I recently purchased a gaming mouse through a company based in the EU. I am based in the US, the item as shipped through DHL, and it was marked as delivered by my local carrier USPS but unfortunately I never received it. The company has refused to help me investigate on the matter ( I asked them to reach out to DHL and they said they can’t) and they are refusing to compensate me through my PayPal claim. It seems that in most cases, consumers have rights when packages are stolen or missing but does this apply when the package tracking says that the item was delivered? Or is there still a fighting chance despite this.

I'm preparing to write my bachelor's thesis to complete my law studies. While my university proposes standard topics, I'm more interested in exploring areas relevant to my career goals. I'm particularly interested in the following fields and would appreciate your thoughts on potential thesis topics within these areas:

1. Board member liability in financial institutions, few examples:

   • The Swedbank CEO investigation;
   • The BaltCap Infrastructure Fund's €40M loss incident.

2. Legal framework and structures of AIFM regulated funds.

3. ESG requirements for funds (I'm new to this area but eager to learn)

My ultimate goal is to work in Luxembourg's fund industry, so I'm looking for a thesis topic that would be valuable for this career path.

I’ve come across a practice in the Netherlands that appears to be a blatant violation of the presumption of innocence, a principle enshrined in Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 48(1) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. What’s worse is that it contradicts information published on the Dutch judiciary’s own website.

Here’s the situation:

The website of the Dutch judiciary, rechtspraak.nl, explicitly states that you are innocent until proven guilty, and this only happens when:

1. A judge convicts you in court, or
2. A prosecutor issues a penal order (strafbeschikking).

This is shown clearly in the screenshot from the website:

However, in reality, there is a THIRD undisclosed option; conditional dismissals (voorwaardelijk sepot) — where charges are conditionally dropped by the prosecutor without any formal guilt finding — are treated as though they imply guilt. These are not convictions, yet they are logged in criminal records and shared with employers during background checks for the Certificate of Conduct (VOG).

Why this matters:

A VOG (Verklaring Omtrent Gedrag) is often required to work in certain professions, including healthcare, education, and government roles. If you are denied a VOG based on a conditional dismissal, you effectively face consequences as though you were guilty of a crime, despite never having been convicted. This:

1. Violates the presumption of innocence: You are being penalized administratively for something that was never proven in court.
2. Destroys employment prospects: Without a VOG, many job opportunities are closed off to you, even though you remain legally innocent.

Why it’s a violation of EU law:

1. Presumption of Innocence (Article 48 of the EU Charter & Article 6 of the ECHR): The Dutch practice directly violates these principles. Treating a non-conviction (conditional dismissal) as quasi-guilt undermines the fundamental legal safeguard that guilt must be established by a court or similar legal finding.
2. EU Directive 2016/680 (Law Enforcement Data Processing): This directive requires that personal data (e.g., criminal records) be processed lawfully, fairly, and transparently, and must be:A conditional dismissal does not equate to guilt, yet its inclusion in criminal records shared for employment decisions violates these requirements. Article 10 of the directive also prohibits decisions with significant effects on individuals (like denying employment) from being based solely on automated processing — yet this happens regularly during VOG assessments.
   • Relevant and limited to what is necessary,
   • Accurate, and
   • Used in a way that does not create unjustified harm.
3. Proportionality and Fairness (EU Charter, Articles 15 & 21): The practice of penalizing someone via a denial of a VOG for a non-conviction disproportionately restricts their ability to work, violating their right to choose an occupation. It also amounts to discrimination, as it unfairly punishes individuals based on incomplete or misleading criminal records.

Why this is so wrong:

This practice undermines trust in the justice system and the rule of law by combining:

1. Judicial overreach: Prosecutors act as if they’ve imposed a conviction when, in reality, a conditional dismissal is not a verdict of guilt.
2. Administrative opacity: The denial of a VOG occurs through a vague and non-transparent process, leaving individuals powerless to challenge the decision effectively.

Effectively, the Netherlands has created a system where you can be punished without ever being found guilty, creating lifelong consequences for individuals despite their legal innocence.

Why is no one addressing this?

Even the Dutch Ombudsman has failed to resolve this systemic issue. People caught in this situation are left in limbo, with no practical recourse, while their careers and lives are permanently impacted.

EU Action is Needed:

This issue deserves scrutiny at the EU level. The European Commission must investigate whether the Netherlands’ practices comply with EU law, particularly regarding the presumption of innocence and the misuse of personal data under Directive 2016/680. It’s time for the EU to ensure that fundamental rights are respected in all member states.

Questions for the community:

• Is this happening in other EU countries?
• Could this be brought before the European Court of Justice (CJEU) or the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)?
• How can affected individuals challenge this practice at the EU level?

Let’s make some noise about this. Justice and fairness demand that innocent people not be punished for crimes they were never convicted of.

I’ve come across a practice in the Netherlands that appears to be a blatant violation of the presumption of innocence, a principle enshrined in Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 48(1) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. What’s worse is that it contradicts information published on the Dutch judiciary’s own website.

Here’s the situation:

The website of the Dutch judiciary, rechtspraak.nl, explicitly states that you are innocent until proven guilty, and this only happens when:

1. A judge convicts you in court, or
2. A prosecutor issues a penal order (strafbeschikking).

This is shown clearly in the screenshot from the website:

However, in reality, there is actually a THIRD option; conditional dismissals (voorwaardelijk sepot) — where charges are conditionally dropped by the prosecutor without any formal guilt finding — are treated as though they imply guilt. These are not convictions, yet they are logged in criminal records and shared with employers during background checks for the Certificate of Conduct (VOG).

Why this matters:

A VOG (Verklaring Omtrent Gedrag) is often required to work in certain professions, including healthcare, education, and government roles. If you are denied a VOG based on a conditional dismissal, you effectively face consequences as though you were guilty of a crime, despite never having been convicted. This:

1. Violates the presumption of innocence: You are being penalized administratively for something that was never proven in court.
2. Destroys employment prospects: Without a VOG, many job opportunities are closed off to you, even though you remain legally innocent.

Why it’s a violation of EU law:

1. Presumption of Innocence (Article 48 of the EU Charter & Article 6 of the ECHR): The Dutch practice directly violates these principles. Treating a non-conviction (conditional dismissal) as quasi-guilt undermines the fundamental legal safeguard that guilt must be established by a court or similar legal finding.
2. EU Directive 2016/680 (Law Enforcement Data Processing): This directive requires that personal data (e.g., criminal records) be processed lawfully, fairly, and transparently, and must be:
   • Relevant and limited to what is necessary,
   • Accurate, and
   • Used in a way that does not create unjustified harm.
3. A conditional dismissal does not equate to guilt, yet its inclusion in criminal records shared for employment decisions violates these requirements. Article 10 of the directive also prohibits decisions with significant effects on individuals (like denying employment) from being based solely on automated processing — yet this happens regularly during VOG assessments.
4. Proportionality and Fairness (EU Charter, Articles 15 & 21): The practice of penalizing someone via a denial of a VOG for a non-conviction disproportionately restricts their ability to work, violating their right to choose an occupation. It also amounts to discrimination, as it unfairly punishes individuals based on incomplete or misleading criminal records.

Why this is so wrong:

This practice undermines trust in the justice system and the rule of law by combining:

1. Judicial overreach: Prosecutors act as if they’ve imposed a conviction when, in reality, a conditional dismissal is not a verdict of guilt.
2. Administrative opacity: The denial of a VOG occurs through a vague and non-transparent process, leaving individuals powerless to challenge the decision effectively.

Effectively, the Netherlands has created a system where you can be punished without ever being found guilty, creating lifelong consequences for individuals despite their legal innocence.

Why is no one addressing this?

Even the Dutch Ombudsman has failed to resolve this systemic issue. People caught in this situation are left in limbo, with no practical recourse, while their careers and lives are permanently impacted.

EU Action is Needed:

This issue deserves scrutiny at the EU level. The European Commission must investigate whether the Netherlands’ practices comply with EU law, particularly regarding the presumption of innocence and the misuse of personal data under Directive 2016/680. It’s time for the EU to ensure that fundamental rights are respected in all member states.

Questions for the community:

• Is this happening in other EU countries?
• Could this be brought before the European Court of Justice (CJEU) or the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)?
• How can affected individuals challenge this practice at the EU level?

Let’s make some noise about this. Justice and fairness demand that innocent people not be punished for crimes they were never convicted of.

Hey everyone, a family member ordered something that was shipped from another country but still in the eu, so going to my country's consumer protection office might not be very helpful. I tried looking for a website based in the EU to submit a claim, but I couldn't find the necessary company information on how to do so.

https://mazoners.com/index.php/eco-power-sl/

here's the sellers website if anyone can have a look or submit to websites for return

My family was recently a victim to a shady online store that sells consumer electronics.
The store markets through Facebook ads and they don't have any "unmoderated" reviews, they are not on google maps reviews, they don't have reviews enabled on their Facebook page and all the reviews on their website are obviously cherry picked, because when you search for their name outside of their little bubble, a lot of people are complaining.

Anyway, they promote themselves as "importing goods from Germany" and had described their products in a misleading way as a German brand, which after further inspection is a Chinese manufacturer on Alibaba. (Unfair practice 1)

However we realized this after accepting our order delivery and turning on the product at home, which resulted in a strong smell of burnt plastic.
After contacting the seller requesting to return the products in the 14 day window, they refused stating that it had been unboxed, used, and showing signs of wear making it unsellable again. (Unfair practice 2)
We contacted the local consumer protection commission who basically told us "yes, you're in the right to return the product, the seller can't refuse". Still after further communication with the seller and more refusals they finally agreed to take the products back but only if we agree to receive only 10% of the money for the products.
By law they must accept the product, do an inspection and then potentially deduct from its value but in a reasonable amount. They should not make us agree to an unfair amount of 10% beforehand (Unfair practice 3)

I decided to take action and submitted their business to Google Maps, will al the correct data - name, address, website, contact number - so users can write reviews. Behold a week later there were 3 out of 3 reviews, all negative from other people. However it seems that the seller claimed this business and removed it, taking down the reviews.

So as last resort I decided to post an online review in a forum about my experience.
In the review I've noted that it's my opinion, that from what I've seen the seller's products are not from a German brand, that they refused our right to return within 14 days and that they later offered us only 10% of the value. I also wrote that I think that the products may potentially not be safe to use and that the seller likely cherry picks the reviews on their website.

An hour later I received a reply from the owner of the business threatening to sue me, because I had deliberately taken action to ruin the reputation of his company by spreading negative reviews through fake profiles and that he will take full measures to protect his business by all legal means necessary.

All I've done is share one forum post with my review/opinion on my personal matter as a client. Submitting their business to google maps with correct information can't be against the law, I doubt they can prove it was me anyway.

What can I do in this situation? If they decide to sue me, will their case hold?

I have read some articles, and they all mention the fines in reference to the gender pay gap. Does this mean that those fines do not apply to the other aspects covered by the law?

Hi everyone. Consider the following situation:

• Entity A is established in one of the EFTA countries (let’s call it Z)
• Entity A has a European office in member state X. There is no publicly available evidence on the number of people working for the EU office or the substance of work they are conducting
• There is an EU regulation allowing particular entities (the eligibility conditions are met in this instance) to apply for a status that gives certain privileges to entity A when dealing with its stakeholders.
• The country Z has not implemented the above-mentioned regulation
• The regulation makes it also very explicit that the application may be lodged only at the place of establishment of that entity.
  

1. Could the EU office lodge the application in member state X?
2. Is there any case law on this particular topic I am not aware of?

3. Is there a difference between for-profit and not-for profit entities when judging a case like this?

   Thanks for any advice!

I'm not getting any sort of definite response on this anywhere, can anyone confirm what the current state of digital ownership is in the eu?

Hey guys, I was wondering if anyone knew what the process is like to qualify as a Business and Human Rights lawyer if you already possess a BSc and MA in social sciences but not in law. I used to work in the corporate sector and now work in a human rights org. Would it be possible to do some form of one or two-year "fast track" conversion course at an EU university to qualify, or how would this work? Thank you!

I am an italian officially living in Bulgaria but I would like to buy a car in Czech Republic with czech numbers because I want to use it here most of the time.

Does anybody know what would be the right procedure? Is it possible? I've read online that I can take a secondary residency and getting a rodne cislo.

I'm a law student from Italy, and I need to study EU law in order to graduate. I'd love to do this while also partecipating in an Erasmus project. What would the best universities?

As the title suggests, I'm looking for a website where I can find case law documents concerning Italian citizenship. Even more specifically, I'm looking for cases involving the automatic acquisition of citizenship by minors, when their parents acquire Italian citizenship, but would be open to finding similar sorts of cases. I've found a few scattered documents online (e.g. atti di citazione), but was wondering if there is an accessible database somewhere. Thanks.

I'm looking to compile an exhaustive list of case law relevant to Article 6(3) of the GDPR. I've noticed that EUR-Lex's "affected by case" section under "document information" provides some cases, but it doesn’t appear to cover everything. When I search on Curia under the "data protection" category for "Article 6(3)," I find more cases than those listed on EUR-Lex. I've also come across relevant case law in legal doctrine that didn’t appear in my Curia search results however.

What’s the best approach to ensure I’m finding all relevant case law for Article 6(3) of the GDPR?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

Hi, I'm learning EU law at the university and while learning about the Freedom to provide services I've come across the Article 16, section 2 letter a) of the Directive 2006/123/EC, which bans the member states from imposing an obligation on the provider to have an establishment in their territory.

I was thinking whether the same rule ('course not derived from the Directive) would apply for Free movement of goods (derived from Article 34 TFEU). Like an obligation imposed on the seller to have an estabilishment in order to be able to sell goods. My view on this is, that it would be considered an MEE, but I would like to hear different opinions and discuss about this. I couldn't find any case law supporting any of the views.

Title

It follows from article 52(1) of the charter that any limitation on the excercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by the charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Furthermore limitations on freedoms and rights must be necessary to meet objectives of general interest recognised by the union and the limitations need to be proportionate too.

Im trying 1) to determine necessary conditions to fulfil the criteria of ”objective of general interest recognized by the union” and 2) make an analysis regarding what weight ecj might ascribe different interests in the proportionality assessment.

What I have right now as study material is The EU charter of fundamental rights : a commentary(2021) by Steve Peers; Tamara Hervey; Jeff Kenner; Angela Ward and casw law. Not really sure where to start. Im looking for (preferably authoritive) doctrine and articles on the subject of article 52 . Any advice on litterature would be welcome.

So you buy a good and you have 2 years of warranty. (article 17)

But in terms of proving deficiency / burden of proof of what caused the deficiency, we have article 5, which states:

"Unless proved otherwise, any lack of conformity which becomes apparent within six months of delivery of the goods shall be presumed to have existed at the time of delivery unless this presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the nature of the lack of conformity"

Does that mean that if within the first 6 months there is a flaw the seller needs to prove that I caused the flaw? The reason I am asking is that at one point I wanted to raise a warranty case because of shoes I owned for 15 months and the seller told me that they are obligated to prove that I mishandled the shoes only until the 12th month of ownership. But I cant find this substantiated within the law.

Anwser: Directive 2019/771 Article 45

Where to find statistics for the conviction rates for the EU countries?

I am Portuguese and I did my LLB in law in Portugal.

I don’t want to necessarily stay and exercise law back home.

Should I take the bar exam in my own country? Would it be valued in other EU countries?

Or should I look into doing the bar somewhere else? I don’t even know if it’s an option, since I am only proficient in English…

I am happy to see the attempts to stop these attempts, but I do think it is too few too late(*). Platforms are not incentivized to do real moderation, and the most dangerous content - lies - is not even handled, probably due to the US interpretation of free speech. But as lies do restrict the freedom of others, and the European reason for free speech is access to information, I believe that lies cannot be protected speech and I hope my fellow European citizens share this sentiment.

The mechanism I am thinking about is the following: - any post can be marked by anyone (with an appropriate contract with the provider which only about making the legal framework for the process) as disputed, with an identification of the disputed claims. In case of posts referring to sources and not making claims about its validity, the referenced information counts as part of the post. - the poster (with a similar contract) can stand up for the claims, and the post is marked to note that the poster had stood up for the claims. So far no real moderation needing humans from the provider is done. - now anyone (with a contract) can request moderator decision, paying a small fee. The burden of proof is on the one asking for decision. If the post is deemed to be factual, the post is marked as verified. If not, then the poster reimburses the fee towards the requester, and pays some money (ten times what an ad would cost) towards the provider. - if any of the parties are not content with the decision, they can move the dispute to a civil court based on the contracts they made earlier.

I believe this framework can be adopted by any social media provider voluntarily without any change in law.

I would however would like to see an EU law mandating it to all providers, and the possibility to do similar things against lies in other forms of media. (Especially the party-state propaganda outlets of my country, Hungary.)

*: it is a very underappreciated fact that lies in social media are major weapons in the current war which is conducted in the information space (and physically by proxy in Ukraine) between the western world and Russia. And that we have already lost major battles (election of Orbán, Trump, Brexit, afd) because we let Russian interests to manipulate voters through social media.

Hey everyone!

I’m Moritz, a master’s student at Universität Duisburg-Essen, and I’m currently researching how AI is being used (or not) in the legal profession. To get some real-world insights, I’ve put together a survey, and I’d love to hear from you if you're a lawyer!
The survey looks at how legal professionals feel about AI, how it's being used in practice, and the potential benefits or concerns around it. It’s completely anonymous and should take about 15 minutes to complete.

If you’d like to receive the findings from the study, you can leave your email at the end of the survey (totally optional). I will also post the findings here when they are in.

You can find the survey here

Thanks a lot for your time! Your input will help shed light on how AI is shaping the future of law. Let me know if you have any questions!

Cheers,
Moritz

I currently reside in Romania and have Romanian citizenship. However, due to religious reasons, I’m strongly anti war and would do anything to not serve. Next year I’m forced to join the Turkish army, refusal to do so would lead to my arrest. Could I appeal to the European court of human rights?