‘Corrubedo’ is one of many stories Ben Judah tells in This is Europe: The Way We Live Now. It follows Graña, a fisherman from the titular Galician town who, faced with the erosion of his community, is forced to answer what Martha Nussbaum terms a ‘tragic question’ and joins the crew of Kunlun, a vessel sailing to Antarctica to poach Patagonian toothfish. Given the ubiquity of European law, in this article we interrogate its role in shaping the choices available to him and his everyday. We critically examine the Common Fisheries Policy and the IUU Regulation, highlighting their disconnect from the complex social and ecological contexts they seek to regulate, as well as the ensuing forms of alienation. These, we argue, hinting at the principle of subsidiarity, could be overcome through a reflexive law and policy that attends to the voices and lived experiences of those it most directly affects. We thereby hope to contribute to a collective inquiry into the law of the everyday in Europe, revealing the everyday as the site where the costs of governance accumulate and where ‘tragic questions’ are lived rather than resolved.

This Article examines the persistent gaps in the protection of trans and non–binary people against discrimination in European Union law, situating its analysis within a broader socio–legal context marked by rising anti–gender rhetoric and uneven national safeguards. Drawing on recent empirical data, including the 2023 FRA LGBTIQ Survey, it highlights the disproportionate levels of discrimination, violence, and harassment experienced by trans and non–binary individuals across the EU, as well as the growing political hostility that shapes their lived realities. Against this backdrop, the Article assesses the current EU legal framework—primary law, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and secondary legislation—and demonstrates that explicit protection on the grounds of gender identity and gender expression remains absent. It then analyzes the evolving case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which has gradually interpreted the prohibition of sex discrimination as extending to certain forms of discrimination against trans persons, while still leaving significant blind spots, particularly for non–binary individuals. Building on recent jurisprudential developments, the Article explores the potential for a more inclusive and expansive reading of “sex” within EU equality law, arguing that such an approach could provide robust protection for all individuals facing discrimination based on gender identity or expression. Finally, it addresses the complex normative and doctrinal challenges that arise when balancing the interests of cisgender women with those of trans and non–binary people under the umbrella of sex–based equality. Positioned within a human–rights–oriented and social–justice–driven framework, the Article ultimately calls for renewed legal and political commitment to ensuring that EU equality law effectively safeguards the rights of trans and non–binary individuals.

The EU chose “anti-corruption” to target a particular mode of citizenship acquisition: citizenship by investment. The fact that no other mode of acquiring citizenship has been actively stigmatised through “corruption” rhetoric, including discretionary naturalisations based on economic contributions, suggests that corruption was by no means the European Commission’s main concern. The high importance of citizenship could indeed carry corruption risks associated with it. This, however, cannot be the sole ground for closing particular avenues for naturalisation. Improving the enforcement of the rule of law and the effective implementation of anti-corruption mechanisms are more suitable approaches. Fighting “corruption” served as a rhetorical device deployed by the Commission to stop the supposedly corrupting effects of investment naturalisations on the ethno-nationalist Eurowhiteness model, which this institution, together with the Court of Justice, has chosen for Europeans in direct departure from the law in force. “Anti-corruption,” thus, helped achieve institutional ends unrelated to either fighting corruption or reinforcing the rule of law and other values in the EU.

Reference: Case C-155/24, Nederlandse Voedsel- en Warenautoriteit and Others v Stichting Rookpreventie Jeugd [2026] EU:C:2026:327 Headnote: Based on the principle of the rule of law set out in Article 2 TEU, international standards referenced in an EU legislative act, being binding, must be freely accessible via a system that is “general, effective, without charge and non-discriminatory.” The costs for setting up such a system must be borne by the European Union. Legislation: Article 4(1) Directive 2014/40 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC.

This article advances a doctrinal reinterpretation of the social dimension of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. It challenges the assumption that bilateral social security coordination mechanisms operate as neutral instruments of transnational administration, arguing that, in situations of forced migration, they may instead function as structural barriers to the effective enjoyment of refugee rights. It argues that Articles 24 and 25 of the Refugee Convention require host states to ensure effective access to social security through functional substitution. The article concludes that refugee protection requires protection-sensitive social security coordination consistent with international and European legal obligations.

This afterword examines the intersections between the green and digital transitions within EU law and argues for the development of a coherent regulatory framework capable of addressing their interdependence. Drawing on the contributions to the special issue, it identifies a number of common challenges, including tensions between market structures and the protection of fundamental rights, the environment and the climate, the limits of anthropocentric approaches to regulation and the increasing relevance of interdisciplinary expertise in law-making and adjudication. The paper further distinguishes between two forms of conflict arising from the twin transitions: normative conflicts between overlapping regulatory regimes and substantive conflicts concerning the negative consequences of one transition on the other. To address these issues, the afterword proposes a “pointillist” approach grounded in the coordinated and teleological interpretation of EU law. Finally, it suggests that impact assessment regimes provide a particularly promising case study for future research on theintersections between the twin transitions.

Ecological restoration is increasingly recognized as essential for combating the biodiversity and climate crises. However, restoration activities can also produce or exacerbate social and environmental injustices. This article explores the extent to which the European Union’s 2024 Nature Restoration Regulation (NRR) enables ‘just ecological restoration’. Drawing on the three dimensions of environmental justice – distributive, recognitional, and procedural – we assess whether the NRR adequately includes justice considerations. Our analysis finds that while the Regulation includes several justice-relevant provisions, many are implicit and lack enforceable guarantees. Disparities in expected costs and benefits raise concerns over distribution, limited safeguards may exclude marginalized communities, and participation mechanisms vary across Member States. The potential of the NRR to foster fair and inclusive restoration depends largely on how Member States implement their national restoration plans and whether the European Commission provides clear guidance and support to ensure socially responsible action.

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.

Regulating emerging technologies involves balancing the mitigation of risks with the promotion of innovation; a balance frequently seen as a zero-sum “dilemma of control.” Regulatory sandboxes offer a practical way to address this dilemma by enabling controlled, evidence-based testing of new technologies. In this article, we examine the regulatory sandbox framework introduced by the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA). We argue that the AIA’s multi-level governance structure represents a shift from traditional sandbox models by prioritising regulatory learning over technological disruption and expanding public interest considerations to include strategically aligned commercial innovations. Afterwards, we identify governance challenges across three sandbox phases – pre-testing, testing and post-testing – and propose structured solutions. Our analysis suggests that effective sandbox governance requires specific mechanisms: tailored entry criteria, precise pipeline placement guidance and multi-agency coordination in pre-testing; experimental realism and continuous risk classification updates during testing and clear graduation criteria with robust transition support in post-testing.

For as vivid the academic debate around issues of algorithmic bias, discrimination and unfairness has been in the context of EU law, little attention has been paid thus far to the way in which such instances have been dealt with by courts. This article examines from a non-discrimination law perspective how domestic courts of Member States as well as the European Court of Justice have approached cases of algorithmic bias in automated decision-making, by focusing on the judges’ engagement with discrimination-related considerations. For the purposes of my analysis, I propose a taxonomy of judgments dealing with cases of algorithmic bias and analyse a number of examples accordingly to showcase the distinct features of each category. In this regard, a first distinction is drawn between judgments relating to cases of ‘algorithmic discrimination’ and those concerning cases of ‘unfair algorithmic differentiation’. Depending on the extent to which courts take into account any risks of discrimination in the cases falling under the second category, I further distinguish between judgments of ‘discrimination reflection’, those of ‘discrimination awareness’, and those of ‘discrimination silence’. On the basis of this classification, I then attempt to shed more light on how non-discrimination and data protection law may interact with each other in practice in cases of algorithmic bias. Finally, the article concludes with some reflections on the prevailing tendency to address equality concerns through recourse to data protection rules.