This part begins the investigation in the past and examines how economic and social objectives shaped the regulation of migration in the period from the Treaty of Paris to the Single European Act. In doing so, it proves that while the concept of sustainable migration is a recent one, the social and economic pillars of sustainability have been constantly guiding the development of EU migration law. Specifically, the balancing between economic and social considerations shaped the regulation of migration already from the establishment of Community law. The analysis further shows that during the years of post-war growth, the EU institutions’ approach to the regulation of migration was aligned for both Community and TCN migrants. Contemporary analyses of EU migration law emphasize the different rationales behind free movement and regulation of migration from third countries. In contrast to this, the investigation shows that during the early years of the Community law, all migrants were perceived as having the same function for the collective project of growth.

This chapter provides an overview of the problem posed by the objective of an EU sustainable migration as well as the argument guiding the investigation. It provides an overview of the concept of sustainability, its appearance in EU law, policy, and scholarship, as well as its recent connection to migration. After demonstrating that the existing legal and policy framework, as well as scholarly research, are of no help in conceptualizing the legal implications of the sustainable migration demand, the chapter highlights the necessity of addressing the problem by means of critical legal history. It further presents the material and the boundaries of the investigation and it concludes by outlining the structure of the book, its significance, and objectives.

This part investigates the period from the Single European Act to the Failed Constitutional Treaty. During this period, the approach to EU and TCN migrants was differentiated. The political ambition behind the transformation of the EU framework framed an institutional discourse that emphasized the special status of EU migrants as citizens, and the lesser status of TCN migrants, whose status and rights were left in the realm of intergovernmental cooperation. However, a closer investigation of archival material and case-law undertaken in this part proves that the need to balance the economic and social objectives of the Treaties continued to appear and condition the rights of all migrants. Essentially this part shows that economic and social sustainability objectives continued to exist as the end to be served by the regulation of migration, even when the prevalent institutional discourse highlighted different considerations. Adding another building block to the historical investigation, this part demonstrates that while the EU sustainable migration objective is a recent one, its underlying considerations have constantly found their way in EU secondary law and case-law.

This chapter focuses on the regulation of migration from third countries after the Single European Act and before the failed Constitutional Treaty. It presents various failed proposals of the Commission during these years, showing the interaction and opposing views of the Commission and the Council. A closer investigation into the Commission’s work shows that this institution continuously envisioned and proposed a legal framework that could efficiently serve the economic and social objectives of the EU project through the regulation of migration, thereby shaping a framework of sustainable migration. At the same time, Member States in the Council expressed a strong political discourse emphasizing their common efforts to progress in the EU, while in practice they blocked the relevant proposals because they could not agree on a common EU conception of growth and progress. Instead, what they pursued was national growth and progress. During this time, the first instruments on admission and rights for TCN migrants were adopted with standards significantly downgraded from the initial proposals.

Chapter 16 concludes. Section 16.1 discusses the concentration effect of decentralised finance, Section 16.2 the supervisory challenges, Section 16.3 the impact of digital finance regulation on centralised finance, while Section 16.4 summarises four key challenges, and Section 16.5 concludes by formulating five key policy options.

Chapter 12 discusses the EU’s new pilot regime for DLT market infrastructures, as laid out in the Pilot Regulation (PilotR). Section 12.2 covers its scope, including activities and entities in scope, size limits, the interface towards the Settlement Finality Directive (SFD), geographic scope, and the EU passporting rules. Section 12.3 explains the procedure under PilotR, beginning with the fundamental requirement to appoint an operator that applies for specific permission to run the DLT market infrastructure – in contrast to the decentralised nature of DLT. Then, we outline how PilotR provides exemptions from MiFID/MiFIR and CSDR along with the associated conditions and compensatory measures – and the supervisory framework under PilotR. Section 12.4 discusses the governance of DLT market infrastructures based on the Business Plan Approach, by which the operator proposes the rules for its own operations – to be approved by the competent authority. Section 12.5 concludes.

Chapter 6 discusses MiCA’s bespoke product regulation for so-called stablecoins under the labels of ARTs and EMTs. Section 6.2 lays out the scope of Titles III and IV MiCA, after which Section 6.3 discusses the licensing requirements forming the basis for the token issuer’s European Passport. Section 6.4 then covers the rules on redemption rights and reserve management, while Section 6.5 addresses disclosure requirements. Section 6.6 lays out the EBA’s supervision of significant ARTs and EMTs, and Section 6.7 concludes.

The Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) Regulation has become a pressing matter amid various financial scandals related to cryptoassets. With several EU Member States in the process of adopting their own cryptoasset legislation, MiCA provides a harmonised approach for the European Single Market. Following a principle of “technology neutrality”, MiCA applies only to cryptoassets that are not covered by other EU financial law, except for e-money tokens (EMTs) to which both MiCA and the E-money Directive (EMD) apply. Hence, MiCA is a piece of “gap-filling” legislation that relies heavily on concepts from conventional EU financial law: cryptoassets similar to MiFID financial instruments and other “investment assets” are subjected to rules similar to those of MiFID and the Prospectus Regulation (PR), while cryptoassets similar to “banking assets” are subjected to rules similar to the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD) and EMD. In sum, this creates a legal framework where the risks inherent in the different types of cryptoassets are accounted for and mitigated, but where the difficult question of classifying cryptoassets into legal categories becomes all-important.

Chapter 5 discusses the “whitepaper” or prospectus regime in Titles II–IV MiCA and compares it to the Prospectus Regulation. Following an introduction to the objectives, applicable legislation, and the risk-based differentiation of the prospectus rules, Section 5.3 covers the scope of MiCA’s prospectus rules. Section 5.4 explains the prospectus procedure, including the obligation to publish a prospectus, obliged entities, the approval and publication processes, along with expiration, updating, modification, and supplementing of the prospectus. Section 5.5 addresses the content and form of the prospectus, Section 5.6 the liability for information in the prospectus, and finally, Section 5.7 covers the EU-wide application of the prospectus (EU passport).

Chapter 9 discusses the rules applicable to investment funds investing in digital assets. We discuss the question of which cases the additional MiCA provisions apply to (Section 9.2) and consider the particularities of the general CASP rules laid down in Title V MiCA in the context of investment funds (Section 9.3) before we look into outsourcing (including brokerage and portfolio management and advice) in Section 9.4 and fund-specific questions regarding safekeeping and custody (Section 9.5). Section 9.6 concludes.

The focus of EU lawmakers with regard to cryptoassets has been largely regulatory. Reflecting the fact that private law is predominantly under the control of the Member States, and without seeking to be comprehensive, Section 13 takes a comparative view on the private law topics most relevant to cryptoassets. It covers efforts to harmonise national private laws, refers to principles issued by UNIDROIT and the European Law Institute, and considers relevant MiCA provision with private law effects in mind. Section 13.2 covers property law, including the important rules of title and transfer when multiple parties have competing claims to the same cryptoasset. Section 13.3 addresses contract law, including “smart contracts”. Section 13.4 on company law discusses decentralised autonomous organisations (DAOs) and the prospect of collaboration on the blockchain constituting a partnership as the default legal form of business organisation. Section 13.5 covers tort law, before Section 13.6 provides an overview of the difficulties often faced with enforcement of claims related to cryptoassets. Section 13.7 concludes with a perspective on the prospects of a uniform private law for cryptoassets.