LegalPost.eu

 Written by George Kazoleas, Lawyer in Cyprus Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which enshrines the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, states that everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article (paragraph 1). This right is guaranteed without limitation to criminal charges and civil rights and obligations. As is well-known, the Charter applies at the national level only when Member States are implementing or derogating from EU law. This specific provision applies to all rights and freedoms deriving from EU law and corresponds to the rights provided for in Article 6, paragraph 1, of the ECHR (right to a fair administration of justice), ensuring, at a minimum, the protection afforded by Article 6 of the ECHR in relation to all rights and freedoms deriving from EU law. The purpose of this article is t...

A company and two of its legal representatives were convicted for a €3.8 million subsidy fraud involving agricultural funds, in the first verdict delivered after a trial by Spanish courts, following an investigation by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) in Madrid (Spain). The Central Criminal Court of Spain sentenced the two defendants to one year's imprisonment and a fine of €3 million. The court also fined the company €3 million and imposed a three-year ban on receiving public subsidies or public funds. In addition, the company will have to reimburse €2 million in funds illegitimately obtained, and the company directors were held to be joint and severally liable. In 2018, the company applied and obtained a subsidy from the Spanish Agricultural Guarantee Fund (SAGF) for the improvement of its facilities for the production of fruit and vegetables. Following this, the defendants also requested a loan from the Catalan Institute of Finance and the Directorate General o...

Erasmus University Rotterdam School of Law, department Law & Markets, is looking for a fulltime PhD researcher in AI, Law and Public Power (4,5 years with 20% teaching tasks). PhD AI, Law and Public Power Are you curious about how artificial intelligence is changing state actor powers? Do you want to conduct critical and in-depth legal research at the intersection of technology, law and power? And would you like to combine that with academic teaching? Then this PhD position at Erasmus School of Law is for you. Within the Law & Markets team, you will spend 4.5 years researching the legal regulation of AI in the public sector. How do we protect fundamental rights when algorithms help decide on who receives public benefits, how to perform enforcement or how to enact environmental policy? What is the role of the state, and where is the limit of government power in a data-driven society? You will have plenty of space to choose your own research angle and work in a multidisci...

In its Judgment (16.7.2025) in Case T-480/24 (Le Pen and Others v Parliament ), the General Court of the European Union upheld the decision of the European Parliament to recover sums unduly received by Jean-Marie Le Pen. In 2024, Jean-Marie Le Pen brought an action before the General Court of the European Union seeking annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament. By that decision, he was asked to repay €303 200.99, a sum considered to have been wrongly received. According to the Parliament, Mr Le Pen had improperly invoiced personal expenses [1] under budget item 400, intended for MEPs’ parliamentary expenses. [2]  In his action, Mr Le Pen claimed infringement of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations and infringement of his right to a fair trial. The former MEP also sought annulment of the debit note issued against him and an order that the Parliament pay the costs. Following the death of Mr Le Pen on 7 January 2025, his dau...

In the case of Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia the European Court of Human Rights held Russia accountable for widespread and flagrant abuses of human rights arising from the conflict in Ukraine since 2014, in breach of the European Convention. The case concerned the conflict that began in eastern Ukraine in 2014 following the arrival in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of pro-Russian armed groups, and escalated after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine beginning on 24 February 2022. It also concerned the shooting down of flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine in summer 2014, killing all those on board, many of whom were Dutch nationals. The Court found that Russia was responsible for repeated human-rights violations over a period of more than eight years. This included indiscriminate military attacks; summary executions; torture, notably rape as a weapon of war; unlawful and arbitrary detentions; intimidation and persecution of journalists and religious groups; looting ...

The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) issued a  Joint Opinion on the European Commission’s Proposal for a Regulation amending certain regulations, including the GDPR . The Proposal, part of the fourth simplification Omnibus, aims to simplify EU rules and reduce administrative burden, extending certain mitigating measures available for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) to small mid-cap enterprises (SMCs), and includes further simplification measures.  The Proposal aims to modify Art.30 (5) GDPR, providing a derogation to the obligation to keep a record of data processing operations. Currently, this derogation only applies to enterprises and organisation under 250 employees, except in certain cases. Under the Proposal, the derogation would apply to an enterprise or organisation employing fewer than 750 people, unless the processing operation carried out is likely to result in a high risk to individuals’ rights and fr...

The recent judgments by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in N.T. v. Cyprus and X v. Cyprus deliver a stark and concerning message regarding the Cypriot authorities' handling of rape and sexual crime cases. These rulings, coming within months of each other, highlight systemic failures rooted in deep-seated biases and a lack of victim-sensitive approaches. A consistent theme across both cases is the pervasive influence of prejudicial gender stereotypes and victim-blaming attitudes. In X v. Cyprus, the ECHR found that the credibility of the young British woman's allegations was assessed based on her perceived "sexual liberty and conduct," effectively suggesting that her prior behavior negated her right to refuse. Similarly, in N.T. v. Cyprus, the authorities disproportionately focused on N.T.'s emotional expressions towards her alleged perpetrator, and her admission of having "liked" him, using these to cast doubt on her credibility and ultimatel...

The European Court of Justice in its Judgment in Case C-618/23 (Salus) ruled that a medicinal herbal tea classified as a traditional herbal medicinal product cannot, in principle, be marketed with the organic logo.  The position may be otherwise where such an indication on the packaging has been approved by the competent authority on account of the beneficial effect of the organic production on the therapeutic characteristics of the medicinal product. The German undertaking SALUS markets herbal medicinal products, including a sage medicinal herbal tea. The packaging of that medicinal product [1] bears the official organic production logo of the European Union. [2]  SALUS intends to market other herbal teas with that logo. Twardy, a competing undertaking, is of the view that EU law precludes the use of the organic logo on the packaging of a medicinal product. It therefore asked the German courts to prohibit SALUS from marketing medicinal herbal teas the packaging of which bears...

By George Kazoleas, Lawyer in Cyprus The Administrative Cooperation in the Field of Taxation (Amending) Law of 2021 was enacted in Cyprus to harmonize with Council Directive (EU) 2018/822 of 25 May 2018, which amends Directive 2011/16/EU regarding the mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation in relation to reportable cross-border arrangements ("DAC 6"). The Law, echoing the Directive, imposes an obligation on every "intermediary" to submit information within thirty (30) days to the competent authority concerning reportable cross-border arrangements that have come into their knowledge, possession, or control. According to the aforementioned Law, an "intermediary" is defined as any person who designs, markets, organizes, makes available for implementation, or manages the implementation of a reportable cross-border arrangement, and/or any person who, taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances, and based on ava...