Pornographic deepfakes as a violation of women’s rights

Mariana Coelho (Master's in European Union Law at the School of Law of University of Minho)

1. Preliminary considerations

The rise of new technologies has consistently provided more challenges for human rights and democratic values all over the world. With the widespread use of AI technologies, it has never been easier to create manipulated content, namely of sexual nature. And if deepfakes have shown to be increasingly realistic, the risk is ever growing.

In fact, the last few days have seen the emergence of a new trend on social media websites, such as TikTok and X: mukbang[1] and/or ASMR[2] videos created entirely through AI systems, featuring predominantly women of color, and replicating their mannerisms and accents. In these videos, AI models have even been trying to convince the viewers that they are real people, with most of them being dotted with an unimaginable level of realism. If it is this easy to create seemingly innocent videos, that can blur or even virtually delete the line between real people and AI models, the issue of pornographic deepfakes is, or should at least be, now more than ever, at the center of public discourse, with women’s rights being at risk at levels never before seen.

Digital sexual violence targeting women has been a persistent and widespread concern for several years, and its ongoing prevalence has elevated it to a priority within the EU’s digital policy agenda. From political efforts, legislative action and digital literacy initiatives, the EU has undoubtedly become “the world’s leading tech watchdog”.[3] In face of how quickly violent discourse seems to be spreading through multiple societies, the European Parliament has increased pressure on the Commission and Member States to act more quickly and aggressively on the matter of women’s rights, with Irish Member of Parliament Maria Walsh calling for stricter criminal penalties for those who create and disseminate pornographic deepfakes in December 2024.[4] The MEP called to attention the fact that current legal frameworks that exist in the EU, no matter how revolutionary, have proven to be insufficient to combat malicious uses of technology, that are used to harass, defame and exclude women from public discourse and professional life every day.

Continue reading “Pornographic deepfakes as a violation of women’s rights”

Controversial aspects of the EU-Mercosur agreement (a South American perspective)

Fernando Mario Milano (Professor of Integration Law at the National University of Rosario and University of Buenos Aires, Argentina)

With both blocs concluding negotiations on the EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement, it is pertinent to conduct a cursory study on the potential implications of some of the issues linked to the entry into force of its trade pillar, something that, as we will see later, is still far from happening. Of course, this critical analysis should not lead to the interpretation that our position is completely contrary to the provisions of the agreement; it should only serve to highlight those aspects on which there are considerable disagreements between both blocs, which may even render it inapplicable in practice.

As is well known, after 20 years of negotiations, on 28 June 2019, the European Union (“EU”) and Mercosur reached an agreement “in principle” for a “strategic” partnership. This agreement includes not only economic and trade aspects, but also political and cooperation aspects. It consists of three pillars: political dialogue, trade and cooperation.[1]

In view of the disagreements that have arisen between the EU and Mercosur on certain sensitive matters – such as deforestation for agricultural production in the territories of Mercosur countries (particularly in relation to Brazil)[2] – at the request of the EU, an amendment was made to the agreement reached in 2019. In this amendment, in relation to chapter 14 of the trade pillar, a series of parameters to be met for environmental protection were established, in line with the 2015 United Nations (“UN”) Paris Agreement on climate change, duly signed by all Mercosur and EU member countries.[3]

Continue reading “Controversial aspects of the EU-Mercosur agreement (a South American perspective)”

Political manipulation in the digital age: the European Union’s struggle for electoral integrity

Beatriz Magalhães Sousa (master’s student in European Union Law at the School of Law of University of Minho)

Modern democracies face, nowadays, highly sophisticated and subtle threats. The electoral interference by third countries, while known to be a practice, has been thrown into the spotlight after the Romanian elections’ debacle – the Constitutional Court, doubting the integrity of the results (which gave the victory to far-right candidate, Calin Georgescu), opted (ex officio)[1] for the annulment of the election. This decision underlines not only the growing suspicion of Russia’s meddling in European politics, but also the dangers that digital technologies and the impoverishment of information constitute for the electoral process – according to the Court, the employment of Artificial Intelligence (AI), automated systems, and coordinated information integrity campaigns play a big part in contemporary elections.[2]

With the elections annulled, Romanian voters rushed to the polls (for the second time in six months) on May 4th, 2025, with the far-right supported candidate – now George Simion, after Georgescu was barred from campaigning for a second time – winning the first round of the rerun.[3] In an attempt to suppress the risks that plagued the past elections, Romania’s institutions created a campaign to combat illegal online content (conducted by the Education Ministry in coordination with the National Audiovisual Council) and encouraged citizens to report any content that constitutes disinformation.[4] These efforts, while commendable seem to have fallen short of the mark with Simion’s win on May 18th being all but certain.

Continue reading “Political manipulation in the digital age: the European Union’s struggle for electoral integrity”

The Greenpeace lawsuit in Dutch courts: a landmark case and the first real test for the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive

Ana Carcau (master’s student in European Union Law at the School of Law of University of Minho)

In early 2025, Greenpeace International initiated legal proceedings before Dutch courts seeking compensation for all the damages and costs suffered from a series of abusive lawsuits filed against it by the US-based fossil fuel pipeline company, Energy Transfer.[1] These lawsuits, strategically designed to intimidate and silence public participation, are what we now widely refer to as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). They exemplify what has been described as “punishment by process”: a way of weaponizing legal systems to suppress dissent rather than to seek justice.[2]

The legal battle between Greenpeace and Energy Transfer is far from recent. It all dates back to 2017, when Energy Transfer began targeting Greenpeace entities in the United States, as well as Greenpeace International, in the aftermath of the 2016 Indigenous-led protests against Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). At the time, Energy Transfer alleged that Greenpeace had orchestrated the protests and sought to hold the organisation liable for damages.[3]

Continue reading “The Greenpeace lawsuit in Dutch courts: a landmark case and the first real test for the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive”

Opinion on Opinion 28/2024 of the European Data Protection Board (EDPB): the HeLa of the mind (on the unknowing immortality of online language)

Bruno Saraiva [master’s student in European Union Law and Digital Citizenship & Technological Sustainability (CitDig) scholarship holder]

I.

Henrietta Lacks is a relatively obscure name, but one that is representative of the extraordinary impact an individual can have on human achievements, despite their recognition, in life and after death. Her legacy is one of immortality, a unique form of it: books have been written about her, her story is widely discussed, and her very cells are studied daily. Fragments of her body remain alive and will likely persist as long as modern civilisation endures.

Henrietta Lacks died in 1951, at the age of 31. Her passing would come from an extremely aggressive form of cervical cancer. An African American woman, she was born and laboured on her family’s tobacco farm, until the rising fortunes of post war America carried her to Baltimore where she would pass away, leaving her husband and five children. Neither her nor her loved ones would know the significance of her contribution to humanity. Glimpses would only come decades later, when her children’s lives were disrupted by researchers seeking medical data and tissue samples, while steadfastly refusing to divulge the intention behind their actions. Only in 1975, during a chance dinner conversation, would the Lacks family realise Henrietta’s enduring importance.

Continue reading “Opinion on Opinion 28/2024 of the European Data Protection Board (EDPB): the HeLa of the mind (on the unknowing immortality of online language)”

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

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?”

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

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”

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

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?

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?”

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]”