Articles for category: EU

The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive beyond Europe

The CSDDD is a game changer that forces a large number of European States to level the legislative landscape with regard to corporate responsibility for human rights and environmental impacts, as well as in relation to liability and access to justice. And yet, its reach throughout global “chains of activities” will most likely bring important hurdles for implementation including in relation to the scope of human rights covered in practice; the need for effective capacity-building in transnational chains of activities; the need for a more proactive dialogue and cooperation between the EU and other States; and last but not least, in ensuring consistency between the national implementation of the CSDDD and international and regional human rights obligations.

The EPPO as a Domesticated Cat

The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) has just celebrated the third anniversary of the start of its operations. “I am sure you will soon see [the EPPO] is anything but a ‘toothless tiger’”, said Laura Kövesi in an interview in 2021. Sadly, in Bulgaria, a country frequently shaken by scandals implicating abuses of EU funds and known for rampant corruption, the EPPO reminds of a domesticated rather than a fierce wild cat.

The Unintended Consequences of Mandatory Due Diligence

The EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) seeks improvements in companies’ societal impacts but carries risks of negative impacts, including on the developing countries where some supposed beneficiaries are located. Does the CSDDD recognise and mitigate such risks? The blog identifies provisions in the CSDDD that address the unintended consequences that mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence requirements might have in developing countries.

From Paper to Practice

The CSDDD requires companies to carry out due diligence on actual and potential human rights and environmental adverse impacts. This means companies have to identify harmful impacts in their value chains and take appropriate measures to prevent, mitigate, or bring them to an end. In this two-part blog post, we will look at which environmental impacts are covered by the CSDDD and how they are addressed. In this second part, we will discuss how the CSDDD negotiations influenced the design of its environmental provisions and identify missed opportunities. We will conclude by analysing what factors are important to ensure that transposition and implementation remain true to the CSDDD’s objectives.

Waiting for Kinsa

On 18 June 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union will sit as a Grand Chamber in a hearing addressing the compatibility of the so-called Facilitators Package with the principle of proportionality set out in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR). The Kinsa case (previously named Kinshasa) provides an opportunity for the CJEU to counteract the trend towards overcriminalisation of humanitarian action that has taken hold across the EU. This blog highlights the ways in which the Facilitator Package fails to take account of important fundamental rights and why the criminalization of solidarity that it has facilitated is not an inevitability but a political choice.

Trans Rights and Gender Recognition before the CJEU

On May 7, 2024, the Advocate General of the CJEU issued his Opinion on the Mirin case concerning the right to Legal Gender Recognition (LGR) for transgender persons. Yet, the solution offered by the AG deviates from the Court’s previous case-law on LGR, by making it about free movement rather than protection against discrimination, or fundamental rights. It also places the applicant, and those in a similar position, in an administrative situation that is defeating the very purpose of LGR – an issue that the AG himself acknowledges. A more satisfactory and ambitious alternative would instead be to frame the LGR as protected under the EU Charter.

Soft law, hardcore?

Soft Law bietet die Möglichkeit der agilen und flexiblen Regulierung, die sich gerade an die dynamische digitale Entwicklung anpassen kann. Allerdings gilt Soft Law durch seine unverbindliche Natur als wenig effektiv. Mit dem Digital Services Act (DSA) beschreitet die EU jedoch einen unkonventionellen Weg, indem sie Hard Law und Soft Law in – zumindest aus dogmatischer Perspektive – eigentümlicher Weise miteinander verbindet. Der DSA ist selbst eine rechtsverbindliche EU-Verordnung, welche jedoch Soft Law Instrumente vorsieht und sogar Vorschriften zu ihrer rechtlichen Durchsetzung enthält. Derlei Regelungstechniken sind im Unionsrecht zwar durchaus bekannt, doch stellen sie zumindest der öffentlichen Wahrnehmung des DSA als ‚Verfassung des Internets‘ in Frage. Wie weitreichend kann eine solche Verfassung sein, die wesentliche Fragen an (exekutiv initiiertes, privat gesetztes) Soft Law auslagert?

Deepfakes, the Weaponisation of AI Against Women and Possible Solutions

In January 2024, social media platforms were flooded with intimate images of pop icon Taylor Swift, quickly reaching millions of users. However, the abusive content was not real; they were deepfakes – synthetic media generated by artificial intelligence (AI) to depict a person’s likeness. But the threat goes beyond celebrities. Virtually anyone (with women being disproportionately targeted) can be a victim of non-consensual intimate deepfakes (NCID). Albeit most agree that companies must be held accountable for disseminating potentially extremely harmful content like NCIDs, effective legal responsibility mechanisms remain elusive. This article proposes concrete changes to content moderation rules as well as enhanced liability for AI providers that enable such abusive content in the first place.

A Comparative Analysis between the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive and the French and German Legislation

This blog post offers an initial comparative glimpse of the most important changes that the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) will bring for the respective mandatory human rights and environmental (HREDD) legislation in Germany and France. While both the French Duty of Vigilance Law and the German Supply Chain Act already require effective HREDD, the CSDDD goes a long way in strengthening the requirements and bringing them more in line with international standards.