ackground: The expansion of digital assets increasingly challenges the effectiveness of judicial protection mechanisms traditionally designed for tangible goods. Cryptocurrencies, smart technologies, and digitally controlled environments disrupt established notions of possession, enforcement and interim relief. Method: The research employs a doctrinal and comparative legal methodology, focusing on selected jurisdictions (Germany, Greece, and the United Kingdom), alongside relevant EU law. It examines how these systems conceptualise possession, regulate interim judicial protection, and address digital control in technologically mediated environments. Results and Conclusions: The analysis demonstrates that traditional possessory protection offers a useful but only partially adaptable framework for digital assets. While common law jurisdictions show greater flexibility in recognising cryptocurrencies and NFTs as property subject to interim protection, civil law systems remain more constrained by the requirement of tangibility. However, all examined systems increasingly rely on functional equivalents of possession, particularly through access-based control. The article argues that effective judicial protection of digital assets requires a reconceptualisation of possession as control over access rather than physical detention. Interim judicial measures can provide adequate protection, provided that courts are willing to intervene through orders directed at intermediaries and technological infrastructures. The study concludes that future doctrinal development and legislative clarification at the EU level are necessary to ensure legal certainty and cross-border effectiveness in digital asset disputes.

Background: This article examines the human rights limitations imposed on suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings in Vietnam. The focus is on pre-trial practice. This stage concentrates on the most intrusive measures. It directly affects liberty, privacy, and defence rights. The article uses European standards as the main benchmark. It draws on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The core test is familiar: measures must be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim, and be necessary in a democratic society. Necessity is read together with proportionality and robust safeguards against arbitrariness. Against these standards, the article poses a single guiding question: How do Vietnamese criminal-procedure law and practice design, apply, and justify limitations on the rights of suspects and accused persons, and what gaps remain when such limitations are assessed against European requirements of legality, necessity, proportionality, and safeguards against arbitrariness? The study is situated in Vietnam’s commitment to building a rule-of-law state, advancing judicial reform, and strengthening the protection of human rights in line with the international obligations to which it has acceded. Method: The study combines doctrinal and functional-comparative analysis with a practice-facing assessment. It first reconstructs the European rights-limitation framework under the ECHR and ECtHR case law (legality, legitimate aim, necessity, proportionality, and safeguards against arbitrariness). It then analyses Vietnam’s constitutional and criminal procedure rules on coercive and investigative measures restricting liberty, privacy, and defence rights, and contrasts their operationalisation, judicial authorisation, structured reasoning, time limits, and remedies with recurring patterns in Vietnamese practice. Results and Conclusions: The study finds partial convergence between Vietnam’s framework and European human rights standards, but also persistent gaps. Normatively, Vietnamese criminal procedure does not consistently operationalise a structured test of legality, necessity, and proportionality for coercive measures. In practice, pre-trial decision making remains strongly detention-oriented, with limited use of less restrictive options and uneven case specific-reasoning. Institutionally, independent judicial scrutiny at the investigative stage is relatively weak, and key safeguards emphasised in European jurisprudence, such as early access to defence, meaningful review, and effective remedies, are not always robust. The article concludes that closer alignment is feasible if Vietnam shifts toward a criteria-based limitations model. This requires codified necessity and proportionality tests, stronger and more intrusive measures of sensitive judicial control, structured reasoning, prioritisation of options other than detention, and enforceable consequences for unlawful restrictions.

Background: The study looks at the criminal implications for the death of a woman undergoing an abortion in the context of Islamic Sharia and the legal frameworks of Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and Europe. The main concern of this study is how to preserve the mother's life while protecting the fetus, which raises sensitive questions about the legal definition of abortion that causes death. The study problem stems from the lack of explicit provisions in Emirati law and in the legislation of France and Poland that criminalize this composite conduct, in contrast to the explicit regulation found in Jordanian law. The study aims to clarify the Islamic Sharia's perspective on abortion crimes and the consequential death of the pregnant woman. Method: The study uses a comprehensive comparative analytical methodology that systematically contrasts relevant Islamic Sharia rulings with the Jordanian, Emirati, French, and Polish legal frameworks governing abortion and the legal consequences of death resulting from it. The study's objectives are to identify similarities and differences between religious and positive law, assess their impact on criminal liability, and assess how well each legal system balances the protection of fetal life with consideration for individual rights and medical necessity. It accomplishes this by critically examining judicial interpretations, statutory provisions, and doctrinal sources. Results and Conclusions: The study draws several important conclusions, chief among them being that both Jordanian and Emirati laws are in line with Islamic Sharia in that they forbid abortion unless necessary, and criminalize both abortion and the killing of a pregnant woman while imposing penalties for both. In contrast to Jordanian law, which specifically forbids abortion that results in death, Emirati and European laws permit abortion in cases of fetal malformation. The study also identifies shortcomings in Emirati law concerning the escalation of penalties. Therefore, in accordance with the Jordanian legislative approach, the study suggests adding a specific clause to Emirati law that criminalizes abortion that results in death and imposes harsher penalties. It also addresses circumstances where criminal liability increases following the issuance of a final judgment for abortion.

Background: Bulgaria has had a statutory mediation framework for over two decades, yet mediation remains underused compared with court adjudication. In the context of judicial reform and caseload reduction, Bulgaria adopted rules in 2023 that introduced mandatory judicial mediation pursuant to which parties to pending court proceedings are required to attend a free-of-charge mediation information session of up to three hours before the first open hearing. The provision was scheduled to come into force on 1 July 2024. On that date, however, the Bulgarian Constitutional Court (Decision No. 11 of 1 July 2024, Constitutional Case No. 11/2024) declared the core provisions of the reform unconstitutional, reviving the question of how far the legislature can require a mediation step without impairing access to justice. In July 2025, Bulgaria adopted a revised model centred on mandatory participation in a mediation information meeting during pending proceedings for specified categories of disputes subject to additional referral by judges. This article analyses the new model, positions it within European approaches, and identifies design requirements for legislation that can stimulate mediation uptake without creating procedural barriers. Method: The article employs doctrinal and comparative legal analysis. It examines the 2025 amendments to the Bulgarian Civil Procedure Code and the Mediation Act, introducing mandatory participation in a mediation information meeting, and considers them in light of the Bulgarian Constitutional Court’s reasoning on proportionality and effective access to court. It situates Bulgaria’s approach within European standards, particularly the interpretation of mandatory ADR/mediation models by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, as well as the mandatory mediation models applicable in Italy, Lithuania, Spain, Greece, and Cyprus. The analysis also draws on international discussions on the design features of effective mandatory mediation models, including incentives, costs, procedural safeguards, and protections in cases involving violence or risks to children, to offer suggestions regarding the features an effective mandatory mediation approach should adopt. Results and Conclusions: The 2025 Bulgarian mandatory mediation model is best characterised as a hybrid: it combines a legislatively defined set of case types with broad judicial discretion and multiple statutory exceptions. It compels attendance at an information meeting (not mediation itself), does not require settlement, does not automatically stay the court case, and limits adverse costs consequences to a modest fee, all features aimed at meeting constitutional proportionality requirements. At the same time, its effectiveness will depend on implementation choices (funding, quality control of mediators, clear referral criteria, and workable incentives). The Bulgarian trajectory confirms the broader European trend: mandatory or semi-mandatory mediation mechanisms can be compatible with the right to effective judicial protection, but only when designed to avoid turning ADR into a procedural barrier and when safeguards for vulnerable parties are robust. The ultimate conclusion is that it may be advisable to adopt uniform, mandatory mediation procedures that apply across the EU and form the backbone of an efficient mediation ecosystem across the Union that truly promotes out-of-court dispute settlement.

Background: This article addresses the critical challenges of establishing a robust legal regime for artificial intelligence (AI) in the wake of the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, EU AI Act) and the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan ‘On Artificial Intelligence’ (2025 or Kazakhstan AI Law). Despite these legislative efforts, scholarly debates persist regarding AI's legal status, personality, and protective functions. This study highlights a necessary shift from reactive regulation to a preventive, risk-based model in which legal norms adapt to algorithmic behavior before conflicts emerge. The research aims to identify regulatory gaps in the Kazakhstani framework relative to European standards, specifically in the areas of fundamental rights protection and judicial accountability. Method: The study employs a descriptive-analytical, comparative research methodology. A legal doctrinal analysis of the EU AI Act and the Kazakhstan AI Law was conducted to identify existing regulatory gaps. The formal-legal method was used to evaluate definitions of AI and its legal characteristics. Content analysis of contemporary legal scholarship (2015–2025) provided the basis for legal modeling of the ‘electronic personhood’ status. The research also utilizes a systems approach to categorize AI risks—minimal, medium, and high—within the public administration and law enforcement sectors. Results and Conclusions: The analysis reveals that while the EU AI Act establishes a comprehensive ban on high-risk technologies such as mass biometric surveillance and predictive policing, the Kazakhstan AI Law lacks similar prohibitions, potentially leading to discriminatory law enforcement practices. The study concludes that recognizing AI as an ‘electronic personhood’ with a hybrid legal capacity is essential for ensuring accountability for autonomous decisions. Specific legislative amendments are proposed for the Kazakhstan AI Law, including: 1) mandating independent expert assessments for high-risk systems; 2) prohibiting the exchange of state secret databases via AI platforms; 3) establishing algorithmic accountability for providers and operators. The research emphasizes that balancing innovation with digital accountability is the key challenge for modernizing the national digital legal order.

Background: The handling of bodies after death has increasingly become a controversial topic in European legal discourse, not least at the crossroads of human dignity, data protection, and forensic justice. Although human dignity is enshrined as one of the fundamental principles offered for protection under EU law, the exploration of such a principle and its extension to post-mortem interests is patchy and divergent within different Member States. The article (i) assesses whether, in the European legal framework, human dignity has justiciable implications beyond death; and (ii) examines how the EU might reconcile growing expectations regarding post-mortem rights in the context of digitalised warfare, big data and hybrid conflicts. To illustrate these challenges in practice, the analysis incorporates Ukraine as a contextual case study, where the Russia–Ukraine armed conflict has exposed large-scale casualties, the digital dissemination of images of deceased persons, and the limitations of existing European protection mechanisms. Methods: The paper presents a comparative legal analysis of EU law, specific legislation in selected Member States, and limitations in international human rights norms with a focus on the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. It also builds on interdisciplinary research, bringing together legal doctrine, bioethics, and the study of digital governance. The methodology is predominantly doctrinal and analytical, supported with cases illustrating different national approaches to the protection of posthumous dignity and rights. Results and Conclusions: The article highlights that EU law lacks a systematised framework for post-mortem dignity, thus leaving Member States free to regulate in a fragmented and sometimes contradictory manner. National solutions vary considerably, from strong protection of post-mortem personality rights with specific remedies (Germany, France) to the lack of any existing legal remedy (United Kingdom). This continuing digital legacy in contemporary wars—illustrated by the case of Ukraine, where mass graves and images of deceased persons distributed online have raised urgent concerns—points to the limitations of current mechanisms, including the GDPR and the Digital Services Act. These trends indicate that the EU could adopt deeper integration, integrating non-binding legislative and judicial cooperation instruments, in line with prevailing international standards, with a view to reducing an identified gap between the formal recognition of human dignity and its effective post-mortem protection.

Background: This paper analyses the proposed Directive of the European Parliament and the Council aimed at combating corruption, within the context of Romanian legislation, with special focus placed on the provisions of Articles 7 and 8 of the proposed Directive. Even if this phenomenon still lacks a unanimously accepted definition, corruption remains a pervasive challenge across various sectors in Romania, necessitating a comprehensive legislative framework to strengthen anti-corruption measures and fortify the rule of law. The proposed directive reflects the European Union (EU)’s proactive stance in addressing systemic corruption, with a particular focus on the Romanian legal landscape. The research delves into the substantive changes outlined by the proposed provisions of the directive in reference to the phenomenon of bribery, analyzing its potential implications for the existing anti-corruption framework in Romania in view of the interplay between anti-corruption efforts and the broader legal framework, assessing how the proposed changes may contribute to a more transparent, accountable, and resilient legal system. Method: Using a comparative approach, the authors analyze the provisions of Articles 7 and 8 of the proposed Directive in light of the relevant provisions of Romanian criminal law. At the same time, the authors argue that, given the institutional framework of Romanian anti-corruption efforts, the aforementioned regulation does not provide a clear advantage. Results and conclusions: While acknowledging the multifaceted nature of anti-corruption endeavors, the authors conclude that the proposed versions of Articles 7 and 8 of the Anticorruption Directive will not have a significant impact on the corresponding norms of the Romanian Criminal law, while explaining why this could be viewed as both a positive and a negative fact.

Background: International nuclear liability conventions, particularly the Paris Convention of 1960 and the Vienna Convention of 1963, as amended in 1997, establish the principle of exclusive operator liability, under which the licensed nuclear operator bears sole responsibility for compensating for damage resulting from a nuclear incident. In practice, however, this principle encounters significant limitations in situations where operator liability cannot be effectively enforced, such as insolvency, armed conflict, force majeure, or insufficient financial guarantees. These exceptional circumstances raise questions regarding the role of the state in ensuring adequate compensation for victims of nuclear damage. Methods: The study employs a combination of doctrinal, analytical, comparative, descriptive, and statistical research methods. International nuclear liability treaties are examined alongside national legislation, particularly Ukrainian Law No. 2893 of 2001 and Saudi Law No. M/81 of 2018. The comparative method is used to assess how each legal system addresses exceptional state intervention and compensation mechanisms, while descriptive and statistical analyses draw on international practice and comparative data on operator liability limits and financial security arrangements. Results and Conclusions: The analysis demonstrates that both Ukraine and Saudi Arabia recognise the possibility of state intervention when operator-based compensation proves inadequate. However, Ukraine provides a more explicit and structured statutory framework for governmental liability and supplementary compensation mechanisms, whereas Saudi Arabia adopts a more conditional and subsidiary approach. The study concludes that clearer institutional arrangements and designated state compensation mechanisms are necessary, particularly in Saudi Arabia, to enhance alignment with international standards and ensure effective protection of victims of nuclear incidents.

Background: Ensuring children’s effective participation in criminal proceedings is a major challenge for European justice systems, which increasingly recognise that children’s developmental, psychological, social, and other characteristics may create susceptibility to procedural disadvantage. Existing guidance, however, is fragmented and insufficiently structured. This article examines the structure and function of procedural protections applicable to children who participate in criminal proceedings as offenders, victims, or witnesses. It focuses on the concept of procedurally relevant vulnerabilities, understood as durable intrinsic conditions that impair a child’s ability to understand, participate in, or cope with the criminal process by increasing susceptibility to procedural disadvantages. Method: This study employs doctrinal analysis of EU law, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights to develop an analytical framework grounded in the concept of procedurally relevant vulnerabilities. It proposes a functional typology of vulnerabilities and evaluates its procedural implications. Two procedural models are examined – adapted procedures for juvenile offenders and child-sensitive procedures for victims and witnesses – through a structure of core rights, procedural safeguards, and procedural options. Results and Conclusions: The two models pursue distinct purposes and rely on different, though flexible and case-adaptable, approaches to vulnerabilities to ensure fairness, protection, and effective participation. The suggested framework strengthens the coherence and predictability of child-related procedural practice and offers a conceptual foundation for judicial guidance and potential harmonization within European criminal justice involving children. Three core contributions are advanced: (1) an operational definition of procedurally relevant vulnerability; (2) a principled separation of adapted and child-friendly procedural models; and (3) a matrix tool for mapping vulnerability-sensitive procedural responses across children’s procedural roles.

Background: This study examines legitimacy and legitimation under Islamic law (Sharīʿah) and how they relate to social justice and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In Islamic jurisprudence, legitimacy flows from divine sovereignty expressed through the Qur’an, Sunnah, and scholarly consensus (ijmāʿ). This includes legal validity, moral authority, and spiritual accountability. Legitimation, by contrast, is a socio-legal process. Authority and institutions gain communal recognition through ijtihād, fatwas, and social practices. Understanding this relationship is crucial. It helps explain how Islamic law preserves justice, promotes accountability, and sustains institutional legitimacy within changing socio-political contexts. Building on this conceptual foundation, the study adopts a systematic methodology to examine these dynamics in greater detail. Methods: The study employs a qualitative, doctrinal, and comparative legal research methodology. Primary Islamic sources—the Qur’an, Hadith, and classical fiqh manuals —are analysed alongside modern constitutions, international legal frameworks, and institutional reports. The maqāṣid al-sharīʿah (higher objectives of Islamic law) framework guides the analysis, emphasising justice, dignity, and social welfare. Comparative perspectives are drawn from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the Council of Europe’s principles, and the United Nations SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) to identify areas of convergence, divergence, and mutual reinforcement. This comprehensive approach enables the study to produce findings relevant to both Islamic and international legal frameworks, as elaborated in the results and conclusions. Results and Conclusions: Findings reveal that legitimacy in Islamic law provides a transcendental and normative foundation rooted in divine command and moral accountability, while legitimation functions as its operational dimension through communal validation and interpretative flexibility. This duality enables Islamic law to preserve doctrinal consistency while accommodating evolving social realities. Interpreted through the maqāṣid al-sharīʿah, Islamic notions of legitimacy and justice align closely with SDGs 5 (Gender Equality), 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and 16, demonstrating Islam’s intrinsic commitment to fairness, institutional integrity, and social inclusion. The study concludes that distinguishing between textual legitimacy and contextual legitimation enhances the coherence and adaptability of Islamic legal processes. Integrating maqāṣid-based reasoning into global justice and governance frameworks complements international norms of accountability, transparency, and participatory governance. This synthesis reinforces Islam’s enduring relevance to contemporary legal and ethical discourse, offering a model of legitimacy that is both divinely grounded and socially responsive.