MLex: US technology giants will continue to be obliged to comply with the EU's Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act, the European Commission said today in the wake of threats by US President Donald Trump to retaliate against jurisdictions that impose fines or taxes on big American tech companies. 'If needed, the EU will respond swiftly and decisively to defend its rights and regulatory autonomy against unjustified measures', a commission spokesman said.

Why harmonisation is needed The divergence between Member States' laws has an impact on: • the recovery rates of creditors in different jurisdictions • investment decisions, and • the restructuring of groups of companies A more coherent approach at EU level would not only improve returns to creditors and the flow of cross-border investment, but would also have a positive impact on entrepreneurship, employment and innovation. The World Bank has in the past produced substantial reports to show improved insolvency laws promote greater investment in that country (see Practice Note: Table of advantages and disadvantages of restructuring in various jurisdictions worldwide and News Analysis: Coronavirus (COVID-19)—A nucleus for significant reform), and discrepancies between national frameworks lead to increased costs and uncertainties in assessing the risks of investing in another Member State (as noted by the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB); see: LNB News 12/05/2025 17). The Regulation (EU) 2015/848 (OJ L141 5.6.2015 p 19), Recast Regulation on Insolvency [EU Recast Regulation on Insolvency] does not seek to

The Commission, European Parliament, and Council of the EU have jointly published their ‘One Europe, One Market Roadmap’, covering the institutions’ collective legislative priorities up to the end of 2027.

Member States, with the support of the European Commission and the EU Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA), published the first report on the cybersecurity and resilience of the EU’s telecommunications and electricity sectors. The report points to concerns about a number of risks, including risks to supply chain security, the lack of cyber professionals and the risks posed by malicious activities from cyber criminals and state-sponsored threat actors. More specifically, the risk evaluation uncovers major technical and non-technical risks for telecommunications and electricity sectors. Supply chain vulnerabilities, ransomware, data wipers, and zero-day exploits are major pressing concerns. Electricity faces insider threats, while telecoms faces roaming and botnet attacks. Physical risks like cable sabotage are difficult to mitigate. Recommendations include improving resilience through information sharing, vulnerability monitoring, personnel vetting, enhancing cyber situational awareness, strengthening contingency planning and cross-sector collaboration, and addressing supply chain security risks through assessments and an EU framework. Given the critical infrastructure involved and evolving threats, the report urged swift implementation of these resilience measures by Member States, the Commission, and ENISA.

The Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the European Commission have signed a Joint Declaration setting out the European Union’s legislative priorities for 2026. The Declaration outlines ten priority areas, including measures to boost competitiveness and resilience, advance legislative simplification, strengthen defence and security, safeguard democracy, manage migration, and progress negotiations on the next Multiannual Financial Framework. The institutions have committed to prioritising work on these initiatives throughout 2026 and to monitoring progress on a regular basis, including the early identification of any risks that may delay implementation. The Joint Declaration will be published in the EU’s Official Journal and implemented by the co-legislators.

Law360: Life insurers across the EU are under mounting pressure from regulators to demonstrate that their products provide customers with fair value, according to a rating agency's new report published 11 June 2024.

The original version of this note was written by the late Professor Alexander Türk. The limits of EU competences The limits of EU competences are governed by the principle of conferral (also known as the principle of attributed powers). This principle ensures that the EU does not extend its powers beyond those conferred by the EU Treaties. According to the principle of conferral, as codified under Article 5(2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU): ‘…the [EU] shall act only within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties to attain the objectives set out therein. Competences not conferred upon the EU in the Treaties remain with the Member States.’ The second aspect to the principle of conferral is the delineation of competences between the EU institutions, which is laid down in Article 13(2) TEU stating that ‘each institution shall act within the limits of the powers conferred upon it in the Treaties’. The fact that the EU is empowered to take an action in an area

The European Commission has introduced the competitiveness compass, a strategic framework aimed at guiding the Commission's work for the next five years, which lists priority actions to enhance Europe's competitiveness. This is the first major initiative of the Commission in this mandate. This competitiveness compass is building on the recommendations of the Draghi report on ‘The future of European competitiveness’, published in September 2024 (see: LNB News 10/09/2024 44). The initiative aspires to position Europe as a leader in the development, manufacturing, and marketing of future technologies, services, and clean products, while also achieving climate neutrality. Despite lagging behind other major economies in productivity growth over the past two decades, the EU possesses the necessary resources, including a skilled workforce, capital, savings, and a unique social infrastructure, to reverse this trend. However, urgent action is required to address persistent barriers and structural weaknesses. Full details are available in the competitive compass document and more details can be found below.

MLex: Ryanair’s challenge to an Irish dawn raid ordered by Italy’s competition authority will come before EU judges to rule on whether the company can access certain communications between the two regulators. Italy’s Council of State is seeking guidance from the EU’s Court of Justice on whether the exchanges were ‘internal’ and therefore blocked from disclosure to Ryanair.

Common name given to the court decisions issued by any of the tribunals that form part of the Court of Justice of the EU (Court of Justice, General Court and Civil Service Tribunal).

The EU has launched a new plan for preventing, preparing for and responding to health crises. It is intended to improve coordinated action during emergencies by providing tools for sharing information, expertise and technical assistance. The plan covers all types of health threats and sets out the EU’s crisis management framework, including available resources and surveillance systems. Drawing on lessons from coronavirus (COVID-19), the plan requires Member States to develop national crisis strategies aligned with EU structures. It will be updated regularly and tested through simulation exercises, with the first scheduled for 2026.

EU Law analysis: The Court of Justice held that national laws requiring a person to carry a valid travel document when they travel to another Member State or when they return to their Member State of nationality is compatible with EU law. That is so even where such a failure to carry a travel document amounts to an offence subject to criminal sanction. The mode of transport (here a pleasure boat) is irrelevant. EU free movement law is subject to a requirement that those seeking to rely on it can prove their entitlement by carrying a travel document. Those charged with a criminal offence for travelling without the required prove of their identity and nationality cannot therefore rely on EU law in their defence. Written by Eva Doerr, barrister at Garden Court Chambers.