Articles for category: EU FOCUS

A Wolf’s Right to the Surface of the Earth

The European Union recently changed the legal status of the wolf from “strictly protected” to “protected”. In this contribution, I advocate a different response to the problem that wolves prey on animals kept by humans: the further development of the European ecological network called Natura 2000. The premise of my argument, based on animal rights theory and Kant’s philosophy of law, is that wolves have the right to be on Earth. In the past, humans have tried to eradicate wolves, which is a clear violation of this right. I argue that this historical injustice generates the duty to restore the habitats and natural infrastructure used by wolves.

A Child’s Right to Non-Anthropocentric Education

The European Charter on Fundamental Human Rights is not concerned about animal rights. Although the Charter is silent about animals, it is possible to connect certain human rights it enshrines to animals in a manner that can foment animal rights. The protection of a healthy environment in Article 37 is an obvious choice. A lesser theorized human right in the Charter similarly has considerable potential to benefit animals: the right to education under Article 14.

The Legal Form of Animals in Global Value Chain Law

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union makes no mention of animals—a silence that reflects a broader pattern across EU law, including in Global Value Chain Law (GVC Law), which governs the legal infrastructures of global economic activity. Animals hold no particular legal status in this domain, revealing striking parallels in how law has historically shaped and domesticated both human and animal life. Rethinking this shared legal trajectory sheds new light on the social condition underpinning the fundamental values of EU law.

A European Charter of Fundamental Human Obligations

The effort to anchor animal rights in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights has gained relevance in light of the widespread commodification of animals within the EU’s market-driven integration process. While commendable in principle, incorporating animal rights into the Charter risks serving a largely symbolic function if it diverts attention from the more pressing task of reconfiguring what I take to be the six foundational institutions of private law in capitalist political economy: property, contract, corporation, tort, labor, and consumption. These institutions reinforce the binary between the human subject and the other-than-human object, a division that enables the commodification of non-human beings.

Animal Law Jurisprudence in the EU and Beyond

Animals have largely been left out in EU law scholarship and environmental law studies. The role of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights has not been discussed to any greater extent. In this symposium, we discuss the pros and cons of the EU Charter for securing sufficient animal protection in the Member States. More specifically, the contributions in this symposium explore a number of questions such as that of the legal standing of animals and animal rights in the context of the EU, and reflecting on the relationship between animal rights and the EU.

In the End… Who Cares?

On 3 June 2025, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment on the Kinsa-Case. At the core of the matter were the criminal charges of a third-country national for the facilitation of unauthorized entry of two minors in the territory of an EU Member State. With this ruling, the Court takes an important step towards the de-criminalization of care for migrant children who are seeking international protection. However, the Grand Chamber’s reasoning offers limited considerations on the relevant links between “actual care”, humanitarian assistance, and migrant children’s rights. This shortcoming may ultimately curb protection standards of migrant children in future cases

The Legacy of Kinsa

The CJEU’s judgment in Kinsa marks a rare rights-based correction to the EU’s punitive approach to migration. Prompted by a case from Italy, the Court confronts the criminalisation of those who cross borders caring for children. Rather than deferring to enforcement rationales, it centres fundamental rights and draws clear constitutional limits. The ruling opens a path to challenge overbroad criminalisation not just retrospectively, but at the level of legal design. In the shadow of ongoing EU reform efforts, Kinsa signals a shift: from border control to proportionality scrutiny.

Somewhere Over The Rainbow

On 5 June 2025, Advocate General Ćapeta issued her Opinion in Commission v. Hungary, a landmark ECJ case on Hungary’s “anti-LGBTIQ” law. While the law is overtly discriminatory, the Commission framed its case around internal market rules, Charter rights, and Article 2 TEU values. While this might seem curious, I argue this reflects a strategic “camouflaging” of non-discrimination claims to better protect LGBTIQ rights within the limits of current EU anti-discrimination and equality law.

From Dialogue to Discord

Advocate General Ćapeta delivered her Opinion regarding a violation of Article 2 TEU, which lies at the heart of the pending case before the CJEU – a case that bears, quite appropriately, the name “Valeurs de l’Union”. Her opinion is likely to cause a stir. Even though this is not the final judgment, it is unprecedented for Article 2 TEU to be declared justiciable and found to have been infringed.

What Are Human Rights For?

The Danish-Italian public letter to the European Court of Human Rights from 22 May 2025 must be understood in the context of two decades of “crises” in the European human rights regime. None of it is new or unprecedented. What makes it truly troubling, however, is the changed geopolitical context and the focus on migrants and asylum seekers as the most vulnerable.