Abstract Focusing on two themes—the consistency of cross-border EPPO investigations and the legitimacy of the resulting evidence—this article re-evaluates concepts set out in key documents on the EPPO’s establishment; critically analyses the implications of G. K. and Others and Gavanozov for evidence-gathering under Union law; and sets out two courses of action to address key issues. The first provides ideas for a more precise definition of EPPO investigative powers. In the absence of the necessary political will, the second sets out theoretical and practical arguments for the use of EIOs and JITs within the current legal framework.

Abstract This article traces how the Court of Justice of the European Union has developed a doctrinal framework for EU sanctions against Russia under Regulation (EU) No 269/2014. This case law forms a coherent body of reasoning reconciling post-Soviet legacies with contemporary geopolitical imperatives and evidential rigour. By refining the meaning and temporal scope of accountability within the listing criteria, the Court defines the vocabulary guiding asset-freezing decisions and maps Russia’s interwoven networks of power, capital, and state influence. This case law reveals a gap between law and societal expectations of justice, leaving unaddressed the enduring post-Soviet privileges underpinning Putin’s regime.

Abstract This paper discusses how epistemic and ontological commitments shape different understandings of European Union (EU) law and why it matters. Many key debates on EU law—and some of the fiercest disagreements in European legal scholarship—go back to divergent epistemic and ontological commitments. While these philosophical commitments usually operate in the background, this paper foregrounds them. A core aim of the paper is to denaturalise the epistemic and ontological groundings of mainstream approaches to EU law and, thus, to demarginalise approaches more peripheral to the centres of power in EU law-making and in EU legal academia.

Abstract This article focuses on the impact of the reform of the contract law section of the French Civil Code in 2016 in two key areas: remedies for breach of contract and regulation of unfair terms. In particular, it draws a contrast between the ways in which two of the most controversial provisions introduced by the reforms have been applied in practice. While new Article 1221, which limits specific enforcement where it is disproportionate, has been accepted by the courts, Article 1171, which deems unfair terms as not written, has been interpreted narrowly to the point of being marginalised.

Abstract Addressing climate change is a global priority. There is broad, science-based consensus that efficient environmental policy requires significant and rapid investments aimed at accelerating energy transition and safeguarding biodiversity. Yet, despite valuable improvements such as NextGenerationEU and the ETS, the EU and its Member States are still in search of extra financial resources. Here, we establish the FINE-for-EU mechanism to provide finance for pan-European green investment projects. We propose setting up a Pan-European Climate Fund to create a financial link between the benefits businesses derive from the cross-border legal framework and the specific responsibilities they have towards supporting climate objectives.

Abstract Democratic backsliding is becoming increasingly widespread, filtering into not just constitutional law but other areas of substantive Union law. This article explores this phenomenon by focusing on how domestic judicial reforms spread to the day-to-day operation of EU competition law. It references two fundamental principles of Union law – mutual trust and effective judicial protection – before focusing on the European Competition Network, which requires national competition authorities to cooperate when discharging their duties under Union law. Lastly, it discusses the systemic consequences this can have for the operation of EU competition law, the internal market, and EU law more broadly.

Abstract The unfettered authority of sport-governing bodies (SGBs) has given rise to human rights claims and led to the distortion of EU free movement of persons and competition law. Following International Skating Union and European Super League Company, SBGs cannot exercise their right to achieve legitimate sporting aims like integrity and sporting fairness at the expense of competition rules. Nor are they allowed to prevent their member associations from organising/operating competitive leagues/events or to inflict sanctions on them for attempting to do so. These judgments will revolutionise the transnational sport law landscape, reshaping SGBs’ institutional rules and member relationships.

Abstract Almost 10 years ago, the Ordonnance of 10 February 2016 reforming the French Civil Code (CC) removed the cause from the conditions for validity of the obligation. Thus, it broke with the tradition of the Code Napoléon, and a large number of civil codifications followed. Since 2016, French scholars have argued that, notwithstanding its conceptual implications, the disappearance of the formula of the cause has resulted in semantic rather than substantial changes. Whereas, in one opinion, the cause is still found underlying ‘contenu litice et certain’ (Article 1128), its various forms and functions today appear in several CC provisions.

Abstract This article critiques the case-law of the CJEU on when Member States are ‘implementing’ EU law under Article 51 of the Charter, and tables a proposal for amending Article 51 to enhance the effectiveness of EU fundamental rights protection. It also suggests modifying and updating the explanations. Given that Member State judges have alternative routes available to them to resolve fundamental rights disputes, namely via Member State rules and the ECHR, and which do not require consideration of a complex threshold question before the pertinent substantive laws can apply, it suggests that review of Article 51 of the Charter might be timely.

Abstract This article is the first panoramic survey of the various, idiosyncratic procedures relating to the removal for cause of EU institutional officeholders scattered throughout the Union’s primary and secondary law. After describing these provisions, the article argues that these procedures may be considered as impeachment. The article then examines the character of EU impeachment, concluding that it is conceptualised narrowly as addressing individual misbehaving officers, rather than as a means to address wider, systemic, policy-based threats to the EU and its values. The article also offers some observations regarding defects in the EU’s current impeachment provisions and suggests possible reforms.