Europa Felix

Wat hebben een online hotelboeking, de prijs van een biertje, en een aandelenlease met elkaar gemeen? Het zijn allemaal situaties waarin het Unierecht kan doordringen in rechtsverhoudingen tussen private partijen.

De invloed van Europese regels wordt heel concreet wanneer nationale rechters ze toepassen in civiele geschillen over contracten en schadevergoeding. Het nationale privaatrecht geeft het Unierecht zo handen en voeten, maar verandert daardoor zelf ook. Hoe pakt dat samenspel in de praktijk uit? Waar veroorzaakt het spanningen, en waar ontstaan juist nieuwe oplossingen?

Over die vragen heb ik het met Berend Jan Drijber, advocaat-generaal bij de Hoge Raad. De wisselwerking tussen het Unierecht en het Nederlandse privaatrecht is een terugkerend thema in zijn conclusies en annotaties, en stond bovendien centraal in een preadvies dat hij schreef voor de Vereniging voor Burgerlijk Recht.

In ons gesprek bekijken we die wisselwerking aan de hand van twee soorten zaken: consumentenzaken en kartelschadeprocedures. We duiken diep in de civiele procespraktijk — van de bestelknop van bol.com tot de vraag wie je na een kartelinbreuk eigenlijk moet dagvaarden. Tot slot trekken we de blik weer breder en vraag ik hem hoe het Unierecht en het nationale privaatrecht naar elkaar kunnen toegroeien.

Genoemd:

• B.J. Drijber, Naar een meer symbiotische relatie tussen unierecht en nationaal vermogensrecht, Preadvies Vereniging voor Burgerlijk recht 2024
•  B.J. Drijber, 'Dit gebeurt al jaren: hoe het mededingingsrecht concernverhoudingen op hun kop zet', Ondernemingsrecht 2024/29, 174-184
• C-205/20 NE II
• C‑261/25 Ścierbek en C‑262/25 Drózdzik (Bank BPH)
• C-249/21 Fuhrmann
• Bol.com-arrest
• Capabel-arrest
• Commissie beboet Nederlands bierkartel (persbericht)
• Uitspraak Hof van beroep Brussel, 18 november 2024, Liftkartel-zaak, rolnummer 2015/AR/95
• Stichting Cartel Compensation (zie ook C-426/15)
• Stichting Elevator Claim
• Stichting de Glazen Lift
• C-393/23 Athenian Brewery
• C-724/17 Skanska
• C-79/08 P Akzo
• C-882/19 Sumal
• Richtlijn 93/13/EEG  betreffende oneerlijke bedingen in consumentenovereenkomsten
• Richtlijn 2011/83/EU betreffende consumentenrechten
• Richtlijn 2014/104/EU betreffende bepaalde regels voor schadevorderingen volgens nationaal recht wegens inbreuken op de bepalingen van het mededingingsrecht

Aanbevelingen:

• Hans Nieuwenhuis, Een steeds hechter verbond: Europa op weg naar Europa, 2015
• Angela Merkel, Vrijheid, 2024
• Giuliano Da Empoli, Het uur van de wolven, 2025

Vragen? Opmerkingen? Gastsuggesties? Schrijf naar [email protected].

The European Court of Human Rights has come under growing political pressure, with some political leaders claiming that its case law on migration should be “rebalanced” because it protects “the wrong people”. Not everyone embraces that rhetoric, but it is no longer coming only from the political fringes. This May, the 46 Member States of the Council of Europe are expected to adopt a joint political declaration on migration and the European Convention on Human Rights. 

In this episode, I speak with Eva Sevrin, a researcher at Ghent University and the KU Leuven Center for Public Law who specializes in migration and human rights law. We focus on a simple question that often gets lost in the debate: what does the Court's case law actually say?

Sources:

• H. Ní Chinnéide and E. Sevrin, Restoring balance: a critical response to the open letter on migration and human rights, June 2025
• E. Desmet, E. Sevrin, and T. Spijkerboer, Expert report: how strict is the European Court of Human Rights in migration cases?, Strasbourg Observers, February 2026
• E. Sevrin, Expulsion of severely ill migrants: beyond the deathbed, still exceptional, Strasbourg Observers, April 2026
• Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH), ECHR and migration (elements for a declaration to be adopted in Chișinău on 14-15 May 2026)
• Joint open letter of 22 May 2025
• Joint Statement delivered to the Conference of Ministers of Justice of the Council of Europe on 10 December 2025
• CoE Secretary General Berset on the joint letter challenging the European Court of Human Rights, May 2025
• CoE Commissioner for Human Rights O’Flaherty, Externalised asylum and migration policies and human rights law, September 2025
• Eurostat, Asylum and Migration Overview, 2025
• Soering v UK
• Üner v the Netherlands
• Savran v Denkmark
• Maslov v Austria
• Chahal v UK
• Othman (Abu Qatada) v UK
• Trabelsi v Belgium
• Paposhvili v Belgium
• Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary
• Grand Chamber hearing: pushbacks at the Polish-Belarusian border

Book recommendations:

• S. Benhabib, The rights of others
• A. Smith, Spring
• O. Tokarczuk, Primeval and Other Times

Back in 2020, the European Commission launched its five-year Gender Equality Strategy. Its aim? To achieve a Europe “where gender-based violence, sex discrimination, and structural inequality between women and men are a thing of the past”. We're now in 2026. And it's fair to say there is still a great deal of work to be done.

In a recent EU-wide survey, 1 in 3 women reported having experienced physical or sexual violence at some point in her life. Sit with that for a moment. One in three. Much of this violence remains underreported and under-prosecuted — and too little is being done to prevent it.

So what, exactly, is the European Union doing to combat violence against women?

To answer that question, I’m joined by Lisa Collste. She works in the European Commission’s DG Justice, where she focuses on gender-based violence — an issue she has worked on for many years, at EU level, at the United Nations, and as a public prosecutor in Sweden.

In our conversation, we discuss how widespread violence against women is, and how it shows up in everyday life, both offline and online. We look at the EU’s accession to the Istanbul Convention and the new Directive on combating violence against women — what they change, and what they require states to do. We also touch on how these legal tools have been misrepresented and weaponised in debates around gender and sexuality. And we step back to reflect on the deeper causes of gender-based violence, and the societal shifts it would take to reduce it.

📞 If you, or someone close to you, is affected by violence against women or domestic violence and needs support, help is available. In some EU countries, you can call 116 016 for free and confidential support. If that number isn’t available where you live, please consult this list of national helplines.

Sources:

• A Union of Equality: Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025
• EU gender-based violence survey (2024)
• Opuz v Turkey (33401/02)
• Istanbul Convention (CETS No. 210)
• WS (Case C-621/21) 
• EU baseline evaluation report on the implementation of the Istanbul Convention (2025)
• Directive (EU) 2024/1385 of 14 May 2024 on combating violence against women and domestic violence
• GREVIO Recommendation No. 1 on the digital dimension violence against women (2021)
• European Parliamentary Research Service, Definitions of rape in the legislation of EU Member States (May 2025)
• Proposal for a Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children (2024)

Book recommendations:

• Caroline Criado Perez, Invisible Women
• Judith Butler, Who's Afraid of Gender
• Nina Björk, Under det rosa täcket (Under the pink duvet)

Special thanks to: Siobhán McKinerney-Lankford and Caterina Molinari.

In this episode, I’m joined by Päivi Leino-Sandberg, professor of transnational European law at the University of Helsinki and author of ‘The Politics of Legal Expertise in EU Policy-Making’.

Her book takes us behind the scenes of the EU institutions to uncover the role of legal advisors in shaping EU decisions and policies. That’s a reality I know well: in my day job—hosting a podcast is something I do off-duty—I am one of those legal advisors. So for me, Päivi’s work is not just about an abstract group of professionals; it’s about people like me. 

The book offered me a mirror, a way to see my own profession through someone else’s eyes. It’s a critical, sociological study of what we do, how we think, and how we influence the European project. How objective are we really? How much of what we call 'legal advice' is shaped by political agendas? And what does that mean for the democratic legitimacy of the EU? 

In this conversation, we explore those questions. We talk about the Legal Services of the Council, the Commission, and the Parliament; about the tension between technical expertise and political influence; and about how transparency—or the lack of it—around legal advice impacts trust in EU decision-making and its institutions. 

If you’re new to the world of legal advice in EU policy-making, this episode will offer a rare insight into its inner workings. And if you’re part of this world, then this conversation is as much about understanding yourself as it is about understanding the EU.

Mentioned:

• P. Leino-Sandberg, The Politics of Legal Expertise in EU Policy-Making, Cambridge University Press 2021
• F. Ronkes Agerbeek, The Legal Service of the Commission, in: E. Guinchard and M-P. Granger, The New EU Judiciary, 2017
• C. Eckes and P. Leino-Sandberg, The EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement – Exceptional Circumstances or a new Paradigm for EU External Relations?, Modern Law Review, October 2021
• T. Paloniitty and P. Leino-Sandberg, Watering down the Aarhus Regulation – time to deliver an adequate and effective remedy, European Law Blog, 11 March 2021
• P. Leino-Sandberg, 70 Years of EU Law - The Politics of a Professional Language, January 2025
• Sweden and Turco v Council (C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P)
• ClientEarth AISBL and Leino-Sandberg v Council (T-682/21 and T-683/21)
• European Ombudsman Decision on how the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission handle requests for public access to legislative documents (OI/4/2023/MIK of 3 December 2024)
• Europa Felix: Julio Baquero Cruz, What’s left of the law of integration?

Book recommendations:

• Mia Kankimäki, Things That Make One's Heart Beat Faster (2013) and The Women I Think About at Night (2018)
• Duncan Kennedy, A Critique of Adjudication (fin de siècle) (1998)
• Peter Lindseth, Power and Legitimacy: Reconciling Europe and the Nation-State (2011)
• Julio Baquero Cruz, What’s Left of the Law of Integration? (2018)

Comments? Guest suggestions? Email me at [email protected].

In this episode we’re delving into a topic that sits at the heart of how EU law functions: the principle of mutual trust. Though it's a technical subject, it's deeply intertwined with the existential questions about what the EU is and aspires to be. The principle of mutual trust isn’t just a legal precept; it’s a litmus test for the health of European integration itself. 

Joining me is Cecilia Rizcallah. She is professor of European Law at the Brussels campus of UC Louvain and co-president of the newly established Belgian Association for European Union Law. Cecilia has published extensively on mutual trust, including a prize-winning book which is available in both French and English.

In our conversation, we unpack the principle of mutual trust through real case-law examples. We explore the challenges of applying that principle in civil law, in criminal law and in asylum law. And we discuss how this foundational principle is being tested by Europe's current "crisis of values".

Mentioned:

• C. Rizcallah, The principle of mutual trust in European Union law: an essential principle facing a crisis of values (2022, English edition)
• C. Rizcallah, Le principe de confiance mutuelle en droit de l'Union européenne : Un principe essentiel à l'épreuve d'une crise de valeurs (2020, French edition)
• C. Rizcallah, "The principle of mutual trust and the protection of fundamental rights in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: A critical look at the Court of Justice’s stone-by-stone approach", Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 2023
• C. Rizcallah, "The Systemic Equivalence Test and the Presumption of Equivalent Protection in European Human Rights Law—A Critical Appraisal", German Law Journal 2023
• C. Rizcallah,"Mutual trust under the European Arrest Warrant and ongoing challenges for fundamental rights: Proposal for a unique reasoned risk-based test ", EU Law Live Weekend Edition No 174, February 2024
• Case C-7/98 Dieter Krombach
• My Daughter's Killer (Netflix documentary)
• Case C-491/10 PPU Aguirre Zarraga
• Case C-261/22 G.N.
• Case C-163/17 Abubacarr Jawo
• ECtHR Romeo Castaño v Begium  (8351/17)
• ECtHR Bivolaru and Moldovan v France (40324/16 and 12623/17)

Recommendations:

• Amin Maalouf, Les Identités meurtrières (In the name of identity: violence and the need to belong)
• Gisèle Halimi and Annick Cojean, Une farouche liberté (A fierce freedom)
• Green Border (movie directed by Agnieszka Holland)

The launch event of the Belgian Association for EU Law (BEDER) will be held on November 22, 2024, at 4 PM at the Egmont Palace in Brussels. Attendance is reserved for BEDER members. Not a member yet? Contact [email protected] to join.

Comments? Guest suggestions? Email me at [email protected].

My guest in this episode is Daniel Sarmiento. He is the editor in chief of EU Law Live, an online platform launched in 2020 that has taken the world of EU law by storm. But he’s also a lawyer and a professor whose academic writing is informed by his work as a legal practitioner. 

We talk about  the creation of the Spanish Constitutional Court, about how the Court of Justice changes its mind, about ‘silent judgments’ and judicial minimalism, and about the impact of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. What ties all these different topics together, is a basic insight that underpins all of Sarmiento's work, namely that law is made of practice, not of theory.

Mentioned:

• EU Law Live: https://eulawlive.com
• D. Sarmiento and M. Beltrán, Un Tribunal para la Constitución (documentary)
• D. Sarmiento, ‘The “overruling technique” at the Court of Justice of the European Union’, European Journal of Legal Studies, 2023
• D. Sarmiento, ‘The Silent Lamb and the Deaf Wolves: The Role of Silent Judgments in EU Law’, in Constitutional Pluralism in the European Union and Beyond, Hart 2011
• C. Sunstein, One Case At A Time: Judicial Minimalism on the Supreme Court, Harvard University Press 1999
• D. Sarmiento, ‘Half a case at a time: dealing with judicial minimalism at the European Court of Justice’, in: Constitutional conversations in Europe, Intersentia 2012
• D. Sarmiento, ‘Who’s Afraid of the Charter?’, Common Market Law Review 2013
• J.H.H. Weiler, ‘Does the European Union Truly Need a Charter of Rights?’, European Law Journal, June 2000
• D. Sarmiento and J.H.H. Weiler, ‘The EU Judiciary After Weiss: Proposing A New Mixed Chamber of the Court of Justice’, Verfassungsblog, 2 June 2020
• Keck (C-267/91)
• Metock (C-127/08)
• Link Logistic (C-384/17) & NE (C-205/20)
• Diego Porras (C-596/14) & Grupo Norte (C-527/16)
• HAG I (192/73) & HAG II (C-10/89)
• Taricco (C-105/14) & M.A.S. and M.B. (C-42/17)
• Centraal Israëlitische Consistorie van België (C-336/19)
• Ruiz Zambrano (C-34/09)
• Åkerberg Fransson (C-617/10)
• Melloni (C-399/11)

Recommended:

• Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong, The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court
• Jürgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norms
• Poems by Antonio Machado

Comments? Guest suggestions? Email me at [email protected].

On 21 December, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered three high profile rulings in the field of sports: Superleague, International Skating Union and Royal Antwerp Football Club. Earlier this year, I spoke to Miguel Poiares Maduro about EU law and sports. So I decided to call him up to ask if he could give us his take on these three recent judgments. Enjoy this bonus episode of Europa Felix!

Mentioned:

• Case C-333/21 European Superleague Company
• Case C-124/21 International Skating Union
• Case C-680/21 Royal Antwerp Football Club
• Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (Third Section) in Semenya v Switzerland (11 July 2023)

With special thanks to Aurelia Leeuw.

Comments? Guest suggestions? Email me at [email protected]

Deze aflevering gaat over de Brexit-onderhandelingen. Nu het Verenigd Koninkrijk geen lidstaat meer is van de EU, vormen twee verdragen het fundament van de relatie tussen de EU en het Verenigd Koninkrijk: het Terugtrekkingsakkoord, onderhandeld tussen 2017 en 2019, en de Handels- en Samenwerkingsovereenkomst, onderhandeld in 2020.

In 2020 maakte ik deel uit van het UK Task Force van Michel Barnier en ik denk soms met verbazing terug aan wat er in dat ene jaar allemaal gebeurde. De geladen sfeer in de onderhandelingen. Het politieke spektakel. De persconferenties. De vergaderingen tot diep in de nacht. De onderhandelingssessies tijdens de COVID-lockdowns.

Iemand die er al vanaf het begin bij was — als naaste adviseur van Barnier — is Stefaan De Rynck. En hij heeft er een boek over geschreven: “Inside the Deal: How the EU Got Brexit Done”. In dat boek beschrijft hij de Brexit-onderhandelingen vanuit het EU-perspectief en analyseert hij de misvattingen die er destijds bestonden aan de zijde van het VK. Ik interview hem over zijn boek en samen kijken we terug op deze verbijsterende periode uit de Europese integratiegeschiedenis.

Genoemd:

• Stefaan De Rynck, Inside the Deal: How the EU got Brexit done (2023)
• A New Settlement for the UK within the EU (2016)
• Akkoord inzake de Terugtrekking (2019)
• Handels- en Samenwerkingsovereenkomst (2021)
• The Windsor Framework (2023)

Aanbevelingen:

• Marcella Hazan, Essentials of Classic Italian Cooking
• Alan Milward, The European Rescue of the Nation State
• Fintan O'Toole, Heroic Failure: Brexit and the politics of pain

Vragen? Opmerkingen? Gastsuggesties? Schrijf naar [email protected].

In deze aflevering gaat het over klimaatrechtszaken tegen de Staat: juridische procedures om overheden ertoe te dwingen de klimaatcrisis het hoofd te bieden. De voorloper van dit soort procedures is de zaak van Stichting Urgenda tegen de Nederlandse Staat. Maar inmiddels zijn er wereldwijd tientallen vergelijkbare zaken gevoerd. Er is nu ook een eerste lichting klimaatzaken aanhangig bij het Europees Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens. De grote vraag in al deze zaken is: zal het Hof een schending vaststellen van het EVRM en zal het op die manier overheden in Europa verplichten om meer te doen tegen klimaatverandering?

Te gast is Dennis van Berkel. Hij is Legal Counsel van Stichting Urgenda, was destijds nauw betrokken bij de Urgenda zaak en is mede-oprichter van het Climate Litigation Network, een expertise-netwerk dat mensen en organisaties over de hele wereld aanmoedigt en helpt bij het voeren van klimaatzaken. We beginnen ons gesprek natuurlijk bij de Urgenda-uitspraak, maar we hebben het ook over andere zaken binnen en buiten Europa. We spreken over de invloed van klimaatzaken, over de rolverdeling tussen de rechter en de politiek, en over het klimaatbeleid in Nederland en in de EU. Bovendien vraag ik hem wat Europees recht-juristen kunnen doen om hun steen bij te dragen aan het aanpakken van de klimaatcrisis.

Genoemd:

• Klimaatzaak Urgenda
• Kelderluik-arrest
• Kalimijnen-arrest
• Climate Case Ireland
• BVerfG, Klimaschutz (Luisa Neubauer-zaak)
• European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change, Scientific advice for the determination of an EU-wide 2040 climate target and a greenhouse gas budget for 2030–2050
• EHRM, Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (53600/20)
• EHRM, Carême v. France (7189/21)
• Conseil d’État, Commune de Grande-Synthe (N° 427301)
• EHRM, Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others (39371/20)
• The Climate Litigation Network
• Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2023 snapshot (London School of Economics)
• Climate Change Litigation Database (Columbia Law School, Sabin Center)

Aanbevelingen:

• Greta Thunberg, Het Klimaatboek
• Friederieke Otto, Angry Weather
• Mariana Mazzucato, Mission Economy: A Moonshot Guide to Changing Capitalism

Deze aflevering bevat geluidsfragmenten uit de webcasts van de hoorzittingen in Carème t. Frankrijk en Verein KlimaSeniorinnen t. Zwitserland. Je hoort achtereenvolgens: Diego Colas (voor Frankrijk), Jessica Simor (voor Verein KlimaSeniorinnen), Alain Chablais (voor Zwitserland), Catherine Donnelly (voor Ierland); Jessica Simor; Corinne Lepage (voor Damien Carème); en Síofra O'Leary (President van het Hof). Bron: https://www.echr.coe.int/webcasts-of-hearin

In his book 'Postwar' the historian Tony Judt wrote of the ‘largely un-European mental universe of most Europeans’. Yet, he also identified one ubiquitous exception: sports – and especially football, ‘a game without frontiers, for players, managers and spectators alike’. He even wrote: ‘What really united Europe, is football.’

Whether or not that’s true, it’s hard to deny that sports are a major part of social and economic life in Europe. How sport is governed, how it is regulated and by whom, is a question that is worth taking seriously. And it’s a question on which EU law has something to say. There is a modest amount of case-law from the European Court of Justice on sports and there are several more cases currently pending: the Royal Antwerp Football Club-case, the International Skating Union-case and, of course, the Super League-case.

My guest in this episode definitely takes football seriously. His name is Miguel Poiares Maduro. He’s an academic and political commentator, a former minister in the Portuguese government, a former member of the European Court of Justice, and an incurable fan of football. He recently wrote an essay called ‘EU Law and Sports: A Match Made in Hell or in Heaven?’ The essay draws on his expertise as an EU constitutional lawyer, on his acuity as an observer of political institutions, and on his personal experience as Chair of the Governance Committee of FIFA.

He argues that the way in which European football is governed today needs to change and that the European Union is best placed to bring international sports organisations in line with principles of democracy and good governance. We talk about the European Model of Sports. About the Super League case. About the conflicts of interest that currently plague sports governance bodies. And about the Court of Arbitration for Sport. I ask him what he thinks the EU should do, and why he believes that discussing sports governance can help us gain a deeper insight in the soul of European integration.

Mentioned:

• Miguel Poiares Maduro, 'EU Law and Sports: A Match Made in Hell or in Heaven?', in: Adams-Prassl and others (eds.), The Internal Market Ideal: Essays in Honour of Stephen Weatherill, Oxford University Press 2024
• Stephen Weatherill, Never let a good fiasco go to waste: why and how the governance of European football should be reformed after the demise of the ‘SuperLeague’
• Tony Judt, Postwar: A history of Europe since 1945
• Case C-415/93 Jean-Marc Bosman and others
• Case C-333/21 European Superleague Company v UEFA and FIFA
• Case C-680/21 SA Royal Antwerp Football Club
• Case C-124/21 P International Skating Union v Commission
• ECtHR, Mutu and Pechstein v Switzerland (40575/10 and 67474/10)

Book recommendations:

• Neil K. Komesar, Imperfect Alternatives: Choosing Institutions in Law, Economics and Public Policy
• J.H.H. Weiler, The Constitution of Europe: 'Do the new clothes have an emperor' and other essays on European integration
• Friedrich Dürrenmatt, Justiz (The Execution of Justice)

Comments? Guest suggestions? Email me at [email protected]