Search

Responding to mistrust in the European agencies’ risk assessments in politically salient cases, the European Union (EU) legislator, the European Food Safety Authority and the European Medicines Agency alike have accelerated their efforts to foster EU regulatory science transparency. These simultaneous endeavours have, however, taken place in a fragmented legislative and administrative context, with each agency operating under a different legal framework. By focusing on authorisation procedures, from registration of studies to authorisation of novel foods, pesticides and human medicines, this article examines the resulting regimes governing the disclosure of scientific data by EU agencies to identify common trends and sectoral specificities. Against the background of an overall shift towards enhanced transparency, we shed light on, first, the circulation of institutional arrangements and practices among agencies and, second, the new dimensions of transparency emerging from these developments. We also highlight the remaining sectoral differences and argue that they could have potentially large impacts on the amount and type of information disclosed and on the level of transparency perceived by stakeholders and citizens. We argue that more coherence across the sectoral transparency regimes is needed, in particular in light of the agencies’ contested legitimacy and of their increasing cooperation on cross-cutting issues like antimicrobial resistance and medicine and pesticide residues in food.

Stakeholder participation is an important tenet for European Union (EU) policymaking and it can be approached from different disciplinary angles. The legal literature tends to refer to participation as a formal consultative opportunity in regulatory processes, resulting in rather homogeneous institutional arrangements for participation across policy fields and different sets of problems. Sustainability science, on the other hand, starts from the understanding of a problem in its complexity and peculiarities as a driving force determining both the rationale behind and the design of each participatory process. In this paper, we explore lessons regarding participation that could be derived from adopting an approach in which we combine insights from law and sustainability science. Along four principles, we explore potential leverage points for improving the sustainability of EU decision-making processes and their outcomes.

Five judgments from the Court of Justice on social security are reported on in this case note. First, Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringbank v X and Y (C-713/20) concerns the legislation applicable under Regulation 883/2004 to temporary agency workers in relation to periods between contracts. Second, DN v Finanzamt Österreich (Recouvrement de prestations familiales) (C-199/21) deals with the right to receive family benefits for a parent not residing with his child but bearing the costs of maintenance. Third, MCM v Centrala studiestödsnämnden (C-638/20) is about the export of student financial assistance for family members of migrant workers under Article 45 TFEU. Fourth, the requirement to register a partnership for the purpose of accessing a survivor's pension in a Member State, although that partnership was lawfully concluded and registered in another Member State, is under scrutiny in Caisse nationale d’assurance pension (C-731/21). Fifth and finally, FK v Rechtsanwaltskammer Wien (C-58/21) discusses the requirement to waive one's right to practise as a lawyer in other Member States in order to be granted an early retirement pension in light of Articles 45 TFEU and Article 49 TFEU.

This article presents a cross-disciplinary approach to the study of constitutions: ‘constitutional institutionalism’. Conventional approaches in law, philosophy or political science tend to reduce constitutions either to their formal, factual or ideal aspects. The constitutional-institutionalist approach, by contrast, seeks to integrate these aspects into a more general perspective by focusing on the dynamic interplay between constitutional actors and constitutional norms. It understands constitutional norms as binding institutions that shape and constrain political action, but never fully determine it. Constitutional institutionalism furthermore asserts that constitutional norms, whatever form they take, only have meaning in relation to other constitutional norms as well as to constitutional actors, who impose meaning on these norms. Therefore, constitutional phenomena ultimately require interpretive explanations. This article concludes with a brief constitutional-institutionalist research agenda.

The Court of Justice has recently rendered four judgments (C-302/19; C-94/20; C-350/20; C-462/20) concerning the access to social security and social assistance for third-country nationals. In the recent years, there have been attempts by some Member States to restrict or exclude access to social security or social assistance for third-country nationals. The goal of this paper is not only to inform the reader about the Court of Justice’s judgments but also to put those judgments in perspective with previous cases as well as to discuss potential future EU legislative responses to it.

In this case note, nine judgments of the Court will be discussed. The first two judgments discussed concern the principle of equal treatment in relation to family benefits ( S v Familienkasse and Commission v Austria). Additionally, both the first and third judgments reported relate to the interpretation of the Citizenship Directive (Directive 2004/38) ( S v Familienkasse and VI). The other judgments on social security deal with the calculation of old-age pension ( CC) and the legislation applicable for flight and cabin crew ( INAIL and INPS) under Regulation 883/2004. The four remaining judgments are cases of discrimination on grounds of sex in the context of pensions ( KM v INSS and EB v BVAEB), on grounds of age ( A v HK Danmark and HK/Privat) and between temporary agency workers and ‘regular’ workers ( Luso Temp).

This article examines the structural elements of the Collective Complaints Procedure, seen as an avenue of socio-economic rights strategic litigation, that potentially enable or impede NGOs and trade unions in addressing violations of the European Social Charter before the European Committee of Social Rights. The findings show that the procedure is a unique form of collective redress in the human rights system, with exceptional structural characteristics, which render it an avenue of strategic litigation by its nature. Its main strength lies in that it enables the participation of organisations and vulnerable groups of people that are denied access in political or judicial fora, either at the domestic or supranational level, to deliberate on social policy issues and put pressure on States to address social issues on the basis of economic and social rights.

The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), though a product of the international environmental law of the 1990s, has crept into the language of most, if not all, areas of common concern at UN level. In this chapter, we trace the development and evolution of the principle of CBDR as an expression of fairness and solidarity in international law and focus on its application in international environmental law. We then further explore whether a logic of CBDR is now reflected in the recent global refugee policy instruments at UN level and whether traces of the principle can be found in EU asylum policy and the Common European Asylum System. We conclude that a logic of CBDR permeates recent asylum and refugee policy at UN and EU level, albeit manifested and operationalised in distinct ways. In the first instance at UN level, although a version of CBDR vaguely frames the non-binding responsibility sharing arrangements under the Global Compact on Refugees, it is not explicit or concrete to help us understand what a common responsibility to protect the refugees entails concretely and how such common responsibility ought to be equitably shared. Failing to explicitly debate and adopt the principle even in a soft law instrument, the Global Compact on Refugees missed the opportunity to collectivise the responsibility to protect refugees and meaningfully address the perennial gap of the Refugee Convention. In the second instance, at EU asylum policy level, the legislative developments do reflect a logic of differentiated contributions in what is conceived as a common responsibility. However, differentiation is not serving a conception of solidarity and fair sharing, but merely political expediency by endorsing certain states’ reluctance to engage with refugee protection.

Within the European Union, border regions represent 40% of its territory and they are home to a third of the EU’s population. Located at the edge of national borders (i.e. the EU’s internal borders), these regions provide opportunities to reap benefits from interactions of different cultures, languages, markets, and societies. However, from a law-making point of view, these regions – and particularly their cross-border 'conglomerates' – provide rather challenging subjects. The article's central question is how a cross-border impact assessment during the legislative process can ensure better regulation in the light of regional policy. The first section reflects on the nature and origins of obstacles to mobility and cooperation experienced by cross-border regions. It will provide concrete case examples of EU policies where so-called ‘cross-border effects’ can be analysed. The second section presents existing approaches and methods for identifying and assessing possible effects for cross-border regions. In addition, the practice of a bottom-up regulatory cross-border impact assessment will be discussed. The third section elaborates further on what the current state of affairs in EU’s policy-making and impact assessment looks like. Finally, we will discuss how a cross-border impact assessment would fit within the procedure of EU’s policy-making and other initiatives and conclude with some policy recommendations.

This article examines the applicable framework for procedural transparency under the EU Investment Screening Regulation and sets forth two arguments. First, with respect to Member State screening procedures, the Regulation cannot guarantee meaningful procedural transparency either at the administrative or judicial stage. Procedural transparency in investment screening is problematic because the screening relates to perceived threats to security or public order, which would be undermined by disclosure. However, a lack of procedural transparency is itself a problem that may result in factual mistakes, security overreach, and abuse, including the use of screening for security-unrelated purposes. Second, to address this conundrum, the article argues that the European Commission could play a role in mitigating the risks inherent in lack of procedural transparency by being given the power to audit or review ex post facto the screening decisions taken by the Member States. The article outlines how such a review mechanism might work in a way that would also satisfy investors’ right to recourse.

This study has been commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, Directorate-General for Internal Policies at the request of the ENVI Committee. It analyses EFSA’s independence and transparency policies and examines how legislative provisions have been implemented by EFSA and whether rules and practices adopted by EFSA can be improved.

The ruling of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice in Case C-118/20 JY v. Wiener Landesregierung EU:C:2022:34 follows the judgments in Rottmann and Tjebbes. These cases concern the relationship between EU law and national citizenship. In particular, they deal with the compatibility of national authorities’ decisions on loss of nationality with the proportionality principle. The JY v. Wiener Landesregierung case highlights the contradictory nature of nationality law, which cannot be fully understood from a purely domestic perspective and yet remains within the sphere of Member States’ competences. Overall, the decision of the CJEU in JY v. Wiener Landesregierung leaves a bittersweet taste in EU lawyers’ mouths. On the one hand, the Court appears to implicitly make clear its aversion for certain national practices. In doing so, it ensures, in the case in question, a higher degree of protection of EU law-derived rights. On the other hand, the ruling does not adequately ensure sufficient safeguards for similar future cases. Finally, the Court seems to have missed a significant opportunity provided by the principle of mutual trust.

This chapter explores whether the ‘traditional’ reasonable accommodation duty is ‘fit for purpose’ in times of crisis and whether variations of this duty might be better suited to the task. The reasonable accommodation obligation requires duty-bearers to take disability into account, and to make an adjustment, alteration, or accommodation to their standard practices, policies, and structures in order to meet the needs of a particular disabled individual. One limitation of the ‘traditional’ reasonable accommodation duty is that it is ex post, in that it is triggered only when an individual indicates that they are facing a barrier. Other types of reasonable accommodation duties adopt a more pro-active or ex ante approach. One example is the anticipatory reasonable adjustment duty in the Equality Act 2010. This requires duty-bearers to consider the foreseeable needs of disabled people in advance of an individual request being made. There is little evidence of Covid-19-related litigation based on the ‘traditional’ ex post reasonable accommodation duty. In contrast, the ex ante anticipatory reasonable adjustment duty in the Equality Act 2010 has been heavily used during the Covid-19 crisis. The fact that it focuses attention on what duty-bearers should have been doing to avoid creating disadvantage, rather than on simply what they can do to remove it once in place, is perhaps more useful in times of crisis. The chapter nevertheless finds that there is much more that needs to be done to build a legal framework that robustly embeds disability equality.

While many EU decentralised agencies are in principle open to third country participation, it remains exceptional that third countries structurally participate in these EU bodies. The exceptions here, first, are the States parties to the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement but, second, also Switzerland. Switzerland structurally participates in five EU agencies and, just like is the case for the EEA States, this participation goes as far as having a limited voting-right in some of these bodies. The legal setup through which Switzerland participates in EU agencies is more cumbersome than the mechanism through which the EEA EFTA States’ participation in EU agencies is enabled. This chapter maps in which EU agencies Switzerland participates and analyses how this is realised from a legal perspective. It also looks closer into the arrangements concluded between the EU and Switzerland on the precise modalities of Swiss participation in EU agencies. Finally, the chapter reflects on the possible future Swiss participation in further EU agencies in light of the Swiss rejection of the Institutional Agreement.

In deze klinische les gaan we het hebben over zorgverlening aan niet-Nederlandse EU-inwoners. Binnen de EU is het makkelijker geworden om naar andere landen te reizen en er te werken. Daardoor kan het vaker voorkomen dat mensen uit een ander EU-land, gepland of ongepland, gebruikmaken van de Nederlandse gezondheidszorg. Dat gaat gepaard met enkele praktische uitdagingen.

In a ruling on 25 July 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union concluded that organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of mutagenesis constitute GMOs in the sense of Directive 2001/18, and that organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of directed mutagenesis are not excluded from the scope of the Directive. Following the ruling, there has been much debate about the possible wider implications of the ruling. In October 2019, the Council of the European Union requested the European Commission to submit, in light of the CJEU ruling, a study regarding the status of novel genomic techniques under Union Law. For the purpose of the study, the Commission initiated stakeholder consultations early in 2020. Those consultations focused on the technical status of novel genomic techniques.This article aims to contribute to the discussion on the legal status of organisms developed through novel genomic techniques, by offering some historical background to the negotiations on the European Union (EU) GMO Directives as well as a technical context to some of the terms in the Directive, and by analysing the ruling. The article advances that (i) the conclusion that organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of mutagenesis constitute GMOs under the Directive means that the resulting organisms must comply with the GMO definition, ie the genetic material of the resulting organisms has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination; (ii) the conclusion that organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of directed mutagenesis were not intended to be excluded from the scope of the Directive is not inconsistent with the negotiation history of the Directive; (iii) whether an organism falls under the description of “obtained by means of techniques/methods of directed mutagenesis” depends on whether the genetic material of the resulting organisms has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. Finally, the article offers an analysis of the EU GMO definition, concluding that for an organism to be a GMO in the sense of the Directive, the technique used, as well as the genetic alterations of the resulting organism, must be considered.

This essay examines how EU criminal law, which regulates certain aspects of criminal procedural law of the twenty-seven EU member states, addresses the situation of persons with disabilities who come into contact with the criminal justice system. EU law on victims and on suspects and accused persons (partially) addresses disability through the prism of “vulnerability.” This essay argues that associating persons with disabilities with “vulnerability” can be stigmatizing. Moreover, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which requires that persons with disabilities have effective access to justice and receive appropriate accommodations, does not link these rights to a prior recognition of “vulnerability.” Even though the EU is a party to the CRPD, the 2013 Recommendation from the European Commission on Procedural Safeguards for Vulnerable Persons Suspected or Accused in Criminal Proceedings, frames disability in terms of “vulnerability.” In contrast, parts of the EU Victims’ Rights Directive address the situation of individuals with disabilities without using the language of vulnerability.

Infringement actions and EU values – constitutional backsliding in Hungary and Poland – the role of the Court of Justice – judicial independence and Article 19 TEU – the Charter of Fundamental Rights – the toolkit to protect EU values – political and judicial mechanisms – a bottom-up approach

In December 2020, the EU institutions finally approved the new Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation after a controversial legislative process. The new Regulation allows the Commission and the Council to suspend EU funds in case of breaches to the rule of law that have negative effects on the EU budget and financial interests. This article analyses the new Regulation against the background of the rise of conditionality as a tool of EU governance. It argues, in contrast to some of the first analyses of the new Regulation, that the amendments adopted during the legislative process cannot simply be seen as a watered-down compromise, but were crucial to ensure the legality of the new instrument. At the same time, the EU’s growing reliance on conditionality continues to raise profound constitutional questions that still needs to be adequately addressed in the institutional and academic debate.

The concept of ‘working time’ for a period of stand-by time according to a stand-by system applicable to firefighters was interpreted by the Court in MG (C-214/20). In the Y case (C-636/19), the Court interpreted the concept of ‘insured person’ for the purpose of reimbursement of healthcare costs under Directive 2011/24. In the TS case (C-538/19), the Court dealt with another cross-border healthcare case. This time the question was whether a Member State can require an authorisation for cross-border healthcare to be subject to the submission of a medical report drawn up by a doctor from its national public health insurance system in light of Article 20 of Regulation 883/2004 and Article 56 TFEU. In ASGI and APN (C-462/20), the exclusion of third-country nationals from the eligibility to the Italian family card was under scrutiny. In SC (C-866/19), the Court clarified that the principle of aggregation applies to the calculation of the theoretical amount of benefit but not to the calculation of the actual amount of benefit under Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation 883/2004. In K (C-285/20), the Court held that being on sick leave and receiving sickness benefits can be considered as equivalent to the pursuit of an economic activity for the purpose of applying the rules on unemployment benefits for wholly unemployed frontier workers under Article 65(2) and (5) of Regulation 883/2004.

European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2021 6(3), 1463-1484, I. Introduction. - II. Key features of the general framework of implementing and adapting EU law. - III. Sui generis aspects of the framework governing the implementation of the law of EMU. - III.1. The ECB's implementing function under SSM. - III.2. Enforcement as a separate executive function from implementation under art. 291 TFEU. - III.3. The exception of Council implementation under art. 291(2) TFEU. - IV. A constitutional assessment. - IV.1. The ECB's implementing function under the SSM. - IV.2. Implementation by the Council. - V. Conclusion., This Article compares the implementation of EMU law with the framework governing the implementation of EU law in general to determine whether that general framework has been complemented, adapted or transformed by the developments in the area of EMU Law. This Article finds that the legal framework governing the implementation of EMU law indeed deviates from the default framework. However, part of the sui generis framework for implementing EMU law is constitutionally mandated. On the other hand, it is less clear whether the ECB is entitled to supplement legislation or whether in fact it can only implement legislation. A second problematic aspect that this Article identifies is the significant role that the Council takes in implementing EMU law. Finally, it is in the area of EMU law that the Court identified a distinct type implementing power that is not covered by art. 291 TFEU or by other explicit legal bases in the Treaties that directly confer an executive power on the Council. The new type of power is not necessarily restricted to EMU law and can in principle be identified in other areas of EU law, showing the ramifications that the development of EMU law has on other areas of EU law.

EU values – Rule of law backsliding – Rule of law and fundamental rights interrelation – Refugee protection – Common European Asylum System – Implementation gap in asylum – Lack of fair responsibility sharing in asylum – Structural deficiencies in national asylum systems – Defiance of asylum obligations and the duty of sincere cooperation – Systemic fundamental rights violations – Upholding the rule of law – European Asylum System redesign – Systemic infringement actions – Rule of law monitoring

The 2019 Work-life Balance Directive creates a new right for parents and carers to request flexible working arrangements for caring purposes. The significance of this innovation has been heightened by the pandemic because it includes the right to request remote working arrangements. This article undertakes a contextual and comparative analysis in order to understand better the strengths, limitations and opportunities created by the Directive. It compares the right to request flexible working arrangements to provisions found in existing Directives on parental leave and part-time work, as well as protections that may be derived from EU equality law. It looks also at examples of existing legislation in two jurisdictions, the Netherlands and Australia, in order to illustrate the options available to Member States when they implement this right within domestic law. The article concludes that the full potential of this right can only be understood when it is viewed as part of a wider range of legal provisions that assist in the reconciliation of work and family life.

In O.D. and Others v INPS (C-350/20), the Court dealt with the refusal of the Italian authorities to grant childbirth and maternity allowances to third-country nationals falling within the scope of the Single Permit Directive. In CG (C-709/20), the Court considered the refusal of the UK authorities to grant social assistance to an economically inactive EU citizen resident under the UK scheme adopted in the context of Brexit. In AB v Olympiako (C-511/19), the Court found that the Greek legislation, adopted in the context of the economic crisis, placing public sector workers in a labour reserve system is not discriminatory on grounds of age. In WABE and MH Müller Handel (C-804/18 and C-341/19), the Court clarified what circumstances could justify differential treatment indirectly based on religion or belief. The Court confirmed the direct effect of the principle of equal pay for male and female workers enshrined in Article 157 TFEU for cases of work of equal value in Tesco Stores (C-624/19). In Team Power Europe (C-784/19), the Court specified under which criteria a temporary-work agency could be considered as pursuing ‘substantial activities’ in a Member State. In A (C-535/19), the Court held that a Member State cannot exclude an economically inactive EU citizen from its public sickness insurance system but does not have to grant access free of charge. In FORMAT (C-879/19), the Court confirmed that Article 14(2) of Regulation 1408/71 does not apply to a person who, under a single employment contract concluded with a single employer, works in several Member States for more than 12 months in each of those Member States. Finally, in PF (C-27/20), the Court dealt a national legislation which uses the penultimate year preceding the payment period as the reference year for the calculation of family allowances to be allocated.

De centrale vraag in de in deze bijdrage te bespreken arresten is of, en zo ja, onder welke voorwaarden, ondernemingen gebruik kunnen maken van hun recht op verkeer om profijt te trekken uit verschillen in de socialezekerheidsbijdragen die zij voor hun werknemers moeten betalen. De arresten laten zien dat het Hof van Justitie bijzonder huiverig is voor ‘forumshopping’. De in artikel 12 en 13 Verordening (EG) nr. 883/2004 inzake de coördinatie van sociale zekerheid opgenomen aanwijsregels dienen strikt en op een ‘werknemersvriendelijke’ wijze te worden uitgelegd.HvJ 3 juni 2021, zaak C-784/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:427 (Team Power), HvJ 20 mei 2021, zaak C-879/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:409 (Format II), HvJ 16 juli 2020, zaak C-6101/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:565 (AFMB).

How are state dissolutions different from secessions? In theory, a dissolution extinguishes the predecessor state, and its former constitutive units emerge as new states and new persons of international law. Conversely, a successful secession means that one part of an existing state becomes a new state and a new person of international law, while the rump state continues to exist and retains the same identity and international personality. In practice, this theoretical distinction has not always been preserved. This chapter thus seeks to analyse contemporary state dissolutions and their broader legal effects. It distinguishes between consensual and non consensual dissolutions, and between those situations where the legal personality of the predecessor state was extinguished and those where the legal personality continued to exist. In so doing, the chapter argues that the line between dissolution and secession is not always clear. It can be arbitrary and drawn with political goals in mind.

Methodological choices in the legal study of the role of EU institutions – The so-called doctrinal legal method is appropriate, provided that it includes the analysis of key elements of non-legal institutional practice – Simple distinction between the study of ‘law in the books’ and that of ‘law in action’ to be qualified – Doctrinal legal scholarship is meaningful only when it acknowledges and incorporates a certain amount of ‘law in action’

The Next Generation EU programme is both ambitious and controversial. Legal scholars have disagreed on whether the EU (European Union) may borrow large amounts for long periods, whether the chosen legal bases in the Treaties are correct and whether art.125 TFEU may be infringed. This article examines three possible routes by which art.125 TFEU may be infringed: Member States assume the liabilities of the EU in case of EU default; Member States assume indirectly the liabilities of other Member States in case of EU default; Member States assume directly the liabilities of other Member States in case one or more Member States default. The article argues that the risk of default of the EU is non-significant. The assumption of the EU's liabilities by Member States is not prohibited by art.125 TFEU. More importantly, there is no automatic mechanism by which default of a Member State will lead to the assumption of its liabilities by other Member States. However, Member States can provide mutual assistance, if they wish, without formally assuming the debt liabilities of another Member State.

The aim of the Hague Yearbook of International Law is to offer a platform for review of new developments in the field of international law. In addition, it devotes attention to developments in the international law institutions based in the international City of Peace and Justice, The Hague. As of the 2010 Volume, the Yearbook has been compiled by a new and expanded Editorial Board, offering fresh ideas and a new approach. A newly established Advisory Board has also been added, including leading judges, practitioners and scholars. Sections have been created on public international law, private international law, international investment law and international criminal law, containing in-depth articles on current issues. The breadth of the Yearbook’s content thus offers an interesting and valuable illustration of the dynamic developments in the various sub-areas of international law.

The aim of the Hague Yearbook of International Law is to offer a platform for review of new developments in the field of international law. In addition, it devotes attention to developments in the international law institutions based in the international City of Peace and Justice, The Hague. As of the 2010 Volume, the Yearbook has been compiled by a new and expanded Editorial Board, offering fresh ideas and a new approach. A newly established Advisory Board has also been added, including leading judges, practitioners and scholars. Sections have been created on public international law, private international law, international investment law and international criminal law, containing in-depth articles on current issues. The breadth of the Yearbook’s content thus offers an interesting and valuable illustration of the dynamic developments in the various sub-areas of international law.

In light of the limited possibility to seek legal recourse against screening of foreign investments on grounds of national security, can insurance provide an alternative avenue to compensate affected investors? The answer is: Yes, but with caveats. For investors, even if insurance does not provide an equivalent to full reparation, it can serve as a useful mitigant of the risk that contemplated investment transactions cannot be consummated as anticipated due to screening measures. For host States, insurance provides a useful mechanism by which they can facilitate compensation of investors without having to disclose information contrary to their essential security interests and thus a means by which host States can remain attractive to foreign direct investment in spite of investment screening.

The national central banks of the euro area are crucial to the monetary policy of the euro. Their Governors sit (on a personal title) on the Governing Council of the ECB, and they execute most of the monetary policies. Whereas the recent ruling by the German Constitutional Court on the Public Sector Purchases Program highlighted the uncomfortable role of the German Bundesbank in between national and EU law, the euro-crisis already showed other legal strains on the position of the national central banks in Economic and Monetary Union. This article argues that EMU empowered national central banks, even when it took away their power to individually set monetary policies for their respective Member States. The euro-crisis then disturbed the balance struck in the construction of the ECB between protecting national interests and effective decision-making, resulting in several legal problems.

Originally introduced by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the presence of 'certain cross-border interest' is used to justify the application of EU principles to public procurement contracts that fall out the scope of EU law. Nonetheless, crossborder interest needs to be proven based on the criteria settled by the CJEU. This article presents, firstly, a definition of cross-border interest and its relevance; secondly, the latest trends on digital public procurement and e-administration. Finally, the paper will discuss whether, based on the criteria of the CJEU, the expansion of digitalisation will render the presence of cross-border interest automatic, thus increasing transparency and consequently changing forever how we apply EU law.

European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2022 7 (2), 583-600, European Forum Insight of 17 September 2022, I. Introduction. - II. The 'weaponisation' of migration in an EU context. - III. EU and Member State reforms and the impact on due process rights. - III.1. Lithuanian reforms. - III.2. Greek reforms. - III.3. EU reforms. - IV. Common trends and concluding thoughts., In recent years the EU and its Member States have claimed to be increasingly targeted by “weaponised” migration. Due to the contemporary sensitivity of migration-related issues in the EU, neighbouring states are supposedly using the threat of increased migration to force the Union’s hand in other policy areas. Below, several recent examples of this supposedly happening will be dis-cussed, with an emphasis on: (i) the 2021 crisis along the Lithuania-Belarus external border; and (ii) the Turkish decision to briefly open its borders with Greece in February 2020. While the phenomenon of “weaponised” migration raises numerous legal questions, this Insight focusses only on the responses of self-proclaimed “targets” within a European context: the EU and its Member States. With the aim of understanding the impact of Lithuanian, Greek, and EU reforms on due process rights of the migrants supposedly being “weaponised”, the most prominent reforms will be critically scrutinised from the perspective of EU asylum and fundamental rights law. In this Insight, it will be argued that the EU and its Member States strongly favour border security over the due process rights of the migrants involved, reflecting a wider trend of a normalisation of illegal practices at both domestic and EU level.

In a globalizing world, national borders are frequently crossed. Moreover, flexibility is a key skill in the knowledge economy of the 21st century. Accordingly, an increasing number of workers can be labelled as ‘highly mobile’. Thia are persons that combine various forms of work (on-call contracts, employment agency work, platform- work, teleworking etc.) that are carried out in several countries. In a European market in which free movement rights are considered fundamental, this research demonstrates that the current EU coordination instrument of social security may give rise to various issues of legal uncertainty for those highly mobile cross-border workers. This is problematic as this is not only cumbersome for administrative matters, but may also result in no or very limited social protection for the highly mobile worker. With many forms of flexible work and work activities increasingly being performed in several Member States, it seems more important than ever to map out mobility-related issues that highly mobile workers may encounter and to explore possible routes towards more legal certainty regarding their social security protection. That is, exactly, what this research aims to attain.