Directive (EU) 2019/882 on the accessibility requirements for products and services (AA), provides that the information disclosed by providers of consumer banking services to persons with disabilities in the European Union must be understandable (the understandability rule), a rule that is especially relevant to access barriers related to neurodiversity. Understandability is an open-textured term which, in the multilayered and pluralistic context of financial services regulation, gives rise to ambiguity as to its scope of application. It is not clear, prima facie, whether the understandability rule merely applies to (1) disclosures required under the AA (the narrow application), or also (2) disclosures regulated by other EU Directives applicable to consumer banking services (e.g., Directive 2023/2225 on consumer credits), and (3) contractual documentation provided in accordance with these EU Directives. This article undertakes this interpretation exercise and concludes that the rule should be applied narrowly, on the basis of established EU interpretation methods (grammar, teleological, systemic and comparative), analysis of the contrast between the AA and its regulatory context, and general regulatory principles.

The article examines how the Czech courts addressed restrictions on the right to conduct business during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although grounded in the Czech authorities’ response to the health crisis, the analysis extends to broader conclusions about the necessity of upholding rule-of-law principles. The article therefore highlights how constitutional imperatives of proportionality, equality and the justification of government actions must be preserved in judicial review, even in times of crises.

Previous research has highlighted several quality-related concerns regarding food supplements available on the market, which compromise their safe consumption. This study evaluates whether the adoption of the European Pharmacopoeia (Ph. Eur.) as a framework for improving supplement quality could enhance quality and safety control practices. The findings are derived from a comparative legal analysis of the Canadian and U.S. legal systems. The results suggest that its application in the Canadian market may serve as an illustration of the Brussels effect in practice. Simultaneously, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) already encourages EU Food Business Operators (FBOs) to utilise the Ph. Eur. when assessing food supplement ingredients. Nevertheless, careful consideration is necessary regarding the extent of regulatory compliance by FBOs to mitigate potential conflicts with existing EU legislation and to prevent delays in innovative developments within the supplement market.

This article examines the regulatory dimensions of the UK’s car finance mis-selling scandal, focusing on the structural features of PCP agreements. While current legal interventions emphasise transparency and informed choice regarding commissions, I argue that such measures are poorly equipped to address the embedded inequalities characteristic of intermediated consumer credit markets. PCPs, though marketed as affordable and flexible, routinely give rise to extended credit dependency without securing vehicle ownership for many borrowers. Drawing on Ramsay’s work on credit and distributive justice, the analysis situates PCP finance within broader shifts in welfare provision, income insecurity, and the financialisation of everyday life. It further places recent developments within the longer history of UK financial mis-selling, where commission-based sales models have systematically externalised complexity and risk onto consumers. Rather than treating mis-selling as a failure of commission disclosure, the article invites a more substantive inquiry into how consumer law legitimises forms of market participation that disproportionately burden the financially vulnerable.

Armed conflicts create severe risks to human security, including food insecurity, often in contexts where state-based regulation is compromised. This paper examines how private actors – specifically food retailers in Ukraine – have become crucial de facto regulators in managing this risk during the war. We ask: in a regulatory vacuum, how do social expectations and corporate risk management practices shape the governance of essential goods? Drawing on thirty-six semi-structured interviews with Ukrainian residents and a thematic content analysis of 280 public social media posts and comments (Feb 2022 – Dec 2024), we investigate how social expectations function as a form of social regulation, shaping corporate conduct. We find that stakeholders expect companies not only to mitigate their own operational impacts but also to actively address the negative human rights consequences of the conflict itself. Based on these findings, we propose an empirically grounded model of “heightened human rights due diligence” (hHRDD) as an adaptive risk regulation framework. This model offers critical policy guidance for the implementation of instruments like the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), particularly for defining corporate responsibilities in conflict-affected and high-risk areas.

Recent years have witnessed an extraordinarily swift advancement in the fields of artificial intelligence (AI) and the Internet of Things (IoT). AI applications like ChatGTP are gaining significant influence on various aspects of life and even ordinary households are nowadays highly digitalised, a trend that will only intensify with the growing proliferation of the Internet of Things.

Quantum computing is rapidly advancing from a theoretical possibility to a transformative force in financial systems. With its high-dimensional computational capacity, quantum technology is promising for enhancing risk modelling, fraud detection and transaction efficiency. However, it also seriously threatens cryptographic security, regulatory coherence and systemic stability. This paper critically analyses the risks introduced by cryptographically relevant quantum computers and assesses the readiness of legal and institutional frameworks to respond. Focusing on the UK financial regulatory environment, the study proposes a quantum-safe integration roadmap grounded in post-quantum cryptography, adaptive regulatory models and sector-wide governance strategies. The paper argues for anticipatory regulation that embeds enforceable standards and strategic collaboration across public and private stakeholders through an interdisciplinary approach combining legal analysis and financial risk modelling. The UK’s leadership in quantum policy positions it to shape international norms in secure quantum adoption. Finally, the paper offers an analytical framework to ensure that quantum innovation reinforces rather than destabilises data integrity, financial resilience and public trust.

The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled, in Case C-670/22 Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin v M.N. (EncroChat), that a public prosecutor’s office may also request a European Investigation Order without a court order to obtain encrypted data from another EU Member State, and use it as evidence in cross-border crimes and criminal cases. The decision resolved a dispute between German courts regarding the compatibility and legality of gathering and using data from an encrypted communication network named “EncroChat,” in a drug trafficking and cybercrime investigation by the French authorities as evidence in criminal cases. The case note analyses how the CJEU interprets the European Investigation Directive regarding the admissibility of evidence in court and assesses whether the ruling adequately safeguards the defendant’s rights and provides a fair trial under EU law. The case note analyses the implications of C-670/22-M.N. (EncroChat) for cross-border crime prosecution and judicial cooperation across the EU, and it discusses how it could lead to the establishment of new modality for evidence admissibility under the European Investigation Directive.

A widely made claim in academic scholarship is that the governance of solar geoengineering is characterised by gaps in international law and the absence of regulatory mechanisms. This article presents a more nuanced perspective on this claim. Instead of focusing on one comprehensive regime to govern solar geoengineering (whether its use or its non-use), we adopt a multi-dimensional impact approach to consideration of solar radiation modification (SRM) technologies and their governance. We outline the diverse array of adverse impacts that any SRM governance regime would need to contend with, and map how many of these impacts fall within the purview of existing international institutions and obligations. We conclude that any future SRM governance regime would need to build upon or at least not contravene these existing obligations. While our analysis thus modifies the claim of gaps in international law relating to SRM governance, it also suggests that the fragmented yet comprehensive coverage of diverse impacts does not mean that global coordination to govern deployment of SRM is already in place. Instead, the fragmented web of institutions and principles that exists provides room largely for restrictive SRM governance, in order to prevent adverse impacts within core areas of concern.

The European Semester is an economic governance tool that the European Union (EU) uses to monitor and coordinate national policies, but it has also evolved into a mechanism to address rule-of-law risks in Member States. By linking financial support to reforms, particularly through the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), the Semester helps enforce rule-of-law standards and represents an innovative approach to safeguarding EU values. However, this process raises concerns about democratic accountability, and it overlooks broader societal concerns.

This paper critically assesses the effectiveness of the EU AI Act in regulating artificial intelligence in higher education (AIED), with a focus on how it interacts with existing education regulation. It examines the growing use of high-risk AI systems – such as those used in admissions, assessment, academic progression, and exam proctoring – and identifies key regulatory frictions that arise when AI regulation and education regulation pursue overlapping but potentially conflicting aims. Central to this analysis is the concept of human oversight: while the AI Act frames oversight as a safeguard for accountability and fundamental rights, education regulation emphasises the professional autonomy of teachers and their role in maintaining pedagogical integrity. Yet, the regulatory role of teachers in AI-mediated environments remains unclear. Applying Mousmouti’s effectiveness test, the paper evaluates the AI Act along four dimensions – purpose, coherence, results, and structural integration with the broader legal framework – and argues that legal effectiveness in this context requires a more precise alignment between AI and education regulation.

In its ruling of 25 January 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) clarified the scope of the Waste Shipments Regulation in the context of hazardous waste generated during maritime accidents. The Court concluded that “contrary to the circumstances envisaged” in its previous ruling (Conti 11. Container Schiffarts I), the shipment of the MSC Flaminia from Germany to Romania had to be subject to the prior written notification and consent procedure provided for by that Regulation. The difference between the two scenarios lies in the circumstance that, in the case at hand, part of the waste had already been offloaded, preventing the applicability of Article 1 (3) (b) exclusion. The latter, according to the Court, has a temporary nature and should be interpreted restrictively as to ensure compliance with the Union’s obligations under the Basel Convention. The judgment reinforces a precautionary, risk-based approach to hazardous waste shipments in line with supranational sustainability goals.

Enlargement is seemingly back on the list of EU priorities. It took a war for it to happen! Indeed, it has been over a decade since the last EU enlargement with Croatia. Other Western Balkan countries have been (im)patiently queuing in the EU’s foyer, waiting for Godot, who never comes despite the promises of his arrival. Meanwhile, Türkiye, an EU candidate country since 1999, dropped out of the league, being almost wiped off the enlargement map after the stalemate in its negotiations with the Union. The EU’s progress with the Western Balkan countries – for which the European perspective was unequivocally confirmed over two decades ago – has stalled due to various issues, including unresolved bilateral disputes. Yet, requesting settlement of bilateral disputes that fall outside the scope of EU law and the jurisdiction of EU courts to reach solutions that can be rejected once the candidate country becomes an EU Member State is rather vain. The current situation is disheartening, underscoring the necessity for a revised approach in the pre-accession process that promotes solidarity, peaceful coexistence, and genuine friendship among states.

The EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) represents a significant departure from the EU’s traditionally restrained regulatory approach to commercial arbitration. The Act classifies certain use cases of AI in arbitration as potentially “high-risk” and introduces stringent compliance obligations for legal tech providers, arbitral institutions and arbitrators. This article argues that the Act’s application to arbitration disrupts the long-standing balance between party autonomy, procedural flexibility and regulatory oversight that has characterised the EU’s treatment of the field. It also highlights the challenges of reconciling its rigid framework with key aspects of arbitration – namely, party autonomy, confidentiality and procedural flexibility. The article concludes by proposing a full or partial carve-out of commercial arbitration from the scope of the AI Act’s high-risk provisions.

This article examines the evolution of insurance contract law reforms, focusing on the shift towards a more policyholder-friendly approach to disclosure duties in some Civil Law and Common Law countries. Traditionally, insurance law favoured insurers, but recent reforms have increasingly prioritised consumer protection by adopting inquiry-based disclosure and restricting insurers’ rights to void contracts for non-disclosure. Through a comparative analysis, this article examines the alignment between Germany and the UK in reforming disclosure duties, which has driven a broader movement towards policyholder protection. Influenced by these developments, legal reforms in various jurisdictions have enhanced transparency and fairness by reducing policyholders’ disclosure burdens while increasing insurers’ responsibilities. As the insurance landscape evolves, ongoing legal reforms must prioritise policyholder protection, addressing emerging challenges from digitalisation and technological innovation, with this shift towards policyholders set to become the leading force in shaping a more equitable, consumer-centric regulatory framework.

The European Union is a world leader in nanotechnology environmental, health and safety (EHS) risk regulation, and since its policy integration has been increasingly active in promoting international coordination and cooperation on nanotechnology risk governance. What affects its ability to influence nanotechnology risk regulation and governance internationally? This analysis focuses on the European Union (EU) level arguing that the EU’s scientific and regulatory capacities have significant explanatory power. Empirically, the article examines three cases of EU influence in key areas of international nanotechnology risk regulation and governance – nanosafety research for regulatory purpose, science diplomacy, and multilateral risk governance, following its integrated policy.

This article critically examines the concept of systemic risk as used in the EU Act in relation to General-Purpose AI Models (GPAIMs). It argues that rather than resolving uncertainty, the Act institutionalises it, transforming systemic risk into a flexible yet uncertain legal category. Drawing on legal theory and sociological perspectives – especially systems theory – this paper shows how systemic risk functions less as a concrete threshold for intervention and more as a proxy epistemic uncertainty surrounding GPAIMs. In the analysis, three interrelated consequences are identified: the institutionalisation of regulatory and scientific uncertainty, the delegation of key decisions about the content of systemic risk to private actors, and a regulatory blind spot created by the Act’s conceptual distinction between AI models and AI systems. These developments risk undermining the Act’s goal of legal certainty, exposing the paradox of AI governance: that in attempting to mitigate unknown future risks, the law may instead reproduce regulatory uncertainty.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that health claims relating to botanical substances cannot be used in commercial advertising without prior authorisation, even during the prolonged suspension of the European Commission’s evaluation process. In Case C-386/23, Novel Nutriology, the Court clarified that Article 10(1) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation, NHCR) maintains its prohibition on unauthorised health claims regardless of administrative delays in the assessment process. The judgment provides guidance for food business operators marketing botanical products and highlights ongoing regulatory challenges in balancing consumer protection with commercial interests. This case note examines the Court’s reasoning, situates the decision within broader CJEU case law, and explores potential regulatory reforms to address the persistent impasse surrounding botanical health claims in European Union (EU) food law.

Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, OJ L 404, 30.12.2006, pp. 9–25