Holiday break

On By officialblogunioIn UncategorizedLeave a comment 
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 2025.

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, comments, essays, reviews, 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.

Picture credit: by Ákos Szabó on pexels.com.

Bronner lives! (On the role played by Bronner and its essential facilities doctrine on recent competition law affairs)

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

On 10 July 2025, Advocate General Laila Medina delivered her opinion on the LUKOIL Bulgaria EOOD and LUKOIL Neftohim Burgas AD v. Komisia za zashtita na konkurentsiata (Competition Protection Commission) case (C-245/24).[1] This opinion comes at a time where questions run wild about the role played by Bronner and its essential facilities doctrine on recent competition law affairs – a direct effect of the outcome of the AndroidAuto case (C-233/23),[2] on 25 February 2025.

1. Bronner and the essential facilities doctrine

    Founded on Section 1 of the Sherman Act 1890,[3] the essential facilities doctrine gained traction in United States v. Terminal Railroad Association. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Association’s control over the sole viable way of crossing the Mississippi River, aligned with the geographical impossibility of building an alternative, rendered the refusal of access to that channel illegal under antitrust law.[4] This defined essential facility as “at a minimum, a resourced possessed by the defendant (dominant undertaking) that is vital to the plaintiff’s competitive viability”.[5]

    Although it lost momentum in the U.S., the theory was initially received by the European Union under Article 86 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (ECC Treaty) [current Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)]. The Commission began to consider a dominant undertaking’s refusal to grant access to an essential facility as a possible constitution of abuse of that position of dominance. This idea, developed through a series of decisions by both the European Commission and the Court of Justice, culminated in five rigorous criterion delivered by the Bronner judgment: (i) the dominant undertaking must have refused to supply; (ii) the product, service or infrastructure to which access is requested must be indispensable to allow competition in the downstream market; (iii) the refusal must be likely to result in the elimination of effective competition in said market; (iv) the refusal must be susceptible to cause harm to consumers, and (v) there must be no objective justification for the refusal to supply.[6]

    Continue reading “Bronner lives! (On the role played by Bronner and its essential facilities doctrine on recent competition law affairs)” →

    Pornographic deepfakes as a violation of women’s rights

    On By officialblogunioIn EssaysLeave a comment 
    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” →

    Editorial of July 2025

    On By officialblogunioIn EditorialsLeave a comment

    Backtracking on green claims? the EU’s fight against greenwashing at a crossroads

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

    In March 2023, the European Commission presented the long-awaited proposal for a Green Claims Directive,[1] a legislative initiative designed to bring transparency and credibility to environmental claims made by companies across the European Union (EU). By targeting misleading environmental claims and demanding clear, science-based substantiation, the proposal aimed to restore consumer trust and ensure that the growing market for sustainable products was based on truth rather than illusion.[2] In short, it was widely seen as a cornerstone of the European Green Deal,[3] designed not only to inform but to empower consumers, protect genuinely sustainable companies and create a level playing field across the Single Market.[4]

    However, recent reports suggest that the proposal now faces political and institutional limbo. On the 20th of June, reports emerged that the Commission was considering formally withdrawing the proposal, citing concerns over the potential regulatory burden on microenterprises, which number around 30 million across the EU. Although no formal withdrawal has occurred, the Commission confirmed that such a step remains on the table if Member States and the Parliament cannot agree on a carve-out for these businesses. Negotiations between co-legislators were suspended just before a crucial trilogue meeting scheduled for the 23rd of June, following growing resistance from several national governments and the center-right European People’s Party. With Italy retracting its support and no compromise in sight, the Polish Presidency of the Council has now effectively paused the legislative process indefinitely.[5]

    Amid legislative gridlock and concerns about administrative burden, this retreat, or threat thereof, raises serious concerns about the EU’s regulatory resolve in the face of industry lobbying, political fatigue and an evolving institutional landscape. If the proposed Green Claims Directive is ultimately withdrawn, it will mark a significant step backwards in the EU’s fight against deceptive green marketing and could send a troubling signal about the fragility of the EU’s green legislative momentum at a time when it should be accelerating.[6] 

    Continue reading “Editorial of July 2025” →

    Pfizergate: the billion euro silence and the future of EU transparency

    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)

    The role of transparency in EU Law

    Transparency within the European Union’s constitutional order is not a matter of institutional courtesy or political goodwill: it is a binding legal obligation anchored in the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU). The EU’s legitimacy as a supranational legal order is not derived solely from formal democratic representation, but from its ability to guarantee open governance, accountability, and legal certainty. These principles converge in the citizen’s right of access to documents, which is both a general principle of EU law and a fundamental right under Article 42 CFREU.[1] Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 operationalises this right, setting the legal framework for public access to the documents of the EU institutions.[2] Article 11(2) TEU, which mandates the Union institutions to maintain an open, transparent, and regular dialogue with civil society, reinforces the legal architecture of transparency, a requirement that becomes especially salient when decisions involve significant public expenditure and health policy.

    Against this normative backdrop, the judgment delivered by the General Court (GC) in Case T‑36/23 on 14 May 2025,[3] publicly referred to as “Pfizergate”, emerged as a pivotal episode in the evolution of EU transparency law. [4] The dispute was triggered by a request submitted by journalist Matina Stevi of The New York Times, seeking access to text messages allegedly exchanged between the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer.[5] The messages were reportedly exchanged during negotiations that led to a contract for the procurement of 1.8 billion doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 vaccine, amounting to approximately €35 billion in public expenditure, plus an additional €2.4 billion in related contracts. The Commission’s refusal to grant access to these communications, on the grounds that they were not in its possession, raised fundamental questions about the scope of transparency obligations and the nature of institutional accountability during states of emergency. [6]

    Continue reading “Pfizergate: the billion euro silence and the future of EU transparency” →

    Summaries of judgments: Stevi and the New York Times 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 (Grand Chamber), 14 May 2025,

    Case T-36/23 Stevi and The New York Times v Commission

    Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents relating to the text messages exchanged between the President of the Commission and the chief executive officer of the pharmaceutical company Pfizer – Refusal to grant access – Presumption of veracity associated with the declaration of lack of possession of documents – Absence of plausible explanations making it possible to establish the reasons for non-existence or lack of possession – Retention of documents – Principle of good administration

    Facts

    The General Court (hereinafter “GC”), sitting as grand chamber, upheld the action brought by Ms Matina Stevi, journalist of The New York Times, and by The New York Times Company, and annulled the final decision of the European Commission rejecting Ms Stevi’s request for access to all the text messages exchanged between Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Albert Bourla, chief executive officer of the pharmaceutical company Pfizer, between 1 January 2021 and 11 May 2022, as part of the Commission’s purchase of vaccines from Pfizer in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    In its decision (hereinafter “the contested decision”), sent to Ms Stevi on 16 November 2022 and adopted in accordance with the detailed rules for the application of Regulation regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents,[1] the Commission stated that, since it did not hold any document corresponding to the description given in the initial application, it was not in a position to grant that application.

    Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: Stevi and the New York Times v Commission” →

    New UNIO issue now online

    On By officialblogunioIn NewsLeave a comment 
    By the Editorial Team

    The Editorial Board is pleased to announce that a new issue of UNIO – EU Law Journal is now online. Issue 11(1) of UNIO includes contributions from a number of highly regarded academics and young scholars and covers topics such as i) EU’s climate diplomacy in the light of the EU-Mercosur Free Trade Agreement; ii) limitations of legal theory in dealing with informational phenomena and ideal models of Internet regulation; iii) access to the Internet as a central aspect of the exercise of fundamental freedoms and rights; iv) right not to be monitored in an emerging omniotic surveillance society; v) emerging principles from digital constitutionalism in EU law and policy governing digital services  (principle of user empowerment, principle of due process, and principle of transparency); vi) who should hold the status of “controller” (of data) in the courts, centred upon the cases of Portugal and Spain; and vi) CJEU’s Mousse judgment, in which the CJEU reaffirmed that data collection must be objectively indispensable for a specified legal basis, rejecting broad interpretations of contractual necessity and legitimate interest.

    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 11(1) issue here.

    Editorial of June 2025

    On By officialblogunioIn EditorialsLeave a comment

    40 years since Portugal joined the European Union
    (or about Constante’s refusal to jump, the dog from José Saramago’s “The Stone Raft”)

    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)]

    I

    Forty years ago, on 12 June 1985, in the Jerónimos Monastery (Lisbon), the Treaty of Accession of Portugal to the then European Economic Community (EEC) was signed – eight years after Portugal had formally applied for membership. This brings us back to the character named Constante, the dog in the 1986 novel “The Stone Raft” by José Saramago, winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature. In this novel, Saramago develops an allegory: the physical, geographical separation of the Iberian Peninsula from the rest of the European continent. In Saramago’s text, this unusual event with no scientific explanation (the separation of the Peninsula) is an allusion to what the author foresaw/feared would happen as part of the unification of Europe: the Iberian countries would be forgotten, cast aside, “sailing adrift”, unable to identify culturally, socially or economically with the rest of Europe. The dog Constante appears at the very beginning of the narrative, hesitating between Spain and France (“the rest of Europe”) as soon as he feels the first crack, and ends up jumping (opting) for the Peninsula, in the process of separation. We shall return to this character, the dog Constante, later in this text.

    To begin with, and to give a brief historical overview of Portugal’s pre-accession phase, it was on 28 March 1977 – just after the so-called PREC (“ongoing revolutionary period”) had run its course and only three years after the “Carnation Revolution” (on 25 April 1974) – that the then Portuguese Foreign Minister, José Medeiros Ferreira, sent a letter formally requesting Portugal’s accession to the EEC. In other words, the Portuguese option for European integration was formally recognised as early as 1977.

    It is important to remember that around two years earlier, Greece had applied for membership, favouring the direction of European integration at the time (during the 1970s) towards southern Europe. In a way, Greece’s accession in 1981 also signified a reunion of Europe (then “Community”) with its classical mythology. This mythology is at the origin of its name: Europa (Princess Europa and her abduction by a love-struck Zeus…).

    Continue reading “Editorial of June 2025” →

    Protecting fundamental rights through the infringement procedure: Advocate General’s Opinion in CJEU Case C-769/22 “Commission v. Hungary”

    On By officialblogunioIn Case notesLeave a comment 
    Gonçalo Martins de Matos (Master in Judiciary Law by the University of Minho | Member of the Editorial Support of this blog)

    There is a very relevant case regarding the defence of fundamental rights being processed at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU): an infringement procedure moved against Hungary by the European Commission on the grounds of breaching Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). It is a relevant case because it is the first case to frame abuses of fundamental rights by Hungarian authorities as an overarching systemic problem, instead of the usual sectorial and solitary breaches. This case might open up the infringement procedure to a valuable role of a fundamental rights protection mechanism,[1] as it has been defended by legal scholars and practitioners. And that role is very important in the context of rule of law backsliding and recent democratic erosion.

    Fundamental rights are of elementary importance in the European Union (EU)’s legal order. As a matter of fact, the EU is axiologically based on a set of values ​​common to its Member States, namely respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, enshrined in Article 2 TEU and self-imposed as an objective of the Union itself, according to Article 3(1) TEU. It is this conception of the EU as a community of values ​​that contributes to the construction of the “society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail” referred to in the second part of Article 2 TEU. More than a community of values, the EU creates law to which its legal and institutional framework, its Member States and its citizens are bound, resulting in the notion that the Union submits to the principles that itself created. From this notion we conclude that the EU conceives itself as a Union subjected to the Law, in which the exercise of European public power is linked to EU law. We are in presence of the principle of the rule of law translated into the logic of the EU: the principle of the Union of Law, which functions as a limit to the actions of European institutions and a guarantee of the rights of individuals attributed by European provisions.

    Continue reading “Protecting fundamental rights through the infringement procedure: Advocate General’s Opinion in CJEU Case C-769/22 “Commission v. Hungary”” →

    Presentation of the Commentary on the Charter of Fundamental Rights given by Judge Nuno Piçarra, published in the JusGov Research Paper Series in the SSRN

    On By officialblogunioIn ReviewsLeave a comment 
    By the Editorial Team 

    A Commentary of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union was edited under the scientific coordination of Alessandra Silveira, Larissa Araújo Coelho, Maria Inês Costa and Tiago Sérgio Cabral, with the editorial support of JusGov (Research Centre for Justice and Governance) and the School of Law of the University of Minho.

    This scientific outcome was presented at the School of Law, by Judge Nuno Piçarra, on the 29th of November 2024. The intervention of this Judge of the Court of Justice [Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ)] is now published in the JusGov Research Paper Series (access here). The ECJ judge’s presentation is a unique opportunity to understand the importance of this scientific contribution to a thorough understanding of the Charter and its importance in the ECJ’s judicial activity.

    Continue reading “Presentation of the Commentary on the Charter of Fundamental Rights given by Judge Nuno Piçarra, published in the JusGov Research Paper Series in the SSRN” →