Editorial of January 2025

By Alexandre Veronese (Professor of University of Brasília, CitDig key external member, UMinho) and Alessandra Silveira [Editor of this blog, Coordinator of Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence “Digital Citizenship and Technological Sustainability” (CitDig), UMinho]

The dilemmas of content moderation in the European Union and Latin America: a new chapter?

            It was already known that Elon Musk’s direct participation in the presidential campaign that led to a second term for Donald Trump would have consequences for Big Tech regulation policies. However, one did not imagine that it would happen so quickly. The recent policy change by Meta – the parent company to which Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp belong – paves the way for other technology companies to seek ways to tacitly or explicitly “globalise” a broader interpretation of the concept of freedom of expression, according to the model of the United States of America.

            For Brazil – and other democracies in Latin America – that have had clashes with large digital platforms, the dilemma will increase. It is worth remembering what happened in Brazil. The social network X – former Twitter –, after its acquisition by Elon Musk, changed its content moderation policy. Thus, potentially offensive posts were released in certain countries. This process culminated in court orders from the Federal Supreme Court of Brazil to block posts and accounts. Invoking its terms of use of service, social network X refused to comply with such orders. That reaction caused the application to be blocked.[1] Subsequently, the social network X met the demands of that court – which acts as the Brazilian constitutional court – and the application was able to function again.[2]

Continue reading “Editorial of January 2025”

Commentary to the Bezirkshauptmannschaft Landeck judgment: a failure by the CJEU in appropriately balancing privacy, data protection and the interests of law enforcement [1]

Tiago Sérgio Cabral [Editor of this blog and Project Expert for the Portuguese team in the "European Network on Digitalization and E-governance" (ENDE)]

1. Background

The Court of Justice’s decision in Case C- 548/21 (Bezirkshauptmannschaft Landeck) probably got less attention than it deserved from legal scholars due to being issued at the same time as other high profile data protection cases and connected to Directive 2016/680/EU (the “Law Enforcement Directive”) instead of the GDPR. However, there are good reasons to engage in a deeper analysis of this case. The Bezirkshauptmannschaft Landeck judgment addresses access by law enforcement to mobile phones, which nowadays store large amounts of personal data that most people prefer to maintain private, but that law enforcement considers key for criminal investigation purposes. The Court of Justice’s conclusions regarding this issue are surprising as they seem out of step with previous case-law. Other less controversial but still relevant takeaways from this judgment, such as those regarding the scope of the concept of “personal data” may have relevance beyond data protection in the context of law enforcement.

    2. The Court of Justice’s Decision

    The case arises from a request for a preliminary ruling from the Regional Administrative Court of Tyrol (Austria). The factual background of the judgment is relatively straightforward: Austrian customs authorities seized a package for a data subject (CG) containing 85 grams of cannabis. Pursuant to this seizure, law enforcement conducted a search of CG’s residence, questioned him, and requested access to connection data on CG’s mobile telephone. CG refused and, as such, law enforcement seized his mobile phone, including SIM and SD cards.

    Continue reading “Commentary to the Bezirkshauptmannschaft Landeck judgment: a failure by the CJEU in appropriately balancing privacy, data protection and the interests of law enforcement [1]”

    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. Issue 10(2) of UNIO includes contributions from a number of highly esteemed academics and young scholars and covers matters such as i) the EU’s conditionality regulation; ii) an analysis of the new far-right movements; iii) the digitalisation of criminal justice in the EU through eu-LISA cooperation with Eurojust and Europol; iv) the taxation of energy products in the EU for reasons of environmental policy; v) digital constitutionalism; vi) the use of technology for inter-jurisdictional cooperation in the inter-American context; and vi) the pivotal role of digital currencies.

    It is our hope that this new edition will be of relevance to our readers and would also like to remind you that we are accepting submissions at UNIO and also on our blog.

    You may find UNIO’s 10(2) issue here.

    Procedural changes in the European Court of the European Union by entrusting preliminary ruling competences to the General Court: first impressions

    Joana Covelo de Abreu (Editor of this blog and Key-staff member of Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence “Digital Citizenship & Technological Sustainability” - CitDig, Erasmus+).

    Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union was amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2019 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of April, 11th 2024, which entered into force on September 1st 2024. These changes were mainly focused on relieving the Court of Justice from some of its jurisdictional demands, especially by entrusting the General Court the competence on certain specific areas in which preliminary questions could be raised. Notwithstanding, the opportunity was also embraced to “modernize and simplify procedures before the two courts”, i.e., the Court of Justice and the General Court.

    In fact, the Court of Justice of the European Union was already called upon to pronounce itself concerning the possibility to transfer jurisdiction on preliminary references to the General Court, under specific circumstances: under Regulation (EU, Eurotom) 2015/2422, this institution submitted a report to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on 14th December 2017, where it “took the view that there was no need, at that time, to propose changes as regards the manner of dealing with requests for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU.” However, in that same report, the Court also “pointed out that a subsequent transfer of jurisdiction to the General Court to give preliminary rulings in certain specific areas could not be ruled out if the number and complexity of requests for a preliminary ruling submitted to the Court of Justice were to be such that the proper administration of justice required it” (Recital 1 of Regulation 2024/2019).

    Continue reading “Procedural changes in the European Court of the European Union by entrusting preliminary ruling competences to the General Court: first impressions”

    Summaries of judgments: Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles and Others v Council | Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine v EUIPO

    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 (Grand Chamber) 2 October 2024, Case T-797/22 Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles and Others v Council

    Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine – Prohibition on the provision of legal advisory services to the Russian Government and entities established in Russia – Fundamental role of lawyers in a democratic society – Right of lawyers to provide legal advisory services – Right to be advised by a lawyer – Articles 7 and 47 and Article 52(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Independence of lawyers – Rule of law – Proportionality – Legal certainty

    Facts

    The General Court (“GC”), dismissed an action brought by the Belgian Bar Association, as well as a certain number of individual lawyers, seeking to annul a Regulation adopted by the Council, which sought to restrict the provision of legal advisory services to the Russian Government, and entities, established in the Russian Federation.

    In light of the military aggression carried out by the Russian Federation (“Russia”) against Ukraine, several restrictive measures have been adopted by the Council targeting persons, entities and bodies supporting actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.

    Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles and Others v Council | Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine v EUIPO”

    Football and the Internal Market: Integration beyond passion? (CJEU “BZ” ruling of October 4, 2024)

    Pedro Madeira Froufe [Editor of this blog and Coordinator of the Group "Studies in European Union Law" (CEDU), of JUSGOV - Research Centre for Justice and Governance, University of Minho). 
    The current image has no alternative text. The file name is: pexels-photo-1171084.jpeg

    1. Football currently calls for multiple angles of analysis. In recent decades, as an economic activity, it has developed universally. It is a very specific economic activity that involves notable movements of capital and human resources, sociological and cultural aspects. It increasingly involves a technological, television and audiovisual aspect. It is common to say about football, that it – as a phenomenon – “moves passions and crowds”. In parallel, there are manifestations of local, regional and national identity associated with football. This has, directly and indirectly, a very significant economic weight.

    For example, according to a study/record of international transfers of football players, called “Transfer Matching System (TMS)”, between 2011 and 2020, the positive net balance of player transfers from Portugal to other countries would have been greater than 2.5 billion Euros.[1] Progressively, football developed its professional-economic aspect, inserted in its own relevant market, which was also being built, solidified and growing in recent decades. The so-called “football industry” (a relatively common expression) is overlapping, on a global scale, with the dimension of football as a mere sporting, educational and leisure activity.

    Continue reading “Football and the Internal Market: Integration beyond passion? (CJEU “BZ” ruling of October 4, 2024)”

    International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women: a brief analysis of Directive (EU) 2024/1385 of 14 May 2024

    Ana Cardoso (PhD candidate at the School of Law of University of Minho)

    Last Monday, 25 November, marked the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. The President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, stressed that MEPs “stand with those abused, traumatised, bullied and brutalised”, as Parliament buildings were illuminated as part of the “Orange the world” campaign.[1]

    According to United Nations (UN) estimations, a woman dies every 10 minutes victim of gender-based violence, with almost one in three women being subjected, at least once in their life, to physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence, non-partner sexual violence, or both, globally. Making gender-based violence against women and girls one of the most prevalent and pervasive human rights violations.[2]

    In the EU, on May 2024, the European Parliament and of the Council approved the Directive (EU) 2024/1385 on combating violence against women and domestic violence, recognising that a specified regulation on this issue was needed. With a Directive being a legally binding instrument that requires the fulfilment of detailed objectives within a defined timeframe, the Member States are therefore obligated to alter or adapt their own legal systems, as a way to provide a better, more encompassing and overall equivalent protection to victims of gender-based violence.

    Continue reading “International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women: a brief analysis of Directive (EU) 2024/1385 of 14 May 2024”

    Rethinking Public Acceptance Mechanisms and Ethical Frameworks for emerging technologies in the EU: The example of Virtual Reality

    Manuel Resende Protásio (PhD candidate at the School of Law of University of Minho | FCT research scholarship holder – Bolsa UI/BD/152801/2022)

    Introduction

    The European Union (EU) faces a profound challenge in the regulation and oversight of rapidly advancing technologies such as Virtual Reality (VR). As technological progress accelerates, the mechanisms that assess, accept, and regulate such innovations are being tested like never before. This article seeks to unravel the complexities of these mechanisms, exploring how the EU addresses ethical, social, and economic challenges arising from VR through public consultations, impact assessments, and legislative initiatives such as the “Better Regulation” agenda.

    Drawing attention to key institutions such as the European Commission and advisory bodies like the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE), we examine their roles in shaping the regulatory landscape. At the heart of this inquiry is the question: how can the EU balance the often competing demands of innovation, public safety, data protection, and ethical standards?

    By delving into real-world applications and regulatory obstacles—such as the effects of VR on mental health, consumer protection, and data concerns—this article presents an in-depth analysis of the current regulatory framework. Ultimately, the aim is to advocate for more transparent, inclusive, and adaptive approaches to governance, which are vital for fostering innovation while safeguarding societal interests.

    Continue reading “Rethinking Public Acceptance Mechanisms and Ethical Frameworks for emerging technologies in the EU: The example of Virtual Reality”

    A wall that fell, a world that collapsed: the transition to the unexpected (on the 35th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall)

    Rubén Díez García (Professor in the Department of Applied Sociology at the Complutense University of Madrid)

    The Berlin Wall, built in 1961, was more than just a physical barrier: it was a symbol that separated two worlds and competing political ideologies. This ideological division also fuelled conflict within liberal democracies themselves. On the eastern side, the communist bloc, under the tutelage of the Soviet Union, controlled the political, economic, and social life of its societies. On the western side, liberal democracies defended their ideal of individual freedom and human rights. And I emphasise “ideal,” because it is no secret that democratic liberalism in practice is not exempt from risks, threats, and tensions.

    Beyond separating two blocs during the Cold War, the wall also divided two different ways of legitimising power. Without delving into the limitations and the shadows and monsters of reason illuminated by modernity and capitalist development, the Berlin Wall encapsulated an oppressive reality for millions in the communist bloc. Its very existence reflected authoritarian control that restricted access to information, freedom of speech, and even collective expression, a key element in our democracies. The wall symbolised the state’s force to suppress the desire for personal autonomy beyond the collective, as well as the right to free movement. Over time, its meaning expanded: it ceased to be just a tangible border and became a symbol of the authoritarian system governing the Eastern bloc.

    Continue reading “A wall that fell, a world that collapsed: the transition to the unexpected (on the 35th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall)”

    Summaries of judgments: Bytedance v Commission

    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 (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition), 17 July 2024, Case T-1077/23 Bytedance/Commission

    Digital services – Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 – Designation of gatekeepers – Online social networking service – Requirements – Presumptions – Rebuttal of the presumptions – Rights of the defence – Equal treatment.

    Facts

    The General Court (“GC”), interpreted for the first time the Digital Markets Act[1] (“DMA”), rejecting the action of annulment, brought by the Bytedance group (hereinafter, taken together, « Bytedance ») against the decision by the European Commission to designate Bytedance and the undertakings directly or indirectly controlled by it, as gatekeepers within the meaning of the DMA.

    The DMA aims to contribute to the good functioning of the internal market by establishing rules that ensure the contestability and equity of the digital markets. According to the DMA, the Commission designates an undertaking as a “gatekeeper” when certain cumulative qualitative criteria are met, namely: (i) it has a significant weight on the internal market; (ii) it provides a core platform service (“CPS”) that is an important gateway that allows business users to reach end users; and (iii) enjoys a solid and long lasting position in its activities, or it will, in all likelihood, enjoy such position in the near future.

    Additionally an undertaking is also presumed to be a gatekeeper when certain quantitative thresholds established based on its turnover, market value and number of users are met. However, if an undertaking meets these quantitative thresholds, it may still rebut its designation as a gatekeeper by presenting sufficiently substantiated arguments to demonstrate that, exceptionally, it does not meet the cumulative qualitative criteria required to be designated as a gatekeeper.

    Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: Bytedance v Commission”