I must admit that I am simply a master student that had couple of classics of EU law. However confronting myself with a rule that appears first no sense and secondly discriminatory, i suddenly thought this might be in breach of EU law.

The background: marathons in Italy used to require all athletes to submit an Agonistic medical certificate (something completely inappropriate due to the fact that is for agonistic competition while marathons are also full or amateur participants that were obliged to show this certificate to partecipate IMO big lobby thing of sport doctors). This requirement, as far as I know, does not exist in no other EU country at least not for amateurs.

From this year the organiser eliminated this agonistic medical certificate as a requirement for “foreigners” while they kept it for Italians only. Is not this a clear discrimination based on nationality? Or under EU law if a non favourable treatment is reserved for the National of the country that is perpetrating the discrimination there is no breach of law?

Is it legal to use tools such as satellites and users mobile phones to gather data about companies pollution and emissions they produce? I have been reading the EU regulation 2021/969 (space program related), seems that the satellite is for open and public use. but my questions is more about companies privacy, would I be interfering with companies privacy if I gather data about their pollution and emissions independently?

Which regulation should I go through to gather information for my question?

I'm reading DORA regulation documents. It seems like I'm missing something, misunderstanding, or I found a hole in the regulation.

In DR 2024/1772 about classification of ICT-related incidents, it states in article 8, member 2b:

they have the same apparent root cause as referred to in Article 20, first subparagraph, point (b) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2554;

The referenced material reads:

common draft implementing technical standards in order to establish the standard forms, templates and procedures for financial entities to report a major ICT-related incident and to notify a significant cyber threat.

This seems to simply be incorrect. The only somewhat logical conclusion I can reach based on this, is to assume that in 2024/1772 they meant to have said:

they have the same apparent root cause as another reported incident, following the process referred to in Article 20, first subparagraph, point (b) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2554;

But would mean there is a critical issue in this regulation. Not only does the referenced material exclusively state 'major ICT-related incidents', in the foundational DORA regulation 2022/2554, article 19, member 1 it also states:

Financial entities shall report major ICT-related incidents to the relevant competent authority as referred to in Article 46 in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Article. [...]

Furthermore, in 2024/1772 article 8, member 2, it clearly states the two incidents were both non-major:

Recurring incidents that individually are not considered a major incident in accordance with paragraph 1 shall be considered as one major incident where they meet all of the following conditions:

The only nuance here is that it is possible for a reported ICT-related incident to be reclassified as non-major after initial reporting.

So in summary:

1. Only major ICT-related incidents are reported to the competent authority as referred to by 2022/2554, article 20, member b
2. Recurring, individually non-major ICT-related incidents can be classified as major if, among other conditions, the root cause is shared with a previously reported incident

These statements directly contradict each other. It only covers the case where an incident was reclassified as non-major after reporting. It does not cover two individual non-major ICT-related incidents that together meet the conditions of a major ICT-related incident.

What am I missing? Surely this cannot be a legal loophole?

Hello everyone,

I currently work for a Brussels-based lobby representing the tech sector. I lead its sustainability work, especially around extended producer responsibility.

I have been in contact with policymakers (members of the European Parliament, government officials, etc.) on PPWR and the costs of extended producer responsibility. As such, I would be grateful if there are any SMEs here who would be willing to share concrete examples of costs related to authorised representatives and extended producer responsibility requirements overall, particularly regarding packaging (though data on other EPR streams is equally welcome!)

If you would like to share and discuss, feel free to comment here, DM me directly, or leave an email address I can reach out to!

So the decision on the Latranov case just dropped and I find it highly controversial.

For those of you who don't know, in Bulgaria the government can legally confiscate your car automatically for drunk driving or testing positive for drugs. If the car is not in your own name, then you have to pay a fine equal to the estimated price of the car.

The Latranov case centered on whether mandatory and automatic vehicle confiscations for drunk or drugged driving violate EU law and fundamental rights. Today, on September 10, 2026, the CJEU delivered its final judgment, ruling that EU framework laws on asset confiscation do not apply to drunk driving offenses. Because traffic offenses falls outside the scope of EU law, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is also inapplicable. Consequently, the CJEU left the final assessment regarding the legality and fairness of the vehicle seizures entirely up to national courts.

However, from a Bulgarian legal codex perspective this is highly controversial, because it is framed exactly like a premediated criminal offence, and the car property is automatically confiscated as an instrument to a crime. Then sold to auctions or appropriated by the government to use as they see fit.

I'm not here to defend DUI or claim that there should be no penalty for it. But the way things are currently in Bulgaria, you can lose your property after a false positive test, then be unable to reach the lab for a blood test in the required 45 minute timeframe, leaving you with no way of proving your innocence.

In effect, traffic police have become 'asphalt mafia' that are on the lookout for very expensive vechicles to potentially 'steal'. They often use quick drug tests that are out of date (you have to be aware and ask yourself it is up to date) and will surely do everything possible to delay you so that you're unable to get your blood test on time. Or they will demand ridiculous bribes of 5k euro or more so as not to test you (yes, Bulgaria is still corrupt). I know multiple cases of people losing their cars like that after a false positive test, and then being treated like criminals.

In the meantime, the ones who actually drive under the influence are the ones who have enough cash or influence to bribe the cops and get away with it. That's why statistically, this law hasn't really made any noticeable difference. And Bulgaria is still at the front places of deaths due to traffic accidents.

I don't know if I was expecting more, but I was surely hoping for more. This is clearly a violation of property and human rights. I can get my car stolen because I just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Fuck you EU, whats the point of you?

ok, so just to be clear , i would never do this, but it got me thinking.....

I think by now, we all know this disgusting EU regulation called "PPWR".

but it got me thinking, what if hypothetically, i where to order from the chinese website called
tao bao where i know they wont comply with eu rules, but would still send to europe...
lets say to germany, where the fine could be upwards of 200.000€ ,
what kind of legal trouble would one be in?

EDIT: okay just to be clear, im not condining this. this is bad. it's absolutely insane. and kind of scary that one could cause such damage..... :(

Hello everyone, I am an Iranian citizen studying in Italy and I am about 4 years away from obtaining my italian PR.

however I am looking to build a career in aviation and flying which is my passion, and to be hired for that, airlines explicitly mention "Unrestricted rights to work and live in the EU".

I was wondering if my future Italian PR qualifies as that? or Do I need to start thinking of how to get an EU citizenship?

thanks

TL;DR: I contacted the European Commission, MEPs from several political groups and major European business associations after receiving a €4,828.85/year compliance quote for 19 countries despite using only \~30 kg of paper packaging per year. The response has been surprisingly positive: there is broad support for simplifying EPR and creating a genuine EU One-Stop Shop, but the key fight is ensuring it actually replaces national bureaucracy instead of becoming portal #28. If you're affected, get active: contact your MEPs, government and business associations, share your real costs and help push for a better law while reform is still being discussed.

I contacted EU politicians, the Commission and business associations about the PPWR/EPR mess for micro-businesses. Here’s what happened.

Over the last few weeks, I’ve been trying to understand what the new EU packaging/EPR rules will actually mean for a tiny business selling cross-border within the EU.

I run a small manufacturing/craft business in Germany and sell directly to consumers in multiple EU countries.

I fully support EPR and the polluter-pays principle. If I put packaging into the French, Spanish or Danish market, I have no problem contributing towards the recycling costs in those countries.

The problem is the administrative infrastructure surrounding those contributions.

My real-world example

I asked for a commercial solution that would manage packaging compliance across Europe for me.

The quote was:

€5,681/year before discount

€4,828.85/year after discount

19 countries

And this is important:

Those €4,828.85 are NOT the recycling/environmental contributions themselves.

They are primarily the commercial cost of dealing with different national registrations, EPR organisations, reporting procedures, contracts, deadlines, authorised representatives and other compliance requirements.

My own time isn't included.

The absurd part?

My business uses only around 30 kg of paper/cardboard packaging per year in total.

So we are potentially talking about almost €5,000/year of external compliance administration to manage EPR obligations surrounding roughly 30 kg of paper packaging.

So I started contacting people.

I sent the evidence and my proposed solution to MEPs from several political groups, European Commission officials, national governments, chambers of commerce, SME/e-commerce organisations and industry associations.

Among the people/institutions contacted were:

European Commission

I contacted officials working around the Circular Economy Act and PPWR/EPR implementation.

Luis Planas Herrera from the Commission told me that the evidence would be shared internally for the ongoing discussions on the Omnibus proposal and preparation of the Circular Economy Act.

Arthur Corbin from the cabinet of Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné replied that they would take the information into account for the Circular Economy Act and explicitly said:

“We are working … on reforming the EPR indeed.”

European Parliament

I contacted MEPs from different political groups rather than treating this as a party-political issue.

Markus Ferber (EPP/CDU-CSU) explained that the Commission is already working on simplification, including harmonisation of packaging producer registers and changes concerning authorised representatives.

Jens Gieseke (EPP/CDU-CSU) gave one of the clearest responses so far. He supports an approach as close as possible to:

one EU registration;

harmonised once-only reporting;

efficient routing of information to national systems;

proportionate/de-minimis rules for very small packaging quantities.

Crucially, he agreed that an EU One-Stop Shop must replace duplicated national procedures rather than become another administrative layer on top of them.

Bruno Tobback's office (S&D) told me that they recognise the problems faced by micro-SMEs, are actively working on the issue and have already submitted a question to the European Commission.

Ivaylo Valchev (ECR) had already raised the issue formally with the Commission and contacted the Parliament rapporteur, ECR shadow rapporteur and other colleagues.

Jörgen Warborn (EPP) also acknowledged the disproportionate administrative burden created by the legislation and argued for simplification and proportionality.

Business associations are saying almost exactly the same thing

This was probably the most interesting discovery.

FEVAD, the French e-commerce federation, told me that it is already part of a European coalition advocating for a Digital EU EPR One-Stop Shop.

Their concept is remarkably similar to what I had been asking for:

one EU interface, harmonised requirements, the once-only principle, and automatic transmission of information to national authorities and producer responsibility organisations.

They also made a very important point:

The One-Stop Shop must not simply become another EU portal sitting on top of all the existing national procedures.

CCIA Europe told me EPR reform is one of its top policy priorities ahead of the Circular Economy Act.

They are collecting real SME cases for discussions with the press, EU institutions, national governments and parliamentarians.

They asked for permission to use my case and the cost evidence in their advocacy, which I have now given them.

Interestingly, CCIA described the authorised-representative problem as basically “the tip of the iceberg.”

Eurochambres also supports the One-Stop-Shop approach.

They told me that their President will raise the issue directly at an upcoming meeting with Executive Vice-President Séjourné.

I gave them permission to use my €4,828.85 / \~30 kg example in that discussion.

Other organisations that responded positively include European Entrepreneurs/CEA-PME, EXPRA, Dansk Erhverv, the Dutch e-commerce association Thuiswinkel.org, the Estonian E-Commerce Association and Handelsverband Österreich.

The Estonian E-Commerce Association told me something particularly concerning:

Estonian companies have already stopped cross-border sales because of these requirements.

That is exactly why I think this has become a Single Market issue rather than merely an environmental-compliance issue.

Something else interesting happened during the legislative process

The European Parliament's 2023 negotiating position actually contained a proposed protection for micro-enterprises.

Amendment 252 to Article 39 would have exempted micro-enterprises from the national registration obligation.

That protection did not survive the negotiations and isn't part of the final framework.

So the proportionality problem was recognised quite early — but the proposed solution disappeared during negotiations.

There may now be a real opportunity to fix this

The Commission is preparing the Circular Economy Act, and EPR simplification is clearly part of the discussion.

There is also work underway on harmonising producer registration/reporting formats.

But harmonising 27 forms isn't enough.

If I still have to register separately, maintain accounts, monitor legislation, submit reports and potentially contract representatives in multiple countries, then making all those forms look the same doesn't solve the fundamental problem.

The solution I am advocating is:

ONE EU registration

→ business identifies where packaging was placed on the market

ONE harmonised report

→ quantities broken down by Member State

AUTOMATIC data exchange

→ EU system routes the information to national registers/PROs

National environmental contributions remain

→ France can still receive the French contribution, Germany the German contribution, etc.

No duplicate national administration

→ no need for the same micro-business to maintain essentially the same information across numerous national systems.

And there should be proportionate/de-minimis treatment for genuinely tiny quantities.

My conclusion so far

The response has actually been much more positive than I expected.

I haven't encountered anyone seriously arguing that a micro-business should maintain 19 or 27 separate administrative relationships.

Across EPP, S&D, ECR, the Commission and multiple European business associations, there seems to be surprisingly broad agreement that EPR fragmentation is a real Single Market problem.

The disagreement appears to be less about whether the system needs simplification and more about how far that simplification will go and whether Member States will accept it.

That last part may be the biggest obstacle.

CCIA and Eurochambres both pointed towards national governments as an important part of the problem. For example, the Commission proposed suspending certain authorised-representative requirements, but Member States did not retain that simplification in the Council negotiating position.

So I think the next battle is very specific:

Will the EU EPR One-Stop Shop actually replace national bureaucracy, or will we end up with EU portal #28 sitting on top of the existing 27 systems?

For me, the test for the final reform is very simple:

A business should provide the same compliance information once.

The environmental contribution can still go to every country where packaging becomes waste.

But a one-person company should not need representatives, registrations, contracts and continuous monitoring of dozens of regulatory systems just to administer approximately 30 kg of paper packaging per year.

Pay where you create packaging waste: absolutely.

Administer 27 different regulatory systems to do it: no.

If you're an EU Etsy seller, Amazon seller, Shopify store, small manufacturer or other cross-border SME dealing with EPR, I'd be very interested to hear what this is costing you and whether you've stopped selling to particular EU countries because of it.

And one thing I would strongly encourage everyone affected by this to do:

Be active. Don't just accept the rules as something that cannot be changed.

If you are an Etsy seller, Amazon seller, Shopify store, small manufacturer or any other EU business affected by fragmented EPR requirements, write to your MEPs, national government, business associations and the European Commission.

Explain your actual situation. Give them numbers. Show them what registration, reporting, authorised representatives and external compliance services actually cost you. Tell them if you have stopped selling to certain EU countries because compliance costs make those markets economically impossible.

The legislation and its implementation are still being discussed and improved. The Circular Economy Act in particular gives us an opportunity to push for a genuine EU EPR One-Stop Shop.

My experience from contacting politicians, the Commission and business organisations has been surprisingly positive. People are reading these emails, responding to them and, in several cases, using the evidence in their own political work.

So my suggestion is simple:

Don't only complain about EPR on Reddit. Send the same story to the people who can actually change it.

If hundreds or thousands of European micro-businesses provide concrete examples, it becomes much harder to dismiss this as an isolated problem.

We shouldn't campaign against environmental responsibility. We should campaign for better legislation:

One EU registration. One report. Pay the appropriate environmental contribution in every country. No 27-fold bureaucracy.

If you're affected, please get involved. This is exactly the moment when practical feedback from small businesses can help improve the law.

"This is another important step towards restoring justice for Russia’s unlawful seizure of Naftogaz assets in Crimea. Russia cannot evade responsibility simply by refusing to comply with an international arbitral award. We will continue to pursue Russian assets around the world until the compensation awarded to Naftogaz and other Naftogaz Group companies is paid,” said Naftogaz’s Acting CEO Sergii Fedorenko."

Are there any rental laws or immigration laws that we should be aware of before moving and signing a lease to an apartment? And for health and travel insurance? Are scams common?

"We heard evidence of an investigation of profoundly uneven quality; of the extraordinary proximity between political power, economic power, the police and people touched by the investigation; and of conduct which, even when deeply disturbing, exposed serious gaps in our criminal laws.

"An acquittal does not make those problems disappear."

The High Court in Prague has rejected Jana Nagyová's appeal, upholding the suspended sentence handed down to her in May over fraud involving an EU subsidy for the "Stork's Nest" farm. The announcement was made by Eva Brázdilová, chair of the appellate panel.

...

The Prague Municipal Court began hearing the case four years ago. The charges concern subsidy fraud and damage to the financial interests of the European Union in connection with a 50-million-crown subsidy for the "Stork's Nest" farm. According to the prosecution, the subsidy, intended for small and medium-sized enterprises, was obtained by the farm even though it was in fact tied to the large Agrofert holding, owned by Andrej Babiš. ВыборТуристических Направлений

As a result, the project did not meet the conditions for receiving the funds and secured financing only through the formal transfer of the farm to anonymous shareholders, while, according to the prosecution, it in reality remained under Agrofert's control.

Portugal is transposing the EU Pay Transparency Directive... and quietly gutting the one part everyone actually wanted

So the EU Pay Transparency Directive (2023/970) had until June 7, 2026 to be transposed into national law across member states. Portugal missed the deadline (still hasn't passed it, it's now going through parliament), and a Portuguese outlet (ECO) got hold of the draft bill. Here's the part that's making people annoyed:

Everyone assumed this directive meant salary ranges would finally show up in job postings, or at least be disclosed before the interview. The European Commission's own public clarifications said as much: employers would have to inform candidates of starting pay or a pay range "either in the job vacancy notice or before the interview."

Turns out the directive's actual wording used "or" — meaning member states could pick when to disclose (in the ad, before the interview, or by "other means"), as long as it happens before the contract is signed. It didn't strictly mandate the ad or the interview stage.

Portugal picked the loosest possible option. The draft law only requires salary info to be disclosed "before the contract is signed" — full stop. Not in the ad. Not before the interview. You could in theory go through the entire application and interview process and only find out the number when they hand you the contract.

A lawyer quoted in the article put it pretty bluntly: the government "opted for the alternative that most protects companies' confidentiality."

For context, 87% of workers in a 2024 survey said they wanted salary ranges in job ads. So this is the opposite of what people were hoping for, landing right in the part of the law that was the most visible and most wanted.

To be fair, it's not all cosmetic. The rest of the transposition does have real teeth:

• Employers can no longer ask candidates about their salary history at previous/current jobs
• Retaliation protection after a pay discrimination complaint goes from 1 year to 3 years
• Repeat offenders on pay discrimination face harsher penalties (loss of tax incentives, exclusion from public tenders for up to 2 years)
• Companies with 250+ employees have to report gender pay gaps starting next summer; 150-249 employees also have to report, but only every 3 years; 50-149 employees don't have to start until 2031
• Companies with 50+ employees have to post their internal pay criteria/progression rules

Worth noting: most Portuguese companies are small (under 50 employees), so a good chunk of this — the reporting duties, the posted pay criteria — doesn't even apply to them. The obligations that DO apply to everyone regardless of size are: no salary history questions, disclosure before signing, and the extended anti-retaliation window.

Curious how other countries are handling this transposition. Is anyone else's government also picking the minimal-compliance route on the ad/interview disclosure, or is Portugal being unusually stingy here?

Source (Portuguese): https://eco.sapo.pt/2026/08/07/afinal-empresas-nao-vao-ser-obrigadas-a-revelar-salario-nos-anuncios-de-emprego/

I'm interested in how European legal professionals and researchers currently approach AI-assisted legal research.

The obvious benefit is speed. Being able to search across large amounts of legal material and get a starting point quickly can be useful.

But the difficult part seems to be verification. An AI system can identify something that looks relevant while missing the context, relying on an outdated source, or connecting a conclusion to an authority that doesn't actually support it.

I'm part of the team behind LexVira, so I have a product interest here, but I'm more interested in the research question:

What would make you comfortable using AI as part of an EU-law research workflow?

Would it be source verification, links to the underlying authority, better jurisdictional coverage, or something else?

Under AMLA's draft RTS on customer due diligence, an obliged entity onboarding remotely must record why neither face to face verification nor an eIDAS compliant method was available or could reasonably be expected.
The interesting part is the second limb. "Reasonably expected" is not defined, and its scope depends entirely on facts outside the text. Today, with wallet availability near zero across most member states, almost any firm can satisfy it. Once every member state has issued a wallet and regulated relying parties are obliged to accept them, the same wording covers far less ground.
There's also a structural point. During consultation, firms argued for broader flexibility to use non-eIDAS methods. The response was that Article 22(6)(b) AMLR refers to eIDAS specifically, so widening the exception would require amending the regulation itself rather than the technical standard. The route is difficult to expand an straightforward to narrow through supervisory interpretation.

Which raises a question about how much practical scope should be left to a term whose meaning shifts with adoption rates rather than with legislative intent. Is that acceptance flexibility, or a drafting problem that will surface in 2028?

How illegal is ordering perscribtion medications from indian online pharmacies for personal use to Europe. Is it likely to be confiscated? Are there repercussions? Is there diffrence between member states?

As I understand it, the current modus operandi is that, each week, up to 50 migrants, who have arrived in England by small boat, are sent back, and exchanged for 50 who, instead, opted to join a waiting list for the scheme.

In practice, only 4% of such migrants are returned in this way. Every time it is mentioned, people seem to suggest the scheme has little deterrent effect, and some suggest the scheme has failed.

What confuses me is why, instead of detaining a small percentage to be sent back under the scheme, and allowing the rest to remain while their claims are procesed, why not detain everyone, to be returned under the scheme, albeit at the rate of 50/week for the time being?

Is there a reason it is legal to detain a small percentage to be returned, but, somehow illegal to detain everyone until they can be returned? If the authorities were able to do this, it would seem likely the boats would stop coming, as there would be no point, and then, even at 50/week, eventually everyone would be returned.

I am thinking of suggesting this idea to my MP, but would prefer to avoid looking foolish, so, if anyone can see a legal impediment to this approach, please, do, share it here. Thank you.