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.

The ‘Digital Economy and Society Index’ (DESI) Dashboard for the Digital Decade is a set of indicators created by the European Union in the early 2010s to monitor Member States’ progress in pursuing the EU’s Digital Agenda, as well as many of the goals of the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainability. The figures provided by the Dashboard are perceived by academics, the media and the general public as objective neutral data on the progress of Member States towards digitalisation, and on the promotion of sustainable development. This short contribution unpacks the Dashboard, examining the variables it considers and the methodology it employs, and finds out a very different picture. The Dashboard mainly assesses how easily people can access products and services online. It thus promotes a pro-market digitalisation agenda that excludes any other possible alternative and has little to do (if any) with the idea of sustainability. As is often the case with quantitative measurements of social phenomena, behind its seemingly scientific numerical veil the Dashboard conveys a policy vision that is hardly compatible with the objectives the Dashboard allegedly promotes. The essay thus raises broader questions as to the legitimacy of governing through indicators and as to the role of EU in shaping Member States’ digital future.

In core government and for public tasks hugely sensitive for citizens such as migration governance in Europe, the use of AI systems developed and provided under contract gives migration authorities and private providers the power to keep their deployment secret and to refuse access to their key components. This article explores the complex interplay between public and private drivers of secrecy surrounding procured AI technologies in European migration governance, demonstrating how these forces converge and reinforce one another. It examines AI secrecy as an institutional framework shaped by both public and private law forms of secrecy, applying the spectrum of secrecy from deep (unknown unknowns) to shallow secrecy (known unknowns). Specifically, the paper looks into the sources of ‘political secrecy’ in migration and security authorities, highlighting how migration agencies and authorities keep the existence and use of AI systems from civil society and affected persons (such as third country nationals). Next, it analyses the legal frameworks that sustain AI vendors’ private secrecy, such as trade secrecy, secrecy in procurement procedures and agreements. In examining the various secrecy points, it scrutinises the limited impact of the AI Act in addressing the entrenched secrecy of AI deployment and development in governing migration. Finally, we condense the main takeaways and examine the broader repercussions of AI secrecy beyond the context of border control, touching upon its implications for a new equilibrium transcending the conventional public/private divide.

Who is recognised within the concept of ‘European Society’, and, more importantly, who or what remains unseen? This article critically examines European Society through a decolonial lens, arguing that EU law is detached from the lived and diverse realities of European Society. Drawing on the work of sociologist Manuela Boatcă, the authors propose a decolonial approach that excavates coloniality of power, knowledge and, especially, belonging within EU law to reimagine European Society. Analysing cases in migration and the rule of law, the article reveals how EU law perpetuates hierarchical structures of inclusion and exclusion, and invisibilises the liminal—often deploying “Western” norms, values, and lifestyles as gatekeeping tools, especially in post-colonial contexts. At the heart of this argument is the necessity to move beyond Eurocentric assumptions of universality, neutrality, and totality in legal scholarship, instead embracing plurality of perspective, creolisation, and reflexivity. The authors contend that European Society should not be treated as a rigid legal construct but rather as a dynamic and inclusive one that amplifies marginalised voices, acknowledges and accounts for the liminal, and critically examines the law’s inherent limitations. Ultimately, the article calls for a radical reimagining of European Society through its decolonisation—one that confronts historical injustices, disrupts entrenched power structures, and steers EU law toward a more just, equitable, accountable and reconstructive future.

Against a backdrop of rapidly expanding health artificial intelligence (AI) development, this paper examines how the European Union’s (EU) stringent digital regulations may incentivise the outsourcing of personal health data collection to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), fuelling a new form of AI ethics dumping. Drawing on parallels with the historical offshoring of clinical trials, we argue that current EU instruments, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) and Medical Devices Regulation, impose robust internal safeguards but do not prevent the use of health data collected unethically beyond EU borders. This regulatory gap enables data colonialism, whereby commercial actors exploit weaker legal environments abroad without equitable benefit-sharing. Building on earlier EU responses to ethics dumping in clinical trials, we propose legal and policy pathways to prevent similar harms in the context of AI.

Ecological economics research on limits to growth has demonstrated that high-income countries are unlikely to succeed in ‘making growth green’ or, in other words, decoupling economic growth from ecological impacts fast enough to bring human activity back within planetary boundaries. At the European Union (EU) level, a paradigm shift is difficult because the EU’s socioeconomic system is growth dependent: the continuation of economic growth is required to avoid significant psychological, social and economic harms. This article argues that the EU founding treaties entrench this growth-dependent model by constraining the policy reforms proposed by ecological economists to reduce the EU economy’s reliance on growth. It therefore contends that treaty reform is necessary if the EU is to sustain human wellbeing without continued economic growth. Nevertheless, the article also finds in the treaties a limited degree of flexibility towards policies that would constitute first steps in the direction of growth independence.

In two fields that are currently of high political salience and strategic significance – the regulation of digital platforms, and the regulation of environmental and human rights impacts in global value chains – the EU has taken a strikingly similar regulatory approach. In the 2022 Digital Services Act and the 2024 Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, it has charged large companies with managing risks to various public values and concerns. In this contribution, we critique this shared regulatory approach. First, we argue that regulating dominant corporations via risk management obligations actually reinforces their power in three ways: it is inherently deferential to corporate power and profitability; it reinforces technocratic framings of policy problems which discourage political contestation of economic governance; and it allows corporations to evade responsibility by framing negative impacts of their activities as external problems against which they protect the public. Second, these problem framings shape the implementation as well as the content of regulations. Specifically, they direct compliance and enforcement efforts to procedure over substance; and create significant practical barriers to public and private enforcement. We conclude by discussing the implications of our analysis in the context of the EU’s current deregulatory agenda.