Tag: EU

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

On By officialblogunioIn EssaysLeave a comment 
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” →

Summaries of judgments: Joined Cases T-830/22 and T-156/23 and Case T-1033/23 Poland v Commission  | Case T-307/22 A2B Connect and Others v Council

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 (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), 5 february 2025

Joined Cases T-830/22 and T-156/23 and Case T-1033/23 Poland v Commission  

Law governing the institutions – Partial failure to comply with an order of the Court of Justice imposing interim measures in the context of an action for failure to fulfil obligations – Periodic penalty payment – Recovery of amounts receivable by offsetting – Article 101(1) and Article 102 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 – Jurisdiction of the General Court

Facts

On 1 April 2021, the European Commission brought an action for failure to fulfil obligations before the Court of Justice against Poland, seeking a declaration that certain legislative amendments to the organisation of the judicial system in Poland, adopted in December 2019, infringed EU law.

In the course of those proceedings, the Court required Poland, inter alia, to suspend the application of certain national provisions challenged by the Commission. Not having implemented that interim measure, Poland was ordered, on 27 October 2021, to pay the Commission a daily penalty payment of one million euro. That daily penalty payment began to run as of 3 November 2021.

Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: Joined Cases T-830/22 and T-156/23 and Case T-1033/23 Poland v Commission  | Case T-307/22 A2B Connect and Others v Council” →

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

On By officialblogunioIn EssaysLeave a comment 
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)

On By officialblogunioIn EssaysLeave a comment 
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?

On By officialblogunioIn EssaysLeave a comment 
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?” →

Judicial independence and judges’ remuneration: echoes of the “Portuguese Judges” judgment in the joined cases C-146/23 and C-374/23

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)

1. Preliminary considerations

Judicial independence is a fundamental pillar of the rule of law enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). It guarantees that judges are free from external pressures – whether from the executive, legislative branches, or private interests –, allowing them to adjudicate cases impartially and fairly. In the European Union (EU) context, judicial independence transcends the internal affairs of Member States; it is an essential safeguard to ensure the full application of EU law and effective judicial protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has consistently emphasised that national courts act as “European courts”,[1] applying and upholding EU law within their jurisdictions. Consequently, any impairment to the judicial independence in a Member State poses a national constitutional issue and a direct threat to the European legal order.[2]

The recent joined cases C-146/23 (Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku) and C-374/23[3] (Adoreikė) come at a pivotal moment as concerns over the rule of law rise in certain Member States. These joined cases addressed whether budgetary measures impacting the remuneration of judges in Poland and Lithuania, introduced through national legislation, violated EU law by undermining judicial independence. Their significance is heightened by the fact that they coincide with the seventh anniversary of the “Portuguese Judges” judgment [Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v. Tribunal de Contas (ASJP)],[4] a landmark case that firmly established judicial independence as a fundamental element of the rule of law under EU law. As highlighted in a recent analysis on this blog, understanding the legacy of the “Portuguese Judges” judgment is essential to contextualising the challenges facing the judiciary today.[5] 

Continue reading “Judicial independence and judges’ remuneration: echoes of the “Portuguese Judges” judgment in the joined cases C-146/23 and C-374/23” →

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

On By officialblogunioIn EssaysLeave a comment
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” →

Summaries of judgments: TP v Commission | Bindl 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 (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) 18 December 2024,

Case T-776/22 TP v Commission

Public procurement – Financial Regulation – Exclusion from the proceedings of awarding of public contracts and the concession of grants financed by the Union’s budget and by the European Development Fund (EDF) for a period of two years – Significant deficiencies in complying with main obligations in the implementation of a prior contract – Article 136 (1)(e) of the Financial Regulation – No automatic link between a finding of a failure to comply with contractual obligations by the court having jurisdiction over the contract and the adoption of an exclusion measure by the authorising officer responsible – Obligation to conduct a specific and individual assessment of the conduct of the person concerned – Prior contract awarded to a group of economic operators – Joint and several contractual liability

Facts

The General Court (henceforth “GC”), ruling in extended composition, ruled, for the first time, on the question of whether article 136(1)(e) of Regulation 2018/1046[1] (henceforth “Regulation”) imposes on the authorising officer responsible, in order to apply contractual sanctions, the obligation to conduct a specific and individual assessment of the behaviour of the person concerned before deciding to exclude from participating in award procedures.

The European Commission (henceforth “Commission”) organized a procurement procedure for the award of a public works contract concerning the upgrading of a facility. The contract was awarded in 5 October 2009 to the consortium composed by the company TP, the applicant, and its partner company. The works began in November 2009 and were concluded two years later.

Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: TP v Commission | Bindl v Commission” →

Editorial of March 2025

On By officialblogunioIn EditorialsLeave a comment 
Alessandra Silveira [Editor of this blog, Coordinator of Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence “Digital Citizenship and Technological Sustainability” (CitDig), UMinho]

The new world (dis)order and the European Defence Union

(on three years since the invasion of Ukraine)

On 24 February 2022, while the planet was still rising from the depths of the pandemic, barbarity returned to the European continent – all recorded by drones and satellites in a conventional war perpetrated amid the digital age. The return of war to the European continent urges us to re-read Hannah Arendt, because totalitarian solutions are still tantalisingly tempting. [1] Arendt explains that nowhere else does Fortune – good or bad – play such a decisive role in human affairs as on the battlefield. That is why violence in war carries with it an additional element of arbitrariness.[2]

In “The Origins of Totalitarianism” from 1951, Arendt traces the subterranean elements that crystallised the astonishing singularity of the totalitarianisms of the 20th century – and their systematic attempt to make human beings superfluous. The same perplexity that arises before the terrifying images of Bucha or Mariupol – but where does this horror come from? – led Arendt to coin the expression “the banality of evil”. With this concept, she wanted to explain that someone does not have to be a monster to perpetrate an evil act – and that people can commit it for banal reasons, without ever having decided whether to be good or bad, but simply because of their inability to think, to put themselves in the place of the victims, to exercise a broad mentality or the Kantian universalisation test.[3]

Continue reading “Editorial of March 2025” →

Compensation for unlawful data transfers: The T-354/22 judgment (Bindl v. Commission) in perspective

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)

1. Introduction

Protecting personal data is a cornerstone of the European Union (EU) legal framework, safeguarded by Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU) and Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), especially since the entry into force of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This regulation aims to ensure citizens’ privacy and establish clear standards for using personal data by both public and private entities.[1] However, international data transfer became particularly prominent, specifically after the Schrems II case exposed vulnerabilities in transatlantic data protection relations and the consequent annulment of the Privacy Shield by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).[2]

The judgment in case T-354/22, of January 8, 2025, known as Bindl v. Commission, delivered by the General Court (GC),[3] represents a milestone in strengthening the guarantees provided by the GDPR. For the first time, the European Commission was ordered to pay compensation for moral damages resulting from infringing stringent data protection laws.[4] This case, initiated by an EU citizen, concerns the improper transfer of personal data of users of the Conference on the Future of Europe (CFE) website to the United States (US), in violation of the regulation.[5]

Continue reading “Compensation for unlawful data transfers: The T-354/22 judgment (Bindl v. Commission) in perspective” →