European Law

EU-CIEMBLY: First project workshop takes place in Madrid

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment

By Dr Anastasia Karatzia

Photo from the workshop, credit: Dr Anastasia Karatzia

The EU-CIEMBLY project organized an internal staff training workshop from November 4th to 6th at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain. The primary goal of the workshop was to advance and harmonize the partners’ understanding of the theoretical and analytical framework, essential for designing and implementing an inclusive and intersectional European Citizens’ Assembly (CA). The event aimed to equip the project team with both normative tools and empirical insights essential for creating an inclusive deliberative process throughout the project. Dr Anastasia Karatzia, Dr Niall O’Connor, and Dr. Sam Woodward represented at the workshop the University of Essex team, which also includes Dr. Rebecca Warren and Prof. Ileana Steccolini from Essex Business School.

The workshop’s agenda included various presentations and structured discussions designed to engage participants deeply with key project objectives. The first segment of the event provided an introduction to intersectionality, a conceptual framework that examines the interconnected nature of social categories such as gender, nationality, ability, age and more, and how they combine to affect individuals’ experiences of inequality and exclusion. Participants engaged with this concept to explore how intersectional equality, inclusion, and deliberation could be effectively applied in the design and implementation of a CA.

Credit: Dr Anastasia Karatzia

Following this, the participants explored the three key components of a CA which are governance and organization, sampling and recruitment, and deliberation and facilitation. Break-out group discussions were featured, where participants were divided into smaller groups to brainstorm ways to enhance intersectional equality and inclusion across the various stages of the CA. Facilitators documented the insights shared during these discussions and later presented the findings to the broader group for collective reflection.

On the second day of the workshop, four theoretical models for an intersectional CA were discussed in detail, with the understanding that these could evolve based on ongoing feedback and the evolving needs of the project. The workshop concluded with discussions on the development of the glossary with complicated terms along with a presentation of the project’s language policy to guarantee that all materials and discussions are accessible and inclusive. 

A few words about the project:

The EU-CIEMBLY project started on January 1, 2024, with the main goal of creating an innovative and inclusive EU CA that addresses issues of intersectionality, inclusiveness, and equality in European Union political life. The project seeks to improve the landscape of participatory and deliberative democratic mechanisms firstly by providing an analytical framework and prototype for establishing the Assembly at the European Union level, with potential for adaptation at national and local levels of European Union Member States. The project draws on an academic and theoretical understanding of intersectionality, equality, and power relations. Furthermore, EU-CIEMBLY emphasizes open research practices, including open access, optimal research data management, early open sharing, and the involvement of knowledge actors.

The project will develop several activities, with one of its biggest milestones being the three upcoming pilot CAs: a local pilot, a national pilot, and a transnational pilot involving citizens from up to six countries across diverse regions of the European Union. EU-CIEMBLY has a duration of four years and is funded by the European Union under the Horizon Europe research and innovation program. The consortium consists of eleven partner organizations, bringing a wide range of expertise and knowledge related to the project’s scope and objectives.

The project deliverables so far:

Since the project’s launch, the team has produced:

  1. Extensive Literature Review: An in-depth literature review in the form of a bibliographic map was conducted to develop the analytical framework for the EU Citizens’ Assembly.
  2. The Analytical and Normative Framework of the project, which clearly integrates intersectionality into the inclusivity, equality, and deliberation dimensions of Citizens’ Assemblies. 
  3. An exploration of several Theoretical Models for Inclusive Citizens’ Assemblies: The Theoretical Models for an Intersectional and Inclusive Citizens’ Assembly were developed and reviewed during the session in Madrid.

For further information, you may visit the project’s website at www.eu-ciembly.eu and its social networks on Facebook , Instagram and Twitter. For more information on the University of Essex involvement in the project please visit https://www.essex.ac.uk/research-projects/eu-ciembly

Our project embraces multilingualism! Should an accurate translation for specific sections of this Press Release, please contact us at eu-ciembly@ij.uc.pt

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation program under grant agreement number 101132694. This press release reflects only the author’s view. The Commission is not responsible for its content or any use that may be made of the information it contains.

Elevate Your Academic Journey: SENSS, CHASE, and Essex Law School

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment

 By Essex Law School, written by Professor Joel Colón-Ríos

If you are an aspiring legal scholar seeking advanced training in law within a dynamic research environment that encourages innovation and interdisciplinary exploration, a Doctoral Training Partnership at Essex Law School could be your gateway to an exciting academic journey. 

Essex Campus in the winter, Credit: University of Essex.

What are SENSS and CHASE? 

The South and East Network for Social Sciences (SENSS), an ESRC-funded Doctoral Training Partnership (DTP), is dedicated to fostering innovative and inclusive social science research training and collaboration. Among the eight distinguished institutions comprising SENSS, the University of Essex plays a pivotal role as the coordinating institution. 

The Consortium for Humanities and the Arts South-East England (CHASE) is an AHRC-funded Doctoral Training Partnership, providing funding and training opportunities to the next generation of world-leading arts and humanities scholars. Essex is one of the 8 world-leading institutions that comprise the membership of the CHASE DTP. 

SENSS and CHASE provide fully funded doctoral studentships, mentorship from global experts, and advanced subject-specific and research methods training. These opportunities empower researchers to extend their social scientific skills beyond academia. 

Here at the Essex Law School and Human Rights Centre, aspiring PhD students can apply for SENSS and CHASE studentships, unlocking comprehensive support and collaborative excellence in their academic journey. 

Why choose the Essex Law School? 

Choosing where to pursue your doctoral training is a significant decision. At the Essex Law School, we have meticulously crafted an environment that champions excellence and fuels innovation. Here is why you should join us: 

We are a research powerhouse. Our Law School has been ranked 3rd in the UK for research power in law according to the Times Higher Education research power measure (REF2021). Law at Essex is also ranked 47th in the THE World University Rankings, which show the strongest universities across the globe for key subjects (and 9th for UK Universities). This speaks volumes about the calibre of research conducted within our School. Our academic staff collaborates globally, working with the United Nations, the European Union, governments, and non-governmental organisations. 

We believe in the power of interdisciplinary research. Our dynamic research clusters foster collaboration across diverse backgrounds, creating a vibrant intellectual space for innovative and stimulating legal exploration. 

With expertise spanning diverse legal disciplines, our academics are the driving force behind the Law School’s excellence. Our faculty boasts exceptional scholars, providing intellectual leadership in key areas, including Human Rights Law, led by Professor Carla Ferstman who is Director of the Human Rights Centre; International & Comparative Law led by Professor Yseult Marique, an associate member of the International Academy of Comparative Law; Private and Business Law, led by Professor Christopher Willett who also spearheads the Law, Business and Technology Interdisciplinary Hub; as well as Public Law & Sociolegal Studies, led by Professor Joel I Colón-Ríos, who is also a member of the Constitutional and Administrative Justice Initiative (CAJI). Our academic leads are ready to guide you and link you with the ideal academic mentors. 

Our research student community is central to our success. These talented colleagues explore a broad range of exciting topics under expert supervision, forming a vibrant tapestry of ideas. 

We asked Boudicca Hawke about her experience as a CHASE-funded doctoral student at Essex Law School. 

“CHASE is a great DTP to be a part of. It is a quite a competitive funding source, but the application process itself is accessible. Especially at Essex, there’s a tremendous amount of support throughout the entire process, which really helps. There are a few rounds of revision you’ll need to go through, so it does require consistent work, but really, it’s wonderful to have guidance and support at every step so you can end with the best proposal possible. 

I chose to apply primarily because of the holistic way CHASE supports affiliated doctoral researchers and encourage interdisciplinary research. Beyond the funding, CHASE also hosts annual conferences and year-round research network meetings where you can collaborate closely with other doctoral researchers who share interests but come from different universities and backgrounds. CHASE also has an incredible placement scheme, where you can get hands-on experience throughout the PhD process which is quite valuable.” 

Boudicca, who is working on the status of fighters in non-international armed conflict, also shared some insights about the preparation of a research proposal: “Try to be as clear in the proposal as possible. Many of the reviewers won’t be experts in your field, so communicating the issue at-hand and value of your work in an easily digestible way is key. It can also be quite helpful to make sure you highlight relevant work experience and show why you are well-suited to do your specific project. If you don’t get it the first time around, don’t be afraid to re-apply!’’ 

We also talked to Matteo Bassetti, one of our SENSS-funded doctoral students. For Matteo, whose work focuses on the rights of trans people, and the underestimation of harm inflicted by States through institutional pathologisation frameworks, told us that SENSS “has contributed in many ways to my PhD experience, and has allowed me to take part to training that I would have otherwise been unable to attend. I am hoping to go on an Overseas Institutional Visit in the next term to broaden my network and horizon. However, if I have to be honest, I am still looking for more ways to use the opportunities offered by SENSS in the best way.” 

He also gave us some tips about the application process: “Start ahead of time. SENSS is looking not only at the quality of the individual applicant’s proposal, but also at the match between student and supervisors. Treat your application as a collaboration between you and your supervisors, where you need to do the heavy lifting. Be prepared to modify your dream proposal to make it fit better with the selection criteria.” 

Where can you find out more? 

Explore the opportunities offered by the SENSS and CHASE scholarships at the Essex Law School on our informative webpages. Discover eligibility criteria, application processes, and the outstanding benefits that await you by accessing the downloadable documents provided below. 

For inquiries about legal research and the SENSS and CHASE schemes, please contact Professor Joel I Colón-Ríos, our Postgraduate Research Director.  

Specific questions about academic disciplines? You can also reach out directly to our dedicated Academic Leads (mentioned above) who can put you in touch with suitable supervisors. 

Embark on your journey to become a world-leading scholar in law. Do not miss the chance to benefit from these funding opportunities at the Essex Law School, where innovation, excellence, and transformation define the doctoral experience. 

Empowering Healthier Food Choices: A Critical Look at EU Food Information Law 

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment

Dr Nikhil Gokani, Lecturer in Consumer Protection and Public Health Law, University of Essex

One of the main ways the EU tries to improve nutrition is to inform consumers through labelling. The Farm to Fork Strategy states that one of the EU’s objectives is “empowering consumers to make informed, healthy…food choices”. However, the current EU food information law may not be as effective in empowering consumers to make informed, healthier food choices as the EU claims. 

UK-style Nutrition Information label for low fat Yoghurt. Source: Wikipedia.

Well-informed consumers? 

EU food information rules – particularly those in Regulation 1169/2011 on the Provision of Food Information to Consumers (FIC Regulation) – seek to ensure that consumers are well-informed by giving food information that is sufficient, accurate, non-misleading, clear and easy to understand. However, EU food law does not achieve this aim. 

Sufficient food information 

Consumer do not actually have access to sufficient food information: 

  • Nutrient content must be declared per 100g/ml as sold. This helps consumers compare similar products because similar products may have comparable water content or portion sizes. It is less helpful for different product types. Information per portion would help but there is no requirement to provide nutrition information per portion. Indeed, there is also no requirement to provide information on recommended portion sizes, which is concerning because consumers are now eating larger portions. It is also does not give an interpretive guidance, as front-of-pack nutrition labelling would do. 
  • Ingredients are listed but the actual quantity of an ingredient is not required unless the ingredient is emphasised on the labelling. For instance, consumers may be aware that a product contains fruit, but they will not necessarily learn the quantity of fruit. Similarly, health consequences of unhealthy ingredients are not displayed. 
  • Mandatory particulars are only required on packaging and on sales websites. Purchase intentions are, however, also influence by advertising, but information is not required on advertising. 
  • There are many exemptions. Most mandatory particulars are not required for products in smaller packaging. A nutrition declaration is not required for 19 products or product categories. Most inexplicably, alcohol (which is defined as food in EU law) is exempt from nutrition or ingredients labelling. 

Accurate and non-misleading food information 

The FIC Regulation prohibits inaccurate information. However, accurate information can still be misleading. 

Mandatory labelling rules can give be misleading information:  

  • The nutrition declaration may also be expressed as a percentage of consumers’ reference intake. However, percentage of reference intake can be misleading because it is a nominal value based on the needs of an average adult female. It is, therefore, inaccurate for most of the population, including many women. 
  • Where nutrition information is given per consumption unit, this can also be misleading because a single consumption unit (such as one square of a chocolate bar) may not reflect a portion size (such as an entire chocolate bar).  

Food labelling that is given voluntarily by manufacturers can also be misleading: 

  • Nutrition and health claims provide positive information about the nutritional or health effects of a food product. They must be accurate and non-misleading as per Regulation 1924/2006 on Food Claims. However, even accurate food claims may be misleading. For instance, the claim that “iron contributes to the reduction of tiredness and fatigue” may be used without any explicit requirement to mention that this is only true if there is inadequate dietary intake. 
  • Nutrition and health claims can also be misleading. For instance, children’s cereal with significant levels of added sugars can be labelled with promotional claims such as “high in fibre” or “contains calcium”. Consumers over-generalise the positive qualities of claims, which creates a health halo, leading consumers to think that products are healthier than they are. 

The FIC Regulation requires that food information “shall not be misleading” but even this does not prohibit all misleading information: 

  • Whether or not information is misleading is assessed using the benchmark of the “average consumer”. This is a notional, rational consumer who is “reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect”. One difficulty with this is the inconsistency between the assumed behaviour of the “average consumer” and the actual behaviour of consumers. For instance, behavioural economics shows that consumers prefer stability, form habits, have limited cognitive capacity and often evaluate only the most salient information. Even if consumers do make rational choices, rational choices are not necessarily healthy choices. For example, a single parent working full-time on a low income may rationally choose to purchase food that is locally available, has high energy per unit cost and is quick to prepare, even if this might be less healthy. 

Clear and easy to understand food information 

The FIC Regulation also requires that information shall also be “clear and easy to understand” but this is also rather ineffective: 

  • “Clear” does not mean noticeable. For instance, the mandatory nutrition declaration may appear on the back of packaging, where it is less noticeable. Essential information can also be illegible as the minimum character height of mandatory particulars can be less than 0.9mm 
  • Voluntary information shall “not be displayed to the detriment of the space available for mandatory food information”. However, marketing messages on labelling – such as prominent cartoon characters or bright colours – can be distracting and detrimental to the noticeability of mandatory food information. 
  • Even the requirement that food information is “easy to understand” is not that helpful. For instance, consumers should understand the amount of fat in a product but not whether is a healthy level or not. 

Empowered consumers?  

It is clear that EU food information rules do not inform consumers well. But, if the rules on consumer food information were improved, could such improved rules empower consumers? 

To empower consumers to make healthy decisions the food environment should be conducive to consumers genuinely using health-related information. The EU is well positioned to identify features of the market that not only impede but also facilitate this. In the Consumer Agenda, the Commission stated that “empowering consumers means providing a robust framework of principles and tools” and a “robust framework ensuring their safety, information, education, rights, means of redress and enforcement”. 

Research shows the factors influencing consumer food choice empowerment. These can relate to food-internal factors (eg taste), food-external factors (eg food information and physical environments), personal-state factors (eg physiological needs and habits), cognitive factors (eg skills and attitudes) and sociocultural factors (eg culture and political elements). These broader factors are not acknowledged by the Commission, which instead focusses on safety, information and education, and rights. 

If food choice is a function of both multiple intrinsic consumer qualities and external environmental factors, giving consumers information is not on its own empowering them. Therefore, the EU’s strong emphasis on information regulation to empower consumers to make healthy decisions should be met with scepticism. 

Information regulation as one important part of empowerment 

Even if information regulation cannot, on its own, empower consumers, it is still a significant precursor to empowerment. For information to contribute to empowering consumers to make healthy food decisions, two conditions are needed. 

First, the information rules should be well-designed: 

  • For mandatory labelling, the EU needs to reflect on developing evidence-based and context-sensitive rules on whether consumer information is provided, what is provided, where and when, and how it is provided. For instance, nutrition information should be provided in a way that allows consumers to understand it, such as through mandatory front-of-pack-nutrition labelling. Even though the Commission committed to proposing harmonised front-of-pack nutrition, it continues to miss its 2022 deadline.  
  • Regulating voluntary information more effectively is also essential. Food claims should be prohibited for less healthy products, as should other food marketing designed to or having the effect of increasing the recognition, appeal or consumption of unhealthy food.  

Second, the limitations of information should be recognised:  

  • How consumers make food decisions is multifactorial and complex. In recent decades, it has become clear that unhealthy diets demand tackling the commercial determinants of health that drive poor nutrition. These industry practices are designed to maximise product sales by encouraging individuals to over-consume unhealthy food at the expense of healthy food. This includes creating new, highly palatable products, promoting them aggressively, selling them at lower prices than healthy food, packaging them in large ready-to-eat portions and selling them in widely accessible locations. 

Even though the EU’s strong emphasis on regulating consumer food information to improve diets is misplaced, this is not to suggest that information regulation is unimportant. Rather, it is to say that food information (i) in its current form does not lead to well-informed consumers and (ii) on its own does not empower consumers to make healthy food decisions. 

Better laws that effectively address labelling as well as the other determinants are essential. We continue to call on the Commission to use its power to propose new EU laws for the benefit of consumers and their health. 

This blog post is based on a more comprehensive analysis of EU food information law published in the Journal of Consumer Policy: Gokani, N., (2024). Healthier Food Choices From Consumer Information to Consumer Empowerment in EU Law. Journal of Consumer Policy. 47 (2), 271-296. It is available open access here: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-024-09563-0.

The European Committee of Social Rights relies on Essex Human Rights Centre report on child poverty in the UK

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment

By Dr Koldo Casla, Senior Lecturer, Essex Law School & Director, Human Rights Centre Clinic

Image courtesy Nathan Guy (CC BY-SA 2.0) https://www.flickr.com/photos/nathan_guy/2315309592

The European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) recently published its 2023 conclusions on the rights of children, family and migrants under the European Social Charter (ESC). The European Social Charter, in its original formulation of 1961 and the revised of 1996, is the most significant treaty under the Council of Europe dealing with socio-economic rights. ECSR is the authoritative interpreter of the Charter, and it is mandated to monitor States’ compliance with it.

As part of the reporting procure, States submit reports to the ECSR about the measures they are adopting in relation to the labour marker, social security or social assistance and other policies concerning socio-economic rights. The ECSR also relies on evidence provided by civil society, unions, national human rights institutions and academics.

In 2023, specifically in relation to rights of children, families and migrant workers (Articles 7, 8, 16, 17 and 19 ESC), the ECSR adopted 415 conclusions of conformity with the Charter and 384 conclusions of non-conformity in relation to 32 European countries (EU and non-EU). One of them is the United Kingdom, with 10 conclusions of conformity and 9 of non-conformity.

In its assessment of the situation, the ECSR relied on a report I wrote with my colleague Lyle Barker as part of Human Rights Local, a project of the Human Rights Centre of the University of Essex. Conceived and developed in partnership with the anti-poverty NGO ATD Fourth World, the report “Poverty, Child Protection, and the Right to Protection and Assistance to the Family in England”, published in June 2023, called for transformative change to child services. We combined law and policy desk research, data analysis, and interviews and focus groups with a total of 33 people (28 of them female), including parents, social workers and young adults. We argued that creating a social security system that guarantees the essentials in life, regulating for-profit children’s homes, and extending peer-parent support can help to eradicate a toxic culture of prejudice and disproportionate risk-aversion in England’s child protection services.

We made the case that child protection services are not observant of the right to protection and assistance to the family, recognised in Article 10 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Article 10 ICESCR is very similar to Article 16 ESC, the right of the family to social, legal and economic protection.

Based, among other sources, on our analysis in the mentioned report, the ECSR concluded that “the situation in the United Kingdom is not in conformity with Article 16 of the 1961 Charter on the grounds that: equal treatment of nationals of other States Parties regarding the payment of family benefits is not ensured due to the excessive length of residence requirement; the amount of child benefits is insufficient.”

Between 2022 and 2025, the UK is also being examined by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which monitors compliance with ICESCR. In December 2022, we submitted a summary of the preliminary conclusions to the UN Committee. Alongside a colleague with lived experience of poverty from ATD Fourth World, I presented the submission to the UN Committee in March 2023 remotely. The Committee’s List of Issues for the UK Government included one of our concerns, which had not been addressed in any other submission, namely, the regulation and monitoring of private and for-profit providers of child protection. We will continue engaging with international human rights bodies and urging the authorities to implement the necessary measures locally and nationally to protect children and families in poverty in the UK.

Dr Koldo Casla, Senior Lecturer at Essex Law School, is a member of the Academic Network on the European Social Charter and Social Rights (ANESC), and co-editor of The European Social Charter: A Commentary, Volume 3 (2024), on Articles 11-19 ESC.

Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling: Time for the EU to Adopt a Harmonized Scheme 

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment

By Dr Nikhil Gokani (Essex Law School) and Prof Amandine Garde (School of Law and Social Justice, University of Liverpool)

Nutri-Score label as published by Santé Publique France

In its Farm to Fork Strategy, published nearly 3 years ago in May 2020, the European Commission committed to ‘propose harmonised mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling’ (‘FoPNL’) to ‘empower consumers to make informed, healthy and sustainable food choices’ by the fourth quarter of 2022. This commitment was repeated in Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan in February 2021. The deadline has now passed and the promised proposals do not seem forthcoming. This is all the more disappointing considering there is strong support for the implementation of an EU-wide harmonized FoPNL scheme, as demonstrated by the results of the EU consultation on ‘Food labelling—revision of rules on information provided to consumers’ published in December 2021.

Such support is not surprising considering the significant advantages that the adoption of a harmonised FoPNL scheme has for consumers, traders, Member States and the EU alike.

  • From the perspective of consumers, an effectively designed FoPNL scheme helps inform them of the nutritional composition of food. Informing consumers lies at the heart of the EU’s consumer protection strategies and reflects its long-held view that regulating food labelling empowers consumers to make healthier choices whilst promoting the objectives of market integration. At present, the EU only mandates a small table of nutrition information on the back of food packaging. This is often hard to see and difficult to understand, whereas effectively designed FoPNL can provide easy-to-see and easy-to-understand information on the front of food packaging thus supporting healthier food choices.
  • From the perspective of traders, harmonized FoPNL will create a level playing field by reducing regulatory fragmentation, which will also increase legal certainty and lower labelling costs. There are currently 7 national FoPNL schemes recommended across 15 EU Member States. Further industry-led schemes are used, although they have not been officially endorsed by any Member State. While some manufacturers have adopted FoPNL, many have not, and others are using multiple different schemes.
  • From the perspective of Member States, a mandatory, EU-wide FoPNL scheme will contribute to improving diets and health outcomes. Current EU rules prohibit the adoption of FoPNL schemes which are interpretive, and do not facilitate the adoption of FoPNL schemes which are easy to use. They also prevent Member States from making FoPNL mandatory.
  • From the perspective of the EU itself, a harmonized FoPNL scheme will promote the proper functioning of the internal market in line with the EU’s mandate to ensure a high level of health and consumer protection in all its policies. Moreover, it will facilitate the compliance of all its Member States with the commitments that they have made at international level to promote healthier food environments.

The choice of any single scheme must be guided by evidence. The Commission’s Joint Research Centre reviews, published in 2020 and 2022, identify what makes FoPNL effective:

  • colour-coded labels draw consumer attention through increased salience, are preferred by consumers, are associated with increased understanding and encourage healthier food purchases;
  • simple labels require less attention to process and are preferred and more easily understood by consumers; and
  • consumers prefer and better understand consistent and simple reference quantities.

In its Inception Impact Assessment of December 2020, the Commission put forward four types of labels as contenders for a harmonized, mandatory EU-wide scheme: graded indicators (e.g. Nutri-Score); endorsement logos (e.g. Keyhole); colour-coded (e.g. Multiple Traffic Lights); and numerical (e.g. NutrInform). It is clear that of the four schemes considered in the Inception Impact Assessment, Nutri-Score is the only one meeting the criteria above, and its effectiveness is strongly established. Not only does it attract consumers’ attention, it is favourably perceived and well understood. It also has a positive impact on the nutritional quality of purchases. Additionally, the nutrient profiling model underpinning Nutri-Score has been extensively validated and shown to be associated with improved health outcomes. Even if no scheme will ever be described as ‘perfect’ by all stakeholders, its developed evidence base and adoption by a growing number of Member States, makes Nutri-Score the only viable option for the timely implementation of a mandatory, harmonised FoPNL scheme in the EU.

Growing rates of obesity and other diet-related diseases increase the urgency for the EU to act. We, therefore, call on the Commission to propose legislation requiring food to be labelled with Nutri-Score on a mandatory basis across the EU, as it has committed to do.

This post was originally published as an invited editorial in the European Journal of Public Health in June 2023. It is available here.

Nikhil Gokani is an expert in the regulation of front-of-pack nutrition labelling in the EU and globally. Please click here for his profile and contact details.

Financial Assistance Conditionality and Effective Judicial Protection: Chrysostomides

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment

Image from Unsplash

By Anastasia Karatzia, Essex Law School

Dr. Anastasia Karatzia and Dr. Menelaos Markakis (Erasmus University Rotterdam) jointly published an article in the Common Market Law Review titled ‘Financial assistance conditionality and effective judicial protection: Chrysostomides‘. 

The article is a commentary on the ECJ’s judgment in the case of Council v K. Chrysostomides & Co. and Ors. It analyses the reasoning behind the ECJ’s findings regarding the legal nature of the Eurogroup, explores the implications of these findings for the accountability of the Eurogroup, and looks at the justiciability of the actions of the Council, Commission, and ECB in the context of the financial assistance programme for Cyprus and the EMU more generally speaking. 

The authors argue that the ECJ could have concluded that the Eurogroup is an EU institution within the meaning of Article 340(2) TFEU and that the theoretical possibility to hold the other EU institutions involved in financial assistance programmes accountable for their actions does not always suffice to guarantee the effective judicial protection of aggrieved individuals. This is the culmination of years of research on the topic of judicial protection in financial assistance given to EU Member States.

The article can be accessed in full here.

The Politics of European Legal Research: Behind the Method

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment

Image credit: e-elgar.com

Dr Jessica Lawrence of Essex Law School and Professor Marija Bartl of Amsterdam School of Law have recently produced a jointly edited book publication with Edward Elgar titled The Politics of European Legal Research: Behind the Method. This book looks behind different methodologies to explore the institutional, disciplinary, and political conflicts that shape questions of ‘method’ or ‘approach’ in European legal scholarship. It offers a new perspective on the underlying politics of method and identifies four core dimensions of methodological struggle in legal research – the politics of questions, the politics of answers, the politics of legal audiences, and the politics of the concept of law.

In addition to her editorial role, Dr Lawrence contributed chapter 2 of the book titled ‘Governmentality as reflexive method: excavating the politics of legal research’. Here, she argues that researchers should be conscious of the impact that their ontological, epistemological, political, and normative commitments have on their work, and maintain an awareness of the fact that these assumptions are contingent, constructed, and politically significant. She argues that consciousness of these impacts is a tool researchers can use to better examine the forms of knowledge they (re)produce to determine what type of order, and what type of politics, they perpetuate.

Further information on this book can be found here.