- Research Article
- 10.1017/err.2026.10097
- Apr 27, 2026
- European Journal of Risk Regulation
- Sophie Melchers
Abstract Increasing water scarcity forced the European Union to investigate the possibility of supplementing natural water sources with reclaimed wastewater. Regulation (EU) 2020/741 sets minimum requirements for the safe reuse of treated urban wastewater in agricultural irrigation. The risks that wastewater reuse presents are further regulated in the numerous EU law instruments that concern the protection of human health, the environment and the European waters, including both laws and principles. This paper applies the widely applicable framework for risk governance that was developed by the International Risk Governance Council to the EU regulatory framework on wastewater reuse. The analysis identifies regulatory gaps – unclear pollutant regulation, incomplete division of responsibilities, and insufficient attention to the science-policy interface – and concrete means of improving the regulation of risks associated with wastewater reuse.
- Research Article
- 10.1017/err.2026.10101
- Apr 22, 2026
- European Journal of Risk Regulation
- José Grabiel Luis Cordova
Abstract Energy dependence and rising pollution from the energy sector have compelled states to re-evaluate their energy policies and legal frameworks in favour of sustainable energy development. In this context, energy transition emerges as a strategy to achieve global climate goals while ensuring energy security. However, making the energy transition a “just transition” presents numerous challenges. These challenges are growing as innovation in the energy sector accelerates, with digitalisation presented as a tool to drive the energy transition and optimise current energy systems. This trend has been integrated into the EU’s policy objectives and regulated by the EU’s legal framework. However, this political decision has sparked ethical and legal debates about the digital transformation of the EU energy sector, particularly regarding energy justice. By analysing instruments in the EU’s policy and legal framework, this paper addresses the intersection of the twin transitions through the lens of energy justice. Therefore, this study assesses the EU policy and legal framework of twin transitions from an energy justice perspective. The geographical scope of this research covered the EU. The methodology includes doctrinal legal research. The conclusions of this research encompass an assessment of selected EU policy and legal instruments applicable to the twin transitions.
- Research Article
- 10.1017/err.2026.10099
- Apr 14, 2026
- European Journal of Risk Regulation
- Alexandra Molitorisová + 1 more
Abstract A medicinal herbal tea classified as a traditional herbal medicinal product cannot, in principle, be marketed with the organic logo. The position may be otherwise where such an indication on the packaging has been approved by the competent authority on account of the beneficial effect of the organic production on the therapeutic characteristics of the medicinal product.
- Research Article
- 10.1017/err.2026.10090
- Mar 24, 2026
- European Journal of Risk Regulation
- Alberto Quintavalla + 2 more
Abstract EU policy documents often present the green and digital transitions as “twinned” and mutually beneficial. However, it is now widely acknowledged that new technologies, such as AI, have significant environmental costs. This awareness has induced the EU to recalibrate its approach to the twin transition and prompted the elaboration of new soft-law principles of digital sustainability, an early form of “eco-digital constitutionalism” at EU level. This paper examines the national AI strategies of the twenty-seven Member States to assess the extent to which this revised approach of the EU is reflected at the national level. Our analysis reveals that the strategies in question often differ starkly in the manner in which they prioritise the various matters that pertain to the intersection of environment and AI. We argue that these inconsistencies, which are rooted in different attitudes to the economics of innovation, cannot be solved fully through soft-law harmonisation.
- Research Article
- 10.1017/err.2026.10094
- Mar 24, 2026
- European Journal of Risk Regulation
- Branislav Hock
Abstract Laundering the proceeds of crime presents a fundamental threat to competitive markets, security and the well-being of European consumers. This paper examines the new European Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA), created as part of the 2024 EU AML package to raise supervisory standards and coordinate the fight against illicit finance across the internal market. Drawing on a collective-action perspective, the paper conceptualises AML as the provision of a public good that is undermined by clarity problems (divergent “rules-in-use” and expectations) and credibility problems (uneven likelihood and severity of consequences for non-compliance). It argues that AMLA is best understood as a hybrid decentralised authority that combines classification functions (single rulebook, technical standards, supervisory methodologies, common templates) with selective enforcement tools (direct supervision of high-risk cross-border groups and escalation mechanisms vis-à-vis national authorities), supported by enhanced coordination infrastructures. By framing these features of the EU AML regime as collective-action problems, the paper sheds new light on the strengths and limits of AMLA’s hybrid model for policing money laundering and contributes to wider debates about the effectiveness of AML policing and its role in supporting anti-corruption efforts.
- Research Article
- 10.1017/err.2026.10087
- Mar 24, 2026
- European Journal of Risk Regulation
- Thibault Schrepel
Abstract What is adaptive regulation? Why does it matter? How can it be measured, and how can regulation be made more adaptive? I answer each of these four questions.
- Research Article
- 10.1017/err.2026.10086
- Mar 9, 2026
- European Journal of Risk Regulation
- Vania Noemi Gonzalez Campos
Abstract This case note analyses the General Court’s judgment in Arysta Lifescience v EFSA (Case T-222/23), which addresses the tensions arising from the disclosure of the lists of co-formulant in the context of the EU risk assessment of pesticides. The decision consolidates the General Court’s interpretation of “information relating to emissions into the environment” under Article 6(1) of Aarhus Regulation, confirming its applicability to the list of co-formulants contained in representative products.
- Research Article
- 10.1017/err.2026.10089
- Mar 9, 2026
- European Journal of Risk Regulation
- Bogdan Iancu
Abstract The article discusses the unfolding of the anticorruption campaign in Romania, from pre-accession to present day. Its argument is that the risk-induced anticorruption paradigm has produced effects that have been from the very beginning irreconcilable with liberal-constitutional normativity. To generate results, normative understandings regarding fundamental rights, institutional autonomy, and judicial independence were subordinated to the policy imperatives and manipulated to achieve them. In the long run, normative considerations resurfaced as a backlash, in equally distorted and instrumental forms. I argue that a single-minded pursuit of policy imperatives thought conducive to risk-abatement has not only not reduced or managed the risk of corruption but also has generated more intractable, systemic threat patterns. Some of these paradoxical, unintended consequences are not contained, resulting in normative spillover within the common constitutional area. The first part of my paper discusses the politicisation of the judicial system. A second substantive section analyses the protracted saga of judicial salaries and pensions and repeated attempts to manipulate the retirement conditions in order to generate personnel and policy changes. A third probes into the dialogues between the CJEU, the Romanian Constitutional Court and the High Court of Cassation and Justice regarding the statute of limitations and its implications.
- Research Article
- 10.1017/err.2026.10083
- Feb 24, 2026
- European Journal of Risk Regulation
- César Martínez-Meseguer + 2 more
Abstract This article advances a law-and-economics critique of fractional-reserve banking, focusing on the legal taxonomy of bank contracts and the risk externalities of maturity transformation. We argue that the conflation of custody-like deposits with mutuum loans blurs property-rights boundaries and weakens liability discipline. Drawing on Austrian monetary theory, we link fiduciary media and demandable debt to pro-cyclical liquidity, run dynamics and the amplification of systemic risk. We reassess the real-bills doctrine and “demand loans,” showing why they do not neutralise run risk in practice and may obscure solvency–liquidity interactions. We then outline institutional reforms – 100%-reserve custodial deposits and a strict functional separation between custody and intermediation – together with market-based loss allocation. The article concludes with regulatory implications for lender-of-last-resort, deposit insurance, and capital/liquidity regimes consistent with risk reduction and legal coherence.
- Research Article
- 10.1017/err.2025.10079
- Feb 23, 2026
- European Journal of Risk Regulation
- Mª Verónica Vargas + 1 more
Abstract Risk regulation has increasingly expanded in European digital policy, yet it is diverging from its roots, especially the precautionary principle. Rather than traditionally focusing on scientific evidence and knowledge, the European approach to risk regulation has been increasingly based on constitutional values such as the protection of fundamental rights and democracy. This article seeks to unravel the logic that has led the Union to move from an approach to risk more based on science to a model which considers constitutional values as parameters to assess and mitigate risks. By focusing on European digital regulation, primarily the GDPR, the DSA and the AI Act, this work underlines how the constitutional rationale of this transformation comes as a response to the intangibility of risks resulting from digital technologies and to imbalances of information and knowledge coming from the concentration of private power in the digital ecosystem. The primary argument is that risk regulation in European digital policy does not seek to rationalise uncertainty through science but to govern epistemological uncertainty through the instruments of constitutionalism, with the goal of addressing the impact of digital technologies on fundamental rights and imbalances of power.