) of Regulation 2018/1046[1] (henceforth “Regulation”) imposes on the authorising officer responsible, in order to apply contractual sanctions, the obligation to conduct a specific and individual assessment of the behaviour of the person concerned before deciding to exclude from participating in award procedures.

The European Commission (henceforth “Commission”) organized a procurement procedure for the award of a public works contract concerning the upgrading of a facility. The contract was awarded in 5 October 2009 to the consortium composed by the company TP, the applicant, and its partner company. The works began in November 2009 and were concluded two years later.

Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: TP v Commission | Bindl v Commission” →

Editorial of March 2025

On By officialblogunioIn EditorialsLeave a comment 
Alessandra Silveira [Editor of this blog, Coordinator of Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence “Digital Citizenship and Technological Sustainability” (CitDig), UMinho]

The new world (dis)order and the European Defence Union

(on three years since the invasion of Ukraine)

On 24 February 2022, while the planet was still rising from the depths of the pandemic, barbarity returned to the European continent – all recorded by drones and satellites in a conventional war perpetrated amid the digital age. The return of war to the European continent urges us to re-read Hannah Arendt, because totalitarian solutions are still tantalisingly tempting. [1] Arendt explains that nowhere else does Fortune – good or bad – play such a decisive role in human affairs as on the battlefield. That is why violence in war carries with it an additional element of arbitrariness.[2]

In “The Origins of Totalitarianism” from 1951, Arendt traces the subterranean elements that crystallised the astonishing singularity of the totalitarianisms of the 20th century – and their systematic attempt to make human beings superfluous. The same perplexity that arises before the terrifying images of Bucha or Mariupol – but where does this horror come from? – led Arendt to coin the expression “the banality of evil”. With this concept, she wanted to explain that someone does not have to be a monster to perpetrate an evil act – and that people can commit it for banal reasons, without ever having decided whether to be good or bad, but simply because of their inability to think, to put themselves in the place of the victims, to exercise a broad mentality or the Kantian universalisation test.[3]

Continue reading “Editorial of March 2025” →

Compensation for unlawful data transfers: The T-354/22 judgment (Bindl v. Commission) in perspective

On By officialblogunioIn Case notesLeave a comment 
João Pedro Sousa (master’s student in European Union Law at the School of Law of the University of Minho)

1. Introduction

Protecting personal data is a cornerstone of the European Union (EU) legal framework, safeguarded by Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU) and Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), especially since the entry into force of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This regulation aims to ensure citizens’ privacy and establish clear standards for using personal data by both public and private entities.[1] However, international data transfer became particularly prominent, specifically after the Schrems II case exposed vulnerabilities in transatlantic data protection relations and the consequent annulment of the Privacy Shield by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).[2]

The judgment in case T-354/22, of January 8, 2025, known as Bindl v. Commission, delivered by the General Court (GC),[3] represents a milestone in strengthening the guarantees provided by the GDPR. For the first time, the European Commission was ordered to pay compensation for moral damages resulting from infringing stringent data protection laws.[4] This case, initiated by an EU citizen, concerns the improper transfer of personal data of users of the Conference on the Future of Europe (CFE) website to the United States (US), in violation of the regulation.[5]

Continue reading “Compensation for unlawful data transfers: The T-354/22 judgment (Bindl v. Commission) in perspective” →

AI in the context of border management, migration and asylum in the EU: technological innovation vs. fundamental rights of migrants in the AI ​​Act

On By officialblogunioIn EssaysLeave a comment 
Maria Clara Pina (master’s student in Human Rights at the School of Law of the University of Minho)

I.

Currently, in the so-called era of techno-solutionism,[1] digital technologies, including Artificial Intelligence (AI), have become widely used.[2] We are witnessing the emerging but rapidly evolving phenomenon of border management and control through the use of new technologies[3] and automated individual decision-making (Article 22 of the General Data Protection Regulation, henceforth “GDPR”),[4] which employ AI, and promise faster and more efficient decisions. However, these systems have the potential to harm human rights. Migration is becoming a transaction that requires migrants to exchange biometric and biographical data for access to resources or a jurisdiction – and to be seen as people[5] with inherent rights and dignity.

At the same time, the number of migrants in the European Union (EU)[6] is growing, making it worthwhile to analyse the impact of these technologies and their regulation (or lack thereof), given their inevitable and rapid evolution, but, above all, the constant character of the migratory phenomenon over time, and the vulnerability inherent to the status of migrant. In this context, complex legal challenges arise, requiring the analysis of the EU regulatory framework on the use of AI in the context of border management, asylum and migration, considering the main gaps within the AI ​​Act[7] and its far-reaching implications on the human rights of migrants.

Continue reading “AI in the context of border management, migration and asylum in the EU: technological innovation vs. fundamental rights of migrants in the AI ​​Act” →

The EU-Mercosur Free Trade Agreement – A “race to the bottom” when it comes to EU’s climate goals?

On By officialblogunioIn EssaysLeave a comment 
Ana Cardoso (PhD candidate & Master's in European Union Law at the School of Law of University of Minho)

I.

The European Union (EU) is one of the most active actors in the field of environmental protection worldwide.[1] However, today some of the EU’s most important partners – namely the United States of America (USA) – have adopted highly protectionist positions[2] which aim to push forth economic growth without any consideration for its environmental consequences or international commitments.[3]

The issue has been so controversial, that Bloomberg Philanthropies has announced it will step in to cover the USA’s contribution to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), given that the country had been responsible for funding around 21% of the organisation’s budget, and its withdrawal would mean a severe disruption to environmental protection actions all around the planet.[4]

Additionally, Russia’s acts of continued aggression against Ukraine have emphasised the EU’s energetic dependency on unreliable partners making the need to boost the EU’s own energy autonomy more apparent, which the Commission proposes to do through renewables, energy efficiency and other European Green Deal (EGD) policies.[5]

Continue reading “The EU-Mercosur Free Trade Agreement – A “race to the bottom” when it comes to EU’s climate goals?” →

Summaries of judgments: Real Madrid Club de Fútbol | KUBERA

On By officialblogunioIn Summaries of judgmentsLeave a comment 
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 4 October 2024, Real Madrid Club de Fútbol, Case C-633/22, EU:C:2024:843

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Articles 34 and 45 – Recognition and enforcement of judgments – Revocation of a declaration of enforceability of judgments – Grounds for refusal – Public policy in the State in which recognition is sought – Penalty imposed on a newspaper and one of its journalists for harm caused to the reputation of a sports club – Damages – Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Freedom of the press.

Facts

In 2014, the newspaper Le Monde and one of its journalists were convicted in Spain for the publication in 2006 of an article claiming that the football club Real Madrid had retained the services of the head of a doping ring in the cycling world. The Spanish court ordered them to pay EUR 300 000 to Real Madrid and EUR 30 000 to a member of the medical team of that club, by way of compensation for non-material damage suffered.

Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: Real Madrid Club de Fútbol | KUBERA” →