European Union

In its European Strategy for Data, the Commission presents its ideas on how the EU can create a «single European data space». The plan is to make the EU a leader in a data-driven society. By creating a single market for data, it will allow it to flow freely within the EU and across sectors for the benefit of businesses, researchers, and public administrations. One central factor in the European data space is putting in place clear and trustworthy data governance mechanisms. Focusing on publicly held data, the administrative structures in the Open Data Directive, the Data Governance Act (DGA), and the first sectoral data space proposed, the European Health Data Space (EHDS), are analyzed. The question posed in the article is whether the administrative structure that has been developed in the EU for the last decades, the European composite administration, is well placed to fulfil the ideal of clear and trustworthy data governance.

This contribution summarises the main amendments adopted by the European Parliament during its first reading of the EU’s Proposal for a Regulation on Artificial Intelligence (AI Act). It outlines the impact of this Act, if adopted with such amendments, on automated administrative decision-making (“adm-ADM”), and examines the margin Member States will have to supplement such provisions in their respective national administrative procedure acts. It concludes that the AI Act is a necessary piece of legislation and that, if adopted with some of the Parliament’s amendments, it will adequately regulate the development and use of AI systems by European public authorities, setting a high regulatory standard that can be reinforced by national legislators.

This essay concerns the protection of freedom of expression in the EU legal system. The paper aims to identify the limits of, and possible restrictions to, this fundamental right. The paper focuses on the reaction of the European Union to the regime propaganda promoted by several Russian broadcasters to justify the attack on Ukraine. The paper has three aims. First, the paper evaluates whether the limitations on freedom of information, contained in the EU sanctions, represents a novelty in European law regarding human rights. Second, the paper highlights the recent trends in European jurisprudence regarding the protection of freedom of expression (“hate speech” and “fake news”), and considers their interaction with the recent sanctions of the European Council. Finally, the paper addresses whether the EU General Court, called upon to assess the legitimacy of these sanctions, followed the established process to conclude that the compression of freedom of expression is justified.

With one year remaining before the 2024 European elections, it is useful to try to appreciate what legacy will be left by the ninth legislature, which on close inspection appears to be truly exceptional. During the current legislature there has been a change in the European Union which has cast light on its capacity to take strong, courageous and highly innovative decisions. Also its ability to impose itself as a determined legislator. The article examines some important aspects in this respect and points to new avenues of research.

The paper deals with the increased intervention of States in the economy in a historical phase of de-globalisation and changing geopolitical balances. Tensions are arising in the relations between the European Union and the United States as a consequence of the approval of the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, that encourages productive investments located in the United States, thereby altering competition. The paper dwells on the Italian “golden power” regulation that introduces public control that significantly affects freedom of enterprise. The paper ends with the hope that the increased intervention of the State will not frustrate the achievements of the regulatory State, established since the 1980s in Western countries.

The paper develops brief critical reflections on the dialogue between national and supranational courts, with particular reference to the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, in light of recent procedural reforms.

The Council of State, with its  judgment n. 11664/2022, deemed as unlawful the decision of the Gaeta municipality to deny the assignment of a new State-owned maritime concession and, particularly, the public administration's choice to recur to a tender procedure. Although in consideration of the effectiveness of the EU legal framework claiming for a «selective procedure» based on impartiality and transparency, the judges pointed out how this  concession should be granted in compliance with the general principles of a «comparative evaluation» as already  set out in article 37 of the Italian Navigation Code. The tender procedure is, instead, to be used as from 2024, according to the dead-line indicated to the legislator by the Plenary Assembly of the Council of State (decisions n. 17 and 18 of 2021) to carry out a structural reform of the bathing-facilities sector.

Jurisdictions within the EU and countries around the world are beginning to regulate the use of public Automated Decision Making (ADM). The legal framework thereof differs considerably, and its development is at an early stage. This contribution sets out a possible comparative research framework, with other words elements to compare the different solutions developed by the legal systems in the face of challenges of ADM.

SOLVIT is an on-line, free-of-charge service operating in all EU countries (and in Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway), which officially started its activity in July 2002. It was born as a network of national SOLVIT Centres, connected via an internet-based, multilingual network, with the aim of getting the national Centres to work together to reach the goal of helping businesses and citizens to overcome cross-border issues. Over time, and not without possible weaknesses in both practical and legal terms, it has developed to a multi-faceted single market tool, which also serves the purpose of identifying and try to overcome incorrect application of EU rules by national and local authorities.

A digital public administration is crucial for providing citizens (especially in times of crisis) with effective access to administrative services. Political leaders in Germany agreed on this principle during the global COVID-19 pandemic. However, the implementation of the Online Access Act - the main German law on administrative digitalisation - and of the Single Digital Gateway Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 has raised considerable (legal) problems. This article therefore not only looks at the current implementation status of the two pieces of legislation, but in particular identifies three challenges for the digital transformation of public administration in Germany: federalism, legal fragmentation and register modernisation.