Standing Up for the Voiceless?

Sommaire

Standing up for the voiceless? Exploring the EU's capacity for rights protection. An introduction
Denis Duez & Cecilia Rizcallah 

1. Standing up for the voiceless: an analytical framework 7
1.1. The classical democratic model and its limitations 7
1.2. Giving a voice to the voiceless: the rise of the EU unmuting narrative 10
1.3. Voicelessness: a new research agenda 13

2. Structure of the book 19

Defining the green to make environmental concerns heard in the EU?
The legal consequences of the (unexpected) uses of the taxonomy
Norman Vander Putten 23

1. Taxonomising the contribution or harm to environmental
protection in the European Union 28
1.1. The Taxonomy Regulation unpacked 29
1.2. Incidental taxonomies in the Recovery and Resilience
Facility, the Green Bonds Regulation and the Green Budgeting Framework 32
1.2.1. The Recovery and Resilience Facility 32
1.2.2. The Green Bonds Regulation 34
1.2.3. The Green Budgeting Initiative 35

2. Taxonomies as the relatively unexpected component of rising selective industrial action 37
2.1. The Taxonomy confronted with a rising environmental governance through spending 37
2.2. Rethinking the legitimacy and legality of delegated acts considering the taxonomy’s uses 41
Conclusion 44

Unmuting the environment in EU competition law – Broadening the notion of "fair share to consumers" when assessing
sustainable cooperation initiatives
Tom Buytaert 47

1. What the new EU Commission’s guidelines on cooperation agreements foresee – A (modest) evolution 52
1.1. The main principles of the sustainability chapter of the Guidelines 52
1.2. Art. 101(3) TFEU – the “fair share to consumers” requirement in particular 54

2. What the EU guidelines could (or should) have foreseen 58
2.1. More ambitious national approaches 59
2.1.1. The example of the Netherlands 59
2.1.2. The example of Austria 62
2.1.3. The example of the UK 63
2.2. (Further) unmuting consumers (citizens) in the Commission’s Guidelines 65
2.2.1. The CJEU case-law does not stand in the way of (further) greening EU competition policy 65
2.2.2. The (constitutional) need to consider broad sustainability interests in the analysis framework under Article 101(3) TFEU 67
2.2.3. The requirement for companies to “collaborate” in order to meet their corporate sustainability due diligence obligations 69
Conclusion 71

Which voices are heard in European wildlife policy? The necessity to listen to the many voices of living beings affected by conservation project
Arnaud Gane 73

1. A legislation trying to unmute nature in the tension of environmental productivity interests 78
1.1. History of European legislation on biodiversity: ambitions thwarted by the primacy of economic interests 79
1.2. The failure of the Green Deal to act on the major impact of agriculture on European nature symbolized by the
destiny of the “Farm to Fork” legislation 82
1.3. The Green Deal difficult attempts to change the legal perception of nature, represented by the complicated legislative process of the Nature Restoration Law 85

2. Rewilding as the most de-anthropized conservation practice, but with a potential muting effect on the other human groups concerned 88
2.1. Rewilding beyond restoration: the autonomy of wild nature as an ideal of the unmuting of nature 88
2.2. Vercors Vie Sauvage case study: how a rewilding project can affect local communities and reinforce their
feeling of being muted 92
Conclusion 95

Calling for coherence: Analysing the protection of environmental defenders in the European Green Deal
Amanda Kron 97

1. Just transition in international law and the European Green Deal 100
1.1. Just transition 100
1.2. The European Green Deal 101

2. Environmental defenders 102
2.1. Framings by UN human rights mechanisms 103
2.2. Aarhus Convention 105
2.3. European Network on National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI) 106
2.4. European Court of Justice 107
2.5. European Court of Human Rights 108
2.6. Other regulations, directives and EU policies 109
2.7. Concluding analysis: International law and the EU 111

3. Environmental defenders and the European Green Deal 111
3.1. Taxonomy Regulation 112
3.2. EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive 113
Concluding analysis 116

Citizenship against democracy? Consequences of un-muting
Hungarians beyond the borders on the EU’s rule of law crisis
Anita Kovacs 119

1. The case of Hungarians beyond the borders: three pillars of
electoral autocracy 120

1.1. Preferential naturalisation for a new category of supporters 121
1.2. Muted dissent and amplified consent within the electoral system 124
1.2.1. Differential treatment based on physical presence in the country, ethnic background, and country of residence 127
1.2.2. Effects of discrimination favouring ethnic Hungarians against dissidents 130
1.2.3. Low representativity of the will of the people 135
1.3. Additional benefits as insurance for pocketing votes 137

2. The EU’s limited capacity to interfere with prerogatives reserved for Member States 139
2.1. EU citizenship: no grip on acquisition rules 139
2.2. Democracy: no common conception despite the rule of law connection 141
2.3. Non-discrimination in fundamental rights: lack of proper instruments 143
2.4. Non-discrimination in economic freedoms: limited scope of EU law regarding travel benefits 144
Concluding remarks 146

Article 10(3) TEU: Unlocking untapped potential to safeguard muted citizens’democratic rights
Timothée Ceurremans & Elisabeth David 147

1. Article 10(3) TEU: A remedy against illiberalism? 150
1.1. Operationalizing the value of democracy 150
1.2. Why Article 10(3), first sentence, TEU? 151
1.3. Type and nature of obligations 153
1.4. Direct effect of Article 10(3) TEU 153
1.5. Limits: Systemic deficiencies, national identity and the principle of conferral 154

2. The preliminary reference mechanism: Opportunities and challenges for strategic litigation on the basis of Article 10(3) TEU 155
2.1. Opportunities 155
2.2. Challenges 157

3. Unmuting in the context of the EU: Legal mobilization, transformative constitutionalism and value-enforcement
through the EU citizen 160
3.1. Legal mobilization by individuals or groups 160
3.2. The institutional condition for successful legal mobilization: Transformative constitutionalism in Kirchberg 161
3.3. The EU citizen as central actor in the EU’s composite democracy: Remedial participatory democracy 163
3.4. The Haves and Have-nots: EU actors in a skewed system 166
3.5. The EU citizen and the Member State on the OS-RP spectrum 167
Conclusion 169

From passivity to empowerment of the European patient in the light of new digital challenges
Tiphaine Maloingne 171

1. The moderna tale of David against Goliath 174
1.1. Genesis of inequality: the inevitable struggle for data protection 174
1.2. Reinforcement of inequality: the patient’s vulnerability facing health data protection 177

2. Reversing the tale of David against Goliath: A European patient granted with voice and rights 179
2.1. Premises of a voice: a diversity of actions in favor of the European patient 180
2.2. A European patient empowered: a toolbox of digital fundamental rights 183

3. A patient prone to empowerment: a gradual inclusion in the legislative process 186
3.1. A patient empowered and heard on a micro level 186
3.2. A patient empowered and heard on a macro level 188
Concluding remarks 191

Silencing falsehoods: Enhancing the EU’s unmuting
power trough tackling gendered disinformation
Valentina Golunova 193

1. The “unmuting” narrative in the EU’s digital policy 197
2. Critical appraisal of the EU’s regulatory measures on gendered
disinformation 201
2.1. Legal instruments applicable to gendered disinformation 202
2.2. Mechanisms for addressing gendered disinformation 203
2.3. Remedies available to victims of gendered disinformation 208
Conclusion 211

From silence to empowerment: Rethinking the EU’s legal
response to hate speech
Stevi Kitsou 213

Introduction 213

1. Understanding Hate Speech: Societal and legal perspectives 217

2. Addressing hate speech speech within the Council of Europe 220

3. Combating hate speech in the EU 224
3.1. The Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA on
combatting certain forms and expressions of racism and
xenophobia by the means of criminal law 226
3.2. The Audiovisual Media Services Directive 230
3.3. The Code of Conduct on Countering illegal Hate
speech Online under the e-Commerce Directive and the
Digital Services Act 231
3.4. Extending the list of EU crimes in Article 83 TFEU to
hate speech and hate crime 234

4. Towards a coherent EU Approach to regulating hate speech 238
Conclusion 243

The identification of obligations under EU law: tools that can be used by relocated persons to voice their interests?
Zoé Briard 245

1. Relocated individuals in the EU: silenced by the lack of recognition 248
1.1. The existence of processes of planned relocations related to climate change in Europe, the examples of the
Danube floodplains in Austria and the Simbach torrent in Germany 249
1.2. The challenges faced to be recognized as relocated persons and the consequent muting effect of this situation 251
1.3. The EU’s position regarding planned relocations and climate mobilities 253

2. Planned relocations and human rights: promising and yet unconvincing solutions at the EU level 255
2.1. The right to life (Article 2 of the EU Charter and Article 2 of the ECHR) 256
2.2. The freedom of movement (Article 45 of the EU Charter) 258
2.3. The right to property (Article 17 of the EU Charter) 259
2.4. The right to respect for private and family life
(Article 7 of the EU Charter and Article 8 of the ECHR) 260

3. The Water Framework Directive and the EU Floods Directive, an invitation for a more in-depth analysis of EU law to voice the interests of persons relocated 261
Conclusion 262

The refugee resettlement selection process: The new European framework as a gamechanger in giving voice to refugees
Caroline Leclercq 265

1. The new EU resettlement framework: A “common procedure under an EU regulation” 269
1.1. EU priorities 269
1.2. Admission procedure 270
1.3. Procedural aspects 273
1.4. Other actors 275

2. Does the new EU resettlement framework contribute to “unmute” refugees? 275
2.1. Access to resettlement and expression of refugee’s
concerns: Content of the regulation 276
2.2. Effective protection of refugees’ fundamental right: EU
Charter of fundamental rights 279
Conclusion 283