07 July 2025
An Ecofeminist Approach to EU Biodiversity Law
This blog post aims at briefly addressing the issue of hunting as it is regulated in EU biodiversity law using legal ecofeminism as method of analysis. It starts from a reflection on ecofeminism as related to hunting, then argues that EU law, including the EU Charter is inherently anthropocentric, and highlights the ambiguities of EU biodiversity law. By referring to a judgment rendered by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) on the conservation of wolves in 2019, this post encourages an ecofeminist legal reading of EU biodiversity law. E Continue reading >>
1 
03 July 2025
Rights for Non-Humans in EU Law
The recognition of animals and nature as potential rights holders has long been a controversial proposition within European legal discourse. However, we believe that the EU legal order is more hospitable to such recognition than one might expect. In a recent article, we argued for a rights-based reinterpretation of EU animal welfare and environmental protection laws. EU constitutional and secondary laws can be construed as entailing legal rights for non-human entities – even if these rights are not explicit the texts. We consider how the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and other EU legal acts may support a post-anthropocentric vision of Union law. Continue reading >>
0
02 July 2025
Animals and the EU Charter
The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights remains silent on animal rights, even as a growing number of constitutions worldwide now explicitly protect animals. While the EU already recognises animals as sentient beings under Article 13 TFEU, this recognition has yet to translate into meaningful constitutional safeguards. Embedding animal welfare into the Charter would align the Union with global developments and help move its integration project beyond an overly anthropocentric model. Continue reading >>
0
02 July 2025
A Wolf’s Right to the Surface of the Earth
The European Union recently changed the legal status of the wolf from “strictly protected” to “protected”. In this contribution, I advocate a different response to the problem that wolves prey on animals kept by humans: the further development of the European ecological network called Natura 2000. The premise of my argument, based on animal rights theory and Kant’s philosophy of law, is that wolves have the right to be on Earth. In the past, humans have tried to eradicate wolves, which is a clear violation of this right. I argue that this historical injustice generates the duty to restore the habitats and natural infrastructure used by wolves. Continue reading >>
0
30 June 2025
A European Charter of Fundamental Human Obligations
The effort to anchor animal rights in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights has gained relevance in light of the widespread commodification of animals within the EU’s market-driven integration process. While commendable in principle, incorporating animal rights into the Charter risks serving a largely symbolic function if it diverts attention from the more pressing task of reconfiguring what I take to be the six foundational institutions of private law in capitalist political economy: property, contract, corporation, tort, labor, and consumption. These institutions reinforce the binary between the human subject and the other-than-human object, a division that enables the commodification of non-human beings. Continue reading >>
0
30 June 2025
Animal Law Jurisprudence in the EU and Beyond
Animals have largely been left out in EU law scholarship and environmental law studies. The role of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights has not been discussed to any greater extent. In this symposium, we discuss the pros and cons of the EU Charter for securing sufficient animal protection in the Member States. More specifically, the contributions in this symposium explore a number of questions such as that of the legal standing of animals and animal rights in the context of the EU, and reflecting on the relationship between animal rights and the EU. Continue reading >>30 June 2025
In the End… Who Cares?
On 3 June 2025, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment on the Kinsa-Case. At the core of the matter were the criminal charges of a third-country national for the facilitation of unauthorized entry of two minors in the territory of an EU Member State. With this ruling, the Court takes an important step towards the de-criminalization of care for migrant children who are seeking international protection. However, the Grand Chamber’s reasoning offers limited considerations on the relevant links between “actual care”, humanitarian assistance, and migrant children’s rights. This shortcoming may ultimately curb protection standards of migrant children in future cases Continue reading >>
0
26 June 2025
The Return of Golden Shares and Global Politics
The Trump Administration just announced that the Japanese steel giant Nippon Steel has granted it a powerful “golden share” in U.S. Steel as a condition for its acquisition of this major US-American steel manufacturer. While the EU has largely constrained the use of such instruments under internal market law, the US now appears willing to deploy them as symbols of industrial revival and national strength. In its response to the increasing global (geo)economic competition, the EU and its member states should resist this trend and instead refine targeted FDI screening mechanisms to reconcile national security with internal market integrity. Continue reading >>
0
11 June 2025
Somewhere Over The Rainbow
On 5 June 2025, Advocate General Ćapeta issued her Opinion in Commission v. Hungary, a landmark ECJ case on Hungary’s “anti-LGBTIQ” law. While the law is overtly discriminatory, the Commission framed its case around internal market rules, Charter rights, and Article 2 TEU values. While this might seem curious, I argue this reflects a strategic “camouflaging” of non-discrimination claims to better protect LGBTIQ rights within the limits of current EU anti-discrimination and equality law. Continue reading >>
0
12 May 2025
Just Asking
Have you ever wondered why a legal text is the way it is, or whether its implementation actually works as intended? Typically, one would approach such questions by consulting existing textual material. If one is extraordinary inquisitive, one might even file access-to-document requests. However, sometimes one cannot escape the feeling that something is missing. In that situation, I suggest, one should do the obvious: talk to people who know better – ideally, the people working on or embodying the phenomenon one intends to research. Continue reading >>
0