Editorial of October 2023

By the Editorial Team 

“Answering the call of history” – on the 2023 “State of the Union” speech (SOTEU) by President Ursula von der Leyen

On 13 September 2023, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, gave a speech summing up her term in office – perhaps even anticipating re-election. To this end, she presented results, arguing that her Commission had managed to implement more than 90 per cent of the political guidelines it presented in 2019.

The motto of the “State of the Union” (SOTEU) 2023 speech was “Answering the call of history”. In what sense? In the sense that history is happening while Russia is waging a full-scale war against the founding principles of the United Nations (UN) Charter. The President of the Commission tried to explain to what extent the European Union (EU) is up to this challenge. But Ursula von de Leyen also demonstrated the extent to which history demands the deepening of the integration process, its “becoming”.

Continue reading “Editorial of October 2023”

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 fully online. The 9(1) issue of UNIO includes contributions from various highly respected scholars and young academics and addresses issues such as a) peacekeeping and crisis management in the current context of international relations, b) discrimination in the digital era, c) algorithmic discrimination, d) personal data and children’s rights, e) the Brussels Effect in the context of data protection in Latin America, and f) and the relationship between sustainability and procedural law.

We hope this new issue pleases both our readers and authors and would like to remind you that we are accepting submissions at UNIO and also at our blog.

You may find UNIO’s 9(1) issue here.

Editorial of September 2023

By the Editorial Team 

Impact of climate change on children and young adults

At the end of November 2020, international media[1] reported that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) had ordered 33 European governments to respond to a landmark climate lawsuit lodged by four children and two young adults from Portugal – Duarte Agostinho and Others, no. 39371/20. The media pointed out that this could be the most important case ever tried by the European Court; it is the first occasion the Court has had the opportunity to grapple with climate change and its impact on individuals. The case was filed in September 2020 after Portugal recorded its hottest July in 90 years. It was initiated three years ago following the devasting forest fires in Portugal that killed more than 120 people in 2017. The ECtHR will be holding a hearing for this case on 27 September 2023.

The young applicants are being represented by British barristers, experts in environmental and climate change law, and supported by the London and Dublin based NGO “Global Legal Action Network” (GLAN).[2]  At the request of GLAN, some Editors of UNIO provided a (pro bono) legal opinion for that case concluding that the Portuguese judicial regime is not equipped with a mechanism that allows the prosecution of all the pursued/targeted countries and that any decision issued by a Portuguese court would have limited territorial scope.  

Continue reading “Editorial of September 2023”

Holiday break

By the Editorial Board 

Dear readers,

We will be taking a short break for summer holidays. We will resume our regular publishing schedule in early September 2023.

In the meantime, we are always open to receiving new academic contributions from our readers. If you have an innovative, dynamic, thoughtful piece that you believe would fit in this blog, feel free to send it to us at: unio.cedu@direito.uminho.pt.

If you would like to catch up on some reading on EU matters please check our news, commentsessaysreviews, and case law of the ECJ sections. Do not forget to subscribe to the blog by filling your email on the “FOLLOW THE OFFICIAL BLOG OF UNIO” section in the sidebar so you can be updated on all our latest posts.


Pictures credits: Photo by VH S on Pexels.com

Editorial of August 2023

By the Editorial Team 

One year from the European Parliament elections (June 2024): what is the opinion of European citizens (particularly, Portuguese citizens) about European integration?

Before our blog begins its usual summer break, it is important to assess the state of European “democracy in action”. According to the June Eurobarometer results, it could be argued European integration is progressing favourably.[1] Various indicators, such as citizens’ support for democracy, awareness of the upcoming European elections, and the recognition of the impact of the European Union (EU) on citizens’ lives, point to a prevailing sentiment that the EU is a vital lifeline.

To which extent, one might ask? First, Europeans widely recognise the EU’s leading role in responding to the successive crises that have shaped the current European Parliament (EP) legislature. In Portugal, for instance, 80% of respondents (8 out of 10 Portuguese) recognise the impact of the EU on their daily lives, while the European average stands slightly lower at 71%. This aligns with a recent poll conducted in Portugal, according to which Portuguese citizens believe that the EU influences the decisions made by their Government and Parliament, and they not only endorse this influence but also perceive it as positive.

Continue reading “Editorial of August 2023”

Portuguese Supreme Court’s Decision n. º 268/13.2YHLSB.L1.S1 in relation to CJEU case C-683/17: portraying the empirical importance of preliminary rulings

Sandra Fernandes  (Master Student in Judicial Law, School of Law, University of Minho) 
           

On the 15th of January 2020, the Portuguese Supreme Court issued a decision concerning a dispute on copyright relating to clothing designs.

The process began in August 2013 with an action brought before a Portuguese court of first instance by G-Star Raw, against Cofemel, requesting the latter to be ordered to cease several acts constituting infringement of the former’s copyright and unfair competition. G-Star Raw further requested compensation for the harm suffered in consequence of such acts taken by Cofemel, by means of a penalty payment. Specifically, G-Star Raw argued that some designs of jeans, sweatshirts and t-shirts manufactured by Cofemel were comparable to some of their own designs in a way that violated copyright, given that those designs constituted original intellectual creations and, as such, ought to be classified and protected as ‘works of art’. This status would place G-Star Raw’s creations under protection of article 2 of Portuguese Code on Copyright and Related Rights.

Continue reading “Portuguese Supreme Court’s Decision n. º 268/13.2YHLSB.L1.S1 in relation to CJEU case C-683/17: portraying the empirical importance of preliminary rulings”

Summaries of judgments: E.D.L. (Ground for refusal based on illness) | TAP Portugal (Death of the co-pilot)

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

 ▪

Judgment of 18 April 2023 , E.D.L. (Ground for refusal based on illness), Case C‑699/21, EU:C:2023:295

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European arrest warrant – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – Article 1(3) – Article 23(4) – Surrender procedures between Member States – Grounds for non-execution – Article 4(3) TEU – Duty of sincere cooperation – Postponement of the execution of the European arrest warrant – Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment – Serious, chronic and potentially irreversible illness – Risk of serious harm to health affecting the person concerned by the European arrest warrant

Facts

On 9 September 2019, the Općinski sud u Zadru (Municipal Court, Zadar, Croatia) issued a European arrest warrant (EAW) against E.D.L., who resides in Italy, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution in Croatia.

Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: E.D.L. (Ground for refusal based on illness) | TAP Portugal (Death of the co-pilot)”

Editorial of July 2023

By Alessandra Silveira (Editor) and Maria Inês Costa (PhD candidate, School of Law, University of Minho) 

Regulating Artificial Intelligence (AI): on the civilisational choice we are all making

It is worth highlighting the role of the European Parliament (EP) in taking its stance on the negotiation of the AI Regulation, which in turn aims to regulate the development and use of AI in Europe.[1] With the EP having approved its position, European Institutions may start trilogue negotiations (the Council voted on its position on December 2022). The AI Regulation that will apply across the European Union (EU) will only enter into force if the co-legislators agree on a final wording.

The AI Regulation follows a risk-based approach, i.e., establishes obligations for those who provide and those who use AI systems, according to the level of risk that the application of the AI system entails: is the risk high, is it low, is it minimal? In other words, there is a hierarchisation of risks, and the different levels of risk will correspond to more or less regulation, more or less impositions, more or less restrictions. The EP’s position, even if introducing further safeguards (for example, on generative AI) does not deviate from the idea that the Regulation should protect citizens without jeopardising technological innovation. To this extent, systems with an unacceptable level of risk to people’s safety should be banned, and the EP extended the list of prohibited AI uses under the Commission’s original proposal. These are, for instance, systems used to classify people based on their social behaviour or personal characteristics (such as Chinese-style social control systems); emotion recognition systems in the workplace and educational establishments; predictive policing systems based on profiling or past criminal behaviour; remote and real-time biometric identification systems (such as facial recognition) in publicly accessible spaces, etc.

Continue reading “Editorial of July 2023”

The Nature Restoration Law in the European Parliament

Isabel Estrada Carvalhais (MEP | Full Member of the Committee of Agriculture and Rural Development and of the Committee of Fisheries | Member of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of the Socialists and Democrats) 
           

Introduction[1]

This is not an article with academic purposes and even its modest informative and reflective intent is far from complete. Its main aim is to contribute to further information and reflection on a quite important topic presently on top of the European political agenda: the Nature Restoration Law.

I suggest we look at the European Commission’s (EC) proposal for a regulation on the restoration of nature (hereinafter referred to as the Nature Restoration Act or NRL), at the on-going negotiation process in the European Parliament (EP) with recent votes in two associated committees (the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on Fisheries) and in the EP leading committee (Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety).               

Let us start from the beginning and the beginning is not in the EC proposal itself, but a bit further back, in the conclusions of the European Council of 20 June 2019, immediately after the European elections of 26 May.

The conclusions provided (and still do) a clear preview of the key priorities for action in the European political agenda, as understood by the heads of state and government of the 27 Member States. It is important here to make this reference especially in a social context where we tend to ignore (or are instrumentally led to ignore) the active role that our states and our rulers play in the design of the European project. Chapter III of the conclusions of the European Council[2] reads as follows: The European Council underlines the importance of the Climate Action Summit that the UN Secretary-General will organise in September 2019 to strengthen global climate action in order to achieve the objective of the Paris Agreement, including by pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, and welcomes the active participation of Member States and the Commission in the preparations.”

Continue reading “The Nature Restoration Law in the European Parliament”

Open data and re-use of public information – smart cities as open data ecosystems

Joana Covelo de Abreu (Editor and Key-staff member of CitDig Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence) 
           

The European Union (EU) set a wider objective until 2030: to live a digital decade, where (personal and public) data is essential to grasp a data economy, i.e., an economy capable of, by promoting the European values, enhancing its growth through data processing, making European citizens to live better. In fact, it is expected that, until 2025, the volume of produced data can achieve the amount of 175 zettabytes worldwide: along with an increase of personal data processing, there is a growing trend concerning non-personal industrial and public data in the EU which must be properly exploited.[1]

Concerning public data, it should be widely available to empower people since, by doing so, we can reach a digitally “open, fair, diversified, democratic and confident” Europe. So, if leading a data economy is to be achieved, along with structural solutions concerning i) connectivity; ii) processing and storage of data; iii) computational capacity; and iv) cybersecurity, the EU ought to be able to v) improve its governing structures on data processing; and vi) widening quality data repositories where data can be used and reused.

Continue reading “Open data and re-use of public information – smart cities as open data ecosystems”