Editorial of September 2021

By Tiago Sérgio Cabral (Managing Editor)

On the recent Polish challenges to the primacy of EU Law

1. Some recent progress

On 14 July 2021 the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter, “ECJ”) issued an Interim Order declaring that the Polish State should suspend the activity of the, widely regarded as breaching the principle of the independence of the judiciary, Disciplinary Chamber of the (Polish) Supreme Court. The ECJ’s decision came as no surprise both due to the nature of the Chamber itself and the fact the same Court had already issued a similar order a few months before. One day after, on 15 July 2021, the ECJ would issue a judgment confirming that the Chamber was in breach of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 267 TFEU.

What could be seen as a surprise is the fact that the Polish Constitutional Tribunal, whose level independence could hardly be called adequate after the reforms by the current ruling party, directly challenged (deciding on the previous order) the ECJ. The Polish Constitutional Tribunal argued that the interim measures ordered by the ECJ should be considered as incompatible with the Polish Constitution and therefore not enforced.

Continue reading “Editorial of September 2021”

Editorial of August 2021

By Daniel Silva (Master’s student in EU Law, UMinho) 

The fight against greenwashing in the EU

In January of 2021, the European Commission and national consumer authorities shared their conclusions pursuant to a screening of websites performed to identify breaches of EU consumer law in online markets focused on greenwashing practices[1]. This screening included a variety of online green claims from a wide range of business sectors, including cosmetics, clothing, and household equipment. The results estimated that 42% of analyzed claims were exaggerated, false or deceptive and could even potentially be considered unfair commercial practices under EU law. The sweep also concluded that the practice of greenwashing has been growing as consumers demand in green products also grows.

The term greenwashing was coined by the American environmentalist Jay Westerveld in 1986, at the time regarding the practice of the hotel industry incentivizing the reuse of towels for environmental reasons, when in fact it was a ploy meant to increase their margin of profit[2]. The EU defines greenwashing as “companies giving a false impression of their environmental impact or benefits”. This, however, does not seem to encompass the magnitude and many facets that greenwashing has. There is not a unanimous agreement on a precise definition of the term, however, most definitions agree on two aspects about greenwashing: there is repression on information that suggests the company might be environmentally unfriendly and a strong push on having an environmentally friendly image. Hence, we can see greenwashing as a phenomenon of selective information disclosure on the environmental impact of a certain product or service that does not necessarily correspond to reality or is even false. We can look at greenwashing as somewhat of a marketing strategy, capitalizing on the growing consumer environmental conscience that has been on the rise in recent years. Therefore, the companies that practice greenwashing do not actually have any real environmental concern, focusing purely on economic gain.

Continue reading “Editorial of August 2021”

Editorial of July 2021

By Carlos Abreu Amorim (Professor of Administrative and Environmental Law, UMinho)

European Climate Law – the point of non-return of environmental protection

There are a number of reasons for how significant the European Climate Law (ECL), the final text of which was adopted in May 2021 should be considered. It is not only because it is the first binding legal instrument to come from the European Green Deal (EGD). Not even because of its primary intention: to convert this environmental plan launched by the Commission of Ursula von der Leyen in December 2019 into a fundamental European plan of energy decarbonisation targets and mandatory commitments with the intention of transforming the generality of production processes on the path of climate neutrality.

Even more than the reasons mentioned in previous paragraph, the success of the ECL has now become a sine qua non test for the European Union’s integration project.

European integration has increasing economic, political, geostrategic, ambitions for social achievement and full rights for its citizens. A wide range of purposes and effective peace, happiness and welfare have been achieved like never before in history. Likewise, its path of undisputed success has also seen some setbacks in these and other areas. Nevertheless, more than ever, the scale of the climate emergency and the essential responses that the environmental quality of the planet today requires in terms of public policies clearly outweigh the limited unit of account provided by the unique action of States (even countries that are large in power, population and territory). If it was already a settled truth that there are no nations capable of competing or even subsisting on their own, the deterioration of the planet’s environmental status has raised the need for extended common projects in pursuing sustainable and efficient environmental public policies. Environmental protection is one of the areas of public policies where the natural shortcomings of actions carried out alone within the framework of the old logic of the Nation State are most noted and where the broad integration of these public policies is most necessary. Climate changes will not be able to be fought with success through reactive pipelines, targeted solutions or disunited strategies. Unilateral actions will also not succeed, not even the best designed ones. The urgency of climate responses implies firm resolutions, consistency in the ends, breadth and cross-cutting and supranational scope in public policies. Above all, it requires political choices with a degree of permanence that will only be possible if there is a political consensus and the sharing of these concerns by much of the public.

Continue reading “Editorial of July 2021”

Editorial of June 2021

By Tiago Sérgio Cabral (Managing Editor)

Data Governance and the AI Regulation: Interplay between the GDPR and the proposal for an AI Act

It is hardly surprising that the recent European Commission’s proposal for a Regulation on a European Approach for Artificial Intelligence (hereinafter the “proposal for an AI Act”) is heavily inspired by the GDPR. From taking note of the GDPR’s success in establishing worldwide standards to learning from its shortcomings, for example by suppressing the stop-shop mechanism (arguably responsible for some of its enforcement woes).[1]

The proposal for an AI Act should not be considered a GDPR for AI for one singular reason: there is already a GDPR for AI, and it is called the GDPR. The scope and aims of the proposal are different, but there is certainly a high degree of influence and the interplay between the two Regulations, if the AI Act is approved, will certainly be interesting. In this editorial we will address one particular aspect where the interplay between the GDPR and the AI act could be particularly relevant: data governance and data set management.

Before going specifically into this subject, it is important to know that the AI Act’s proposed fines have a higher ceiling than the GDPR’s: up to 30,000,000 euros or, if the offender is company, up to 6% of its total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year (article 71(3) of the proposal for an AI Act). We should note, nonetheless, that this specific value is applicable to a restricted number of infringements, namely:

Continue reading “Editorial of June 2021”

Editorial of May 2021

Alessandra Silveira, Joana Covelo de Abreu, Pedro Madeira Froufe (Editors) and Tiago Sérgio Cabral (Managing Editor)

Conference on the future of Europe and the defence of European values

On March 10th, 2021, following a long negotiation, the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the European Commission signed the “Joint Declaration” on the “Conference on the Future of Europe”, holding its joint presidency.[1] The Conference will be officially launched on May 9th, 2021 in an inaugural session in Strasburg and it will be extended until the Spring of 2022. It aims at creating a new public forum for an open, inclusive, transparent and structured debate with Europeans around the issues that matter to them and affect their everyday lives. A new Special Eurobarometer, published one day before the signing of the Joint Declaration, focuses on the Conference and measures attitudes towards it and some of the key themes to be covered.[2]

Three-quarters of Europeans consider that the Conference will have a positive impact on democracy within the EU: 76% agree that it represents significant progress for democracy within the EU, with a clear majority supporting this view in every EU Member State. The very vast majority of Europeans (92%) across all Member States demand that citizens’ voices are “taken more into account in decisions relating to the future of Europe”. While voting in EU elections is clearly regarded (by 55% of respondents) as the most effective way of ensuring voices are heard by decision-makers at EU level, there is very strong support for EU citizens having a greater say in decisions relating to the future of Europe. 45% of Europeans declare themselves “rather in favour of the EU but not in the way it has been realised so far”. Six in ten Europeans agree that the Coronavirus crisis had made them reflect on the future of the EU while 39% disagree with this.

Continue reading “Editorial of May 2021”

Editorial of April 2021

Tiago Sérgio Cabral (Managing Editor)

The Council’s Position regarding the proposal for the ePrivacy Regulation: out of the frying pan and into the fire?

1. The Council’s Position

On 10 February 2021, the Council of the European Union (finally) agreed on a negotiating mandate regarding the proposal for a new ePrivacy Regulation (the Council’s text shall be referred to as the ‘Council’s Position’ and the original Commission proposal as the ‘ePrivacy Proposal’), breaking a multi-year deadlock and giving new breath to the proposal which is meant to replace the current ePrivacy Directive 2002/58 and establish a coherent framework between the lex specialis and the general rules contained in the General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR).

While some expectations could be noted due to the long-awaited agreement, public reactions to the Council’s Position were not exactly warm. Notably, the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom, Ulrich Kelber, considered that the Council’s Position, if adopted, would be a blow for data protection across the European Union. Particularly controversial were the provisions of the Council’s Position which may allow for the implementation of cookie walls, the rules on data retention and ‘return’ of metadata processing without consent.

Continue reading “Editorial of April 2021”

Editorial of March 2021

José Manuel Fernandes, Member of the European Parliament and of the MFF and own resources negotiating team

The EU budget: a legal constellation for the recovery

I. Introduction

The approval of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) is followed by an Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA) and a Decision on the EU system of Own Resources (ORD). Because of the pandemic, the Council, after Parliament’s insistence, and with strong support from Angela Merkel and Macron, put forward an historical and solidary decision: the use of a common guarantee based on the EU budget for the Commission to contract a debt of € 750 billion and establish the European Union Recovery Instrument through a Regulation[1] aiming to support the recovery in the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis (NGEU). This decision was the only possible solution. Member States did not have the financial means to, for example, increase the EU budget. The decision increases the need for new own resources (sources of revenue). In fact, the NGEU has repercussions on the IIA, the ORD and the MFF 2021/2027 itself: these are all part of a negotiation “package”.

Continue reading “Editorial of March 2021”

Editorial of February 2021

Alessandra Silveira (Editor) and Alexandre Veronese (Professor at University of Brasília)

Thoughts regarding the right to deindexation and the weaknesses of the idea of “being forgotten” online – marking the Data Protection Day

28 January 2021 marks the 15th “Data Protection Day” and the 40th anniversary of the Council of Europe’s Convention 108 – the first international legal instrument regarding personal data protection – which was opened for signature on 28 January 1981.

What began as a European celebration is now a yearly commemoration all around the world. This year, to mark the occasion, the Ibero-American Network for Data Protection and the Council of Europe promoted an event targeted to Latin America. It is interesting to know that, coincidentally, the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (STF) will hear on 3 February a case regarding a type of “right to be forgotten.” This right is the subject inspiring this essay. In light of this fact, it is essential to assess the (jus)fundamental dimension of the right to deindexation and the weakness of the idea of “being forgotten” online.[i]

Continue reading “Editorial of February 2021”

Editorial of January 2021

Pedro Madeira Froufe (Editor) and Tiago Sérgio Cabral (Managing Editor) 

Heresy, realpolitik, and the European Budget

1. The negotiation preceding the final approval of the 2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework (hereinafter, “MFF” or “Budget”) has marked by a significant number of twists, turns and eleventh-hour surprises. From the beginning this would always be a difficult negotiation. Being the first budget without the UK as a Member State, on one hand there was the need to show a united European Union after Brexit, but, on the other hand, there was the always unpleasant matter of redistributing the bill among remaining Member States.

2. In 2018, the Juncker Commission proposed a Budget with the value €1 135 Billion. Parliament considered the proposal not to be ambitious enough, an made a reinforced “counter-offer”, naming a much higher price for its consent in its November 2018 Interim Report on the Budget. However, in Council negotiations, the proposal was on track to be severely reduced. Plenty of factions were formed around the budget discussion such as the frugals (who wished to cap the budget at 1% of the GNI) or the friends of cohesion (who were not satisfied with cuts or shifting of funds from cohesion). Europe’s farming industry also lobbied against the decline in importance of the Common Agricultural Policy, and especially direct payments in the budget. At the end, things certainly seemed to be going into a pretty disappointing direction. The most likely result appeared to be a non-innovative budget pushed through after plenty of (arguably) petty squabbling.

Continue reading “Editorial of January 2021”

Editorial of December 2020

Alessandra Silveira, Joana Covelo de Abreu and Pedro Madeira Froufe (eUjust Jean Monnet Module Members - https://eujust.direito.uminho.pt). 

Brief insights on e-Justice paradigm and the de facto digitalization of justice in the European Union – answers for the plural crisis (the endemic and the pandemic)?

e-Justice is a paradigm that has been strengthened since the adoption of the latter Council’s e-Justice Action Plan and Strategy for the period of 2019-2023, where digital platforms and technological instruments are perceived as the way to further deepen reciprocal trust in the EU administration of justice (following previous arrangements made under e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018).

However, as the Commission points out, the “[e]xperience with the COVID-19 crisis shows the need for justice systems [to] function under challenging circumstances” since, insofar, “[e]ffective access to justice in the EU is hampered by paper exchanges and the need to be physically present” and it needs to be scalable to a new development environment as “[d]igital technologies have the potential to make justice systems more accessible and efficient”.

Continue reading “Editorial of December 2020”