European Central Bank (ECB) staff have repeatedly justified the carbon bias of the Asset Purchase Programme (APP) in terms of “market neutrality”. Yet this term is not included in the Treaties so its meaning and legal nature are unclear. To clarify the meaning of market neutrality in the euro area’s monetary policy we develop a summative content analysis of the textual data contained in relevant legal and policy documents that are publicly available. We conclude that, in the context of monetary policy, the ECB and its staff have used the term market neutrality with two meanings: (i) the minimisation of any impact on the operation of markets and, in particular, on the operation of the price discovery mechanism; and (ii) the mirroring of the composition of a particular market to guide asset purchases. We then examine the legal nature of market neutrality in each of these two meanings. In its first meaning, we argue that market neutrality is the ECB’s definition of the so-called ‘principle of an open market economy’ (‘OME principle’) and it is therefore primary law. In its second meaning, we argue that market neutrality operationalises the OME principle and is therefore secondary law. Our conclusions differ from those reached by the first academic enquiries into the legal nature of market neutrality and open an academic debate on the matter. A clear understanding of the legal nature of market neutrality is also essential to assess the validity of the ECB’s climate change action plan.

The past decade has seen the rise of the semi-authoritarian regimes within the European Union. EU law scholars are rightfully concerned that, in the absence of a meaningful response, this leads to an existential crisis for the Union, as these regimes threaten respect for the Union’s foundational values. The Union did respond to what it has framed as a rule of law crisis by means of a constitutional transformation, asserting Union power to protect judicial independence within the Member States even in areas previously thought beyond the reach of Union law. This paper contends that the Union’s response to the authoritarian threat is flawed for its legalist faith in law and courts. In institutional terms, it was the Court of Justice of the European Union, rather than the Union’s political branches, that took the lead in this transformation. In substantive terms, the Union has transformed its constitutional framework to protect the organisational infrastructure of the judiciary, but it failed to do the same in response to various other strategies in the authoritarian playbook. By framing the authoritarian threat as, above all else, a threat to the judiciary, the Union’s response contributes to the reification of political debate at Union level and risks the alienation of the European polity.

Belarus willingly uses migrants as a tool for political pressure, sending them into forests bordering the EU. This prompted Poland to secure its territory with additional troops and, first, to build a razor wire fence, and, second, to build an entire wall made of steel and concrete. The humanitarian situation of migrants stuck in the Białowieża forest has been dire. An underexposed theme is how not only people were hurt by the border policies, but non-human animals were also affected. As the effects of fencing ‘fortress Europe’ on wildlife are widespread (spatial behaviour, movements and gene flow), this paper uses the Polish–Belarusian border as a case study of a conflict between human border policies and non-human interests. We argue that the plans for the Polish wall are illegal, politically unjust and unethical, also from a more-than-human perspective. The wall is illegal because requirements under EU environmental law, in particular Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, were not met. The wall is unjust because it painfully demonstrates how animals’ communal or even liminal status is far from being recognised. Finally, the wall is unethical because it fails to account for the vulnerability of both humans and non-humans.

Proactive transparency in the form of electronic provision of documents is required by law in the EU. It has long been acknowledged in law and technology studies that digital technology can have legal consequences when implemented to perform a legal function. Consequently, the technological design of document registers has the ability to limit as well as enhance access to documents. When technology can have such regulatory powers, incorporating it into a legal function requires closer attention as to how or why it is so. This article will provide a close analysis of the European Commission’s main Register of Documents (RegDoc) to study the implications of technological design for access to documents. Transparency is approached through a procedural view, highlighting its mechanisms. The article uses a HCI based walkthrough method for the case-study artefact critique of the RegDoc. The main findings suggest that there are two specific affordances of the RegDoc that limit access, especially for users who do not have pre-existing knowledge of the documents they are searching for. These affordances are, first, the scope of the dataset and, second, searchability. Overall, designing technology for legally relevant functions should take into account the wider legal framework that the technology aims to cater for. Attention should be paid to the affordances that can make a legal difference in a technology created to perform a legally relevant task.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has been criticised increasingly for its approach to international law. While much literature focuses on reluctance to apply international law (ie refusing direct effect), this criticism also includes interpretation, arguably a more contentious area. The Court interprets international treaties through either the Vienna Convention or its own teleological method, with the latter increasingly applied. The legitimacy of applying localised methods of interpretation to international treaty law is debated in scholarship. Whether the Court’s case law applying international law is Völkerrechtsfreundlichkeit (friendliness to international law) is the focus of most contributions in this area. This Article seeks to move beyond that debate by demonstrating the Court should in all instances seek to achieve the legal imperatives of certainty and justice. It is explained that justice divides into ‘thin’ and ‘thick’ forms. Whilst ‘thin’ justice is widely accepted and amounts to treating like cases alike, substantive (‘thick’ justice) outcomes are inherently debatable. The Article proves the Court is failing to clearly distinguish cases (‘thin’ justice) and that case law is uncertain. There are also significant questions concerning ‘thick’ justice. The Court has been subject to criticism for substantive outcomes in this area, with the Commission and Council even seeking to limit its role. With case law that is uncertain and appears unjust it is argued that there is failure in this ‘integral part of EU law.’ The Court is now under increased pressure, and it is uncertain how it will respond. There are certainly cautionary lessons to be learned concerning the importance of paying proper attention to justice and certainty for EU law as a whole, and beyond.

This short Introduction outlines the purpose and structure of the Symposium on Ecosystem Restoration and EU Law. It opens by highlighting the potential relevance of the ecological move taken by the EU political institutions in the framework of the Green Deal. It then presents the issues addressed in the Symposium and the main overall argument emerging from its four contributions: whilst the EU ecological policy reflects the intention to shift from the traditional understanding of environmental protection as social regulation to a genuinely ecological and holistic vision, the functional rationale of such a move remains, for the moment, elusive and under-specified. Clarifying such rationale is an inescapable but complex task, as it requires a fresh discussion on the relationship between law and ecology, as well as a true understanding of the implications of ecosystem restoration for the evolving features of the EU polity.

This contribution to the Symposium on Ecosystem Restoration and EU Law assesses the underground protection schemes suggested by the European Green Deal (EGD) for the European Union (EU). By addressing the overground bias that environmental laws and policies have traditionally suffered from, the analysis engages with the EU Soil Strategy for 2030, its ‘Mission “A Soil Deal for Europe”’, and the proposed 2023 Soil Monitoring Directive. The Article explores how and to what extent this agenda for the preservation and restoration of soils is legally reordering the European ground and, simultaneously, how and to what extent it is regrounding the European legal order.

This contribution to the Symposium on Ecosystem Restoration and EU Law is concerned with the changing features of sustainability. It argues that the Commission is gradually articulating, next to the consolidated objective of sustainable development, an ecological understanding of sustainability. It discusses the meaning and relevance of such new understanding, by asking how ecological sustainability is formulated as a policy objective and jurified in the legislation stemming from the Green Deal. It then reflects on the distinction between ecological sustainability and sustainable development. The contribution finally presents some thoughts on the relevance that the ongoing process of complication of the legal construction of sustainability may have for the Green Deal.

Restoring ecosystems and enhancing biodiversity is one of many regulatory ambitions under the European Green Deal. The motivations to do so include, but are not limited to, enabling carbon removal by capturing and storing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in land. The business model of such schemes is to help the EU and its Member States meet their climate obligations whilst safeguarding biodiversity, and when relevant, enable sustainable agricultural practices by creating transferable carbon credits awarded to land managers pursuing such practices. The idea of introducing market-based mechanisms in the management of ecosystem services is not a novelty, but the increasing prominence of carbon removals in the European Green Deal and its related legislative actions warrants careful consideration of legal quandaries about how such removals are to be carried out, why, where and by whom.

The aim of the contribution is to focus on the conflicts arising between climate-related renewable energy goals vis-a-vis environmental protection interests. To this effect, the analysis will firstly investigate the origin of such types of conflicts, which may also be named intra-environmental conflicts, and define their main characteristics; secondly, the regulatory choices made by the RED II and the RED III Directives to manage these conflicts will be presented and compared, with a particular focus on the three key features of the recently approved RED III Directive; thirdly, an alternative approach to address such types of conflicts will be proposed. This is based on the principle of integration, to be interpreted with an ecological sustainability reading of the principle of sustainable development.