Freedom of Expression and Intellectual Property before the European Courts

Freedom of Expression and Intellectual Property before the European Courts external link

Izyumenko, E. & Geiger, C.

In: E. Izyumenko and C. Geiger, Human Rights and Intellectual Property before the European Courts: A Case Commentary on the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights , Edward Elgar Publishing, 2025, Series: Elgar Commentaries in European Law

Abstract

This paper presents the second chapter of the forthcoming book Human Rights and Intellectual Property before the European Courts: A Case Commentary on the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, the first comprehensive guide to how Europe’s highest courts address the intersection of intellectual property (IP) and human rights. This chapter analyses the relationship between freedom of expression and intellectual property in European law, focusing on how IP rights are balanced against the privileged yet limited right to free expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 11 of the EU Charter. It outlines the three-part test of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) for assessing interferences with freedom of expression and situates IP protection within the “rights of others” that may justify restrictions. The chapter then examines copyright and trademark law as the two principal areas in which this conflict has arisen before the ECtHR and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). In copyright, it highlights the growing engagement of both courts with freedom of expression claims and the divergence between the ECtHR’s acceptance of freedom of expression as an external limitation on copyright and the CJEU’s preference for internal balancing through copyright exceptions interpreted in the light of fundamental rights. In trademark law, it explores disputes over third-party expressive uses and refusals of trademark registration, noting the courts’ increasingly nuanced and contextual approach. Overall, the chapter shows how freedom of expression has become a central, though differently framed, constraint on IP protection in Europe.

Links

Freedom of expression, Intellectual property

RIS

TY  - CHAP
AU  - Izyumenko, E.
AU  - Geiger, C.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-12-15
T1  - Freedom of Expression and Intellectual Property before the European Courts
UR  - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5923642
DO  - https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5923642
AB  - This paper presents the second chapter of the forthcoming book Human Rights and Intellectual Property before the European Courts: A Case Commentary on the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, the first comprehensive guide to how Europe’s highest courts address the intersection of intellectual property (IP) and human rights. This chapter analyses the relationship between freedom of expression and intellectual property in European law, focusing on how IP rights are balanced against the privileged yet limited right to free expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 11 of the EU Charter. It outlines the three-part test of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) for assessing interferences with freedom of expression and situates IP protection within the “rights of others” that may justify restrictions.

The chapter then examines copyright and trademark law as the two principal areas in which this conflict has arisen before the ECtHR and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). In copyright, it highlights the growing engagement of both courts with freedom of expression claims and the divergence between the ECtHR’s acceptance of freedom of expression as an external limitation on copyright and the CJEU’s preference for internal balancing through copyright exceptions interpreted in the light of fundamental rights. In trademark law, it explores disputes over third-party expressive uses and refusals of trademark registration, noting the courts’ increasingly nuanced and contextual approach. Overall, the chapter shows how freedom of expression has become a central, though differently framed, constraint on IP protection in Europe.
K1  - Freedom of expression
K1  - Intellectual property
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Chapter{nokey,
	title = {Freedom of Expression and Intellectual Property before the European Courts},
	author = {Izyumenko, E. and Geiger, C.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5923642},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-12-15},
	abstract = {This paper presents the second chapter of the forthcoming book Human Rights and Intellectual Property before the European Courts: A Case Commentary on the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, the first comprehensive guide to how Europe’s highest courts address the intersection of intellectual property (IP) and human rights. This chapter analyses the relationship between freedom of expression and intellectual property in European law, focusing on how IP rights are balanced against the privileged yet limited right to free expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 11 of the EU Charter. It outlines the three-part test of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) for assessing interferences with freedom of expression and situates IP protection within the “rights of others” that may justify restrictions.

The chapter then examines copyright and trademark law as the two principal areas in which this conflict has arisen before the ECtHR and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). In copyright, it highlights the growing engagement of both courts with freedom of expression claims and the divergence between the ECtHR’s acceptance of freedom of expression as an external limitation on copyright and the CJEU’s preference for internal balancing through copyright exceptions interpreted in the light of fundamental rights. In trademark law, it explores disputes over third-party expressive uses and refusals of trademark registration, noting the courts’ increasingly nuanced and contextual approach. Overall, the chapter shows how freedom of expression has become a central, though differently framed, constraint on IP protection in Europe.},
	keywords = {Freedom of expression, Intellectual property},
}

Save .bib

Fundamental Rights in Out-of-Court Dispute Settlement under the Digital Services Act external link

Ruschemeier, H. & Quintais, J.

2025

Abstract

This paper argues that certified out-of-court dispute settlement (ODS) bodies under Article 21 of the Digital Services Act (DSA) should apply a structured fundamental rights review to platform content moderation, operationalised through the concept of case salience. Situating ODS within the DSA's broader regulatory architecture-particularly Articles 14(4), 17, and 20-the paper contends that Article 21 provides the procedural complement to Article 14(4)'s substantive duty to enforce terms of service "diligently, objectively and proportionately, with due regard to fundamental rights." Rather than extending the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR) horizontally in a direct sense, ODS bodies give effect to Charter-conforming statutory obligations owed by platforms, interpreted in light of Article 52(1) CFR. Drawing on jurisprudence from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), and national courts, the paper shows how freedom of expression and information interacts with countervailing rights-such as the freedom to conduct a business, privacy and data protection, and human dignity-in the context of online moderation. It proposes an intensity-of-review model: a deeper, meritsbased proportionality analysis for high-impact cases (e.g. political speech, account suspensions, issues of systemic relevance), and a lighter, procedural-sufficiency check for routine disputes. The paper emphasises that ODS remains non-judicial and operates without prejudice to Article 47 CFR and the availability of national court remedies. Over time, reasoned ODS decisions could evolve into a body of soft law, enhancing consistency and transparency in platform accountability. Ultimately, ODS bodies under the DSA represent a novel experiment in multi-actor rights protection. Their success will depend on whether they can reconcile accessibility, efficiency, and rights-based rigour, ensuring that content moderation in Europe evolves in line with the constitutional values of the Charter.

Links

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5900422

Content moderation, Digital Services Act (DSA), Fundamental rights

RIS

TY  - UNPD
AU  - Ruschemeier, H.
AU  - Quintais, J.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-12-10
T1  - Fundamental Rights in Out-of-Court Dispute Settlement under the Digital Services Act
UR  - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5900422
AB  - This paper argues that certified out-of-court dispute settlement (ODS) bodies under Article 21 of the Digital Services Act (DSA) should apply a structured fundamental rights review to platform content moderation, operationalised through the concept of case salience. Situating ODS within the DSA\'s broader regulatory architecture-particularly Articles 14(4), 17, and 20-the paper contends that Article 21 provides the procedural complement to Article 14(4)\'s substantive duty to enforce terms of service \"diligently, objectively and proportionately, with due regard to fundamental rights.\" Rather than extending the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR) horizontally in a direct sense, ODS bodies give effect to Charter-conforming statutory obligations owed by platforms, interpreted in light of Article 52(1) CFR. Drawing on jurisprudence from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), and national courts, the paper shows how freedom of expression and information interacts with countervailing rights-such as the freedom to conduct a business, privacy and data protection, and human dignity-in the context of online moderation. It proposes an intensity-of-review model: a deeper, meritsbased proportionality analysis for high-impact cases (e.g. political speech, account suspensions, issues of systemic relevance), and a lighter, procedural-sufficiency check for routine disputes. The paper emphasises that ODS remains non-judicial and operates without prejudice to Article 47 CFR and the availability of national court remedies. Over time, reasoned ODS decisions could evolve into a body of soft law, enhancing consistency and transparency in platform accountability. Ultimately, ODS bodies under the DSA represent a novel experiment in multi-actor rights protection. Their success will depend on whether they can reconcile accessibility, efficiency, and rights-based rigour, ensuring that content moderation in Europe evolves in line with the constitutional values of the Charter.
K1  - Content moderation
K1  - Digital Services Act (DSA)
K1  - Fundamental rights
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Working paper{nokey,
	title = {Fundamental Rights in Out-of-Court Dispute Settlement under the Digital Services Act},
	author = {Ruschemeier, H. and Quintais, J.},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-12-10},
	abstract = {This paper argues that certified out-of-court dispute settlement (ODS) bodies under Article 21 of the Digital Services Act (DSA) should apply a structured fundamental rights review to platform content moderation, operationalised through the concept of case salience. Situating ODS within the DSA\'s broader regulatory architecture-particularly Articles 14(4), 17, and 20-the paper contends that Article 21 provides the procedural complement to Article 14(4)\'s substantive duty to enforce terms of service \"diligently, objectively and proportionately, with due regard to fundamental rights.\" Rather than extending the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR) horizontally in a direct sense, ODS bodies give effect to Charter-conforming statutory obligations owed by platforms, interpreted in light of Article 52(1) CFR. Drawing on jurisprudence from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), and national courts, the paper shows how freedom of expression and information interacts with countervailing rights-such as the freedom to conduct a business, privacy and data protection, and human dignity-in the context of online moderation. It proposes an intensity-of-review model: a deeper, meritsbased proportionality analysis for high-impact cases (e.g. political speech, account suspensions, issues of systemic relevance), and a lighter, procedural-sufficiency check for routine disputes. The paper emphasises that ODS remains non-judicial and operates without prejudice to Article 47 CFR and the availability of national court remedies. Over time, reasoned ODS decisions could evolve into a body of soft law, enhancing consistency and transparency in platform accountability. Ultimately, ODS bodies under the DSA represent a novel experiment in multi-actor rights protection. Their success will depend on whether they can reconcile accessibility, efficiency, and rights-based rigour, ensuring that content moderation in Europe evolves in line with the constitutional values of the Charter.},
	keywords = {Content moderation, Digital Services Act (DSA), Fundamental rights},
}

Save .bib

Music streaming debates 2025 roundup: wrap-up for the streaming services as we know them? – Part 1 external link

Valk, E.G.

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2025

Links

https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/copyright-blog/music-streaming-debates-2025-roundup-wrap-up-for-the-streaming-services-as-we-know-them-part-1/

Copyright, music, streaming services

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Reconciling EU Copyright Protection With the Right to Research: Why We Need a General Research Exemption (Now!) external link

Senftleben, M.

Verfassungsblog, 2025

Links

https://verfassungsblog.de/eu-copyright-protection-right-to-research/

Copyright, right to research

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Trademark Law and Political Expression: The Case of IKEA v. Vlaams Belang and Beyond external link

Izyumenko, E.

2025

Abstract

This article offers a comprehensive exploration of the evolving interface between trademark law and freedom of political expression in Europe, using the CJEU case IKEA v. Vlaams Belang as a focal but not exhaustive case study. It argues that the dispute exemplifies a much broader and increasingly urgent structural question: how EU trademark law – especially in its protection of reputed marks – can be reconciled with the constitutional commitments to political speech, artistic creativity, and democratic participation embedded in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 11 of the EU Charter. Against a backdrop of the expanding preliminary infringement criteria of “use in the course of trade” and “use in relation to goods or services”, as well as the uniquely far-reaching Benelux “super anti-dilution” regime, the article demonstrates that “due cause” has become the principal doctrinal locus for internalising freedom-of-expression concerns within trademark law. Drawing on Strasbourg jurisprudence, it develops a holistic framework for a free-speech-conforming interpretation of “due cause”, analysing both the criteria suggested by the Belgian referring court and additional factors central to the European Court of Human Rights’ proportionality review, including commerciality, the value of political speech and artistic expression, the reputation of the mark and the power of corporate symbols, availability of alternatives, tolerance for offensive expression, the limits imposed by hate speech, and the compelled speech doctrine. The article concludes that failing to interpret “due cause” in a speech-sensitive way would risk enabling trademark rights to override core democratic freedoms.

Links

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5783265

Freedom of expression, Political speech, Trademark law

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Izyumenko, E.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-11-25
T1  - Trademark Law and Political Expression: The Case of IKEA v. Vlaams Belang and Beyond
UR  - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5783265
AB  - This article offers a comprehensive exploration of the evolving interface between trademark law and freedom of political expression in Europe, using the CJEU case IKEA v. Vlaams Belang as a focal but not exhaustive case study. It argues that the dispute exemplifies a much broader and increasingly urgent structural question: how EU trademark law – especially in its protection of reputed marks – can be reconciled with the constitutional commitments to political speech, artistic creativity, and democratic participation embedded in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 11 of the EU Charter. Against a backdrop of the expanding preliminary infringement criteria of “use in the course of trade” and “use in relation to goods or services”, as well as the uniquely far-reaching Benelux “super anti-dilution” regime, the article demonstrates that “due cause” has become the principal doctrinal locus for internalising freedom-of-expression concerns within trademark law. Drawing on Strasbourg jurisprudence, it develops a holistic framework for a free-speech-conforming interpretation of “due cause”, analysing both the criteria suggested by the Belgian referring court and additional factors central to the European Court of Human Rights’ proportionality review, including commerciality, the value of political speech and artistic expression, the reputation of the mark and the power of corporate symbols, availability of alternatives, tolerance for offensive expression, the limits imposed by hate speech, and the compelled speech doctrine. The article concludes that failing to interpret “due cause” in a speech-sensitive way would risk enabling trademark rights to override core democratic freedoms.
K1  - Freedom of expression
K1  - Political speech
K1  - Trademark law
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Trademark Law and Political Expression: The Case of IKEA v. Vlaams Belang and Beyond},
	author = {Izyumenko, E.},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-11-25},
	abstract = {This article offers a comprehensive exploration of the evolving interface between trademark law and freedom of political expression in Europe, using the CJEU case IKEA v. Vlaams Belang as a focal but not exhaustive case study. It argues that the dispute exemplifies a much broader and increasingly urgent structural question: how EU trademark law – especially in its protection of reputed marks – can be reconciled with the constitutional commitments to political speech, artistic creativity, and democratic participation embedded in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 11 of the EU Charter. Against a backdrop of the expanding preliminary infringement criteria of “use in the course of trade” and “use in relation to goods or services”, as well as the uniquely far-reaching Benelux “super anti-dilution” regime, the article demonstrates that “due cause” has become the principal doctrinal locus for internalising freedom-of-expression concerns within trademark law. Drawing on Strasbourg jurisprudence, it develops a holistic framework for a free-speech-conforming interpretation of “due cause”, analysing both the criteria suggested by the Belgian referring court and additional factors central to the European Court of Human Rights’ proportionality review, including commerciality, the value of political speech and artistic expression, the reputation of the mark and the power of corporate symbols, availability of alternatives, tolerance for offensive expression, the limits imposed by hate speech, and the compelled speech doctrine. The article concludes that failing to interpret “due cause” in a speech-sensitive way would risk enabling trademark rights to override core democratic freedoms.},
	keywords = {Freedom of expression, Political speech, Trademark law},
}

Save .bib

Waiting for the DSA’s Big Enforcement Moment external link

Jóźwiak, M.

DSA Observatory, 2025

Abstract

This blog post explores the issue of DSA enforcement by the European Commission, focusing on the law’s systemic risk management provisions. It first briefly sketches the Commission’s role in regulatory oversight of the systemic risk framework and then sums up enforcement efforts to date, considering also the role of geopolitics in the Commission’s enforcement calculus.

Links

https://dsa-observatory.eu/2025/11/26/waiting-for-the-dsas-big-enforcement-moment/

Digital Services Act (DSA)

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

The Obligations of Providers of General-Purpose AI Models external link

Veale, M. & Quintais, J.

Fortcoming in: Zanfir Fortuna, Malgieri, González Fuster and Mantelero (eds.) The Artificial Intelligence Act — A Thematic Commentary, Hart Publishing, 2026. This version: November , 2025

Abstract

During the legislative process, the EU Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act was amended to include provisions related to general-purpose AI (GPAI) models. These broadly relate to transparency towards downstream users and relevant regulators, in addition to obligations connected to intellectual property. In this paper, we provide detailed analysis of these new provisions in the context of current technological applications and emerging trajectories, connecting them to computing literature and practice, and the broader context of connected and adjacent legal regimes, in particular copyright and relevant emerging case law. We find that there are a significant number of inclarities, tensions and contradictions both within the text, between the text and other legal regimes, and between the text and guideline documents, such as the Code of Practice on General-Purpose AI and recent guidelines by the European Commission. We identify a range of issues with the scoping of the provisions which may undermine its policy goals and create loopholes for regulatory avoidance, such as those relating to non-commercial models, open-source models, and model finetuning along the value chain. We find that the Code of Practice contains significant omissions and misstatements, some of which may present a compliance risk for an entity choosing to rely on the Code. We do not consider the provisions on GPAI models which present a systemic risk, which are dealt with elsewhere in the volume which this work will form a part of.

Links

AI Act, code of practice, Copyright, Transparency

RIS

TY  - CHAP
AU  - Veale, M.
AU  - Quintais, J.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-11-17
T1  - The Obligations of Providers of General-Purpose AI Models
UR  - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5744602
DO  - https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5744602
AB  - During the legislative process, the EU Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act was amended to include provisions related to general-purpose AI (GPAI) models. These broadly relate to transparency towards downstream users and relevant regulators, in addition to obligations connected to intellectual property. In this paper, we provide detailed analysis of these new provisions in the context of current technological applications and emerging trajectories, connecting them to computing literature and practice, and the broader context of connected and adjacent legal regimes, in particular copyright and relevant emerging case law. We find that there are a significant number of inclarities, tensions and contradictions both within the text, between the text and other legal regimes, and between the text and guideline documents, such as the Code of Practice on General-Purpose AI and recent guidelines by the European Commission. We identify a range of issues with the scoping of the provisions which may undermine its policy goals and create loopholes for regulatory avoidance, such as those relating to non-commercial models, open-source models, and model finetuning along the value chain. We find that the Code of Practice contains significant omissions and misstatements, some of which may present a compliance risk for an entity choosing to rely on the Code. We do not consider the provisions on GPAI models which present a systemic risk, which are dealt with elsewhere in the volume which this work will form a part of.
K1  - AI Act
K1  - code of practice
K1  - Copyright
K1  - Transparency
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Chapter{nokey,
	title = {The Obligations of Providers of General-Purpose AI Models},
	author = {Veale, M. and Quintais, J.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5744602},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-11-17},
	abstract = {During the legislative process, the EU Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act was amended to include provisions related to general-purpose AI (GPAI) models. These broadly relate to transparency towards downstream users and relevant regulators, in addition to obligations connected to intellectual property. In this paper, we provide detailed analysis of these new provisions in the context of current technological applications and emerging trajectories, connecting them to computing literature and practice, and the broader context of connected and adjacent legal regimes, in particular copyright and relevant emerging case law. We find that there are a significant number of inclarities, tensions and contradictions both within the text, between the text and other legal regimes, and between the text and guideline documents, such as the Code of Practice on General-Purpose AI and recent guidelines by the European Commission. We identify a range of issues with the scoping of the provisions which may undermine its policy goals and create loopholes for regulatory avoidance, such as those relating to non-commercial models, open-source models, and model finetuning along the value chain. We find that the Code of Practice contains significant omissions and misstatements, some of which may present a compliance risk for an entity choosing to rely on the Code. We do not consider the provisions on GPAI models which present a systemic risk, which are dealt with elsewhere in the volume which this work will form a part of.},
	keywords = {AI Act, code of practice, Copyright, Transparency},
}

Save .bib

National Security and New Forms of Surveillance: From the Data Retention Saga to a Data Subject Centred Approach

Tzanou, M. & Vogiatzoglou, P.

European Papers, vol. 10, iss. : 3, pp: 803-836, 2025

Abstract

National security is a regulatory complex area that brings together public and private actors performing a variety of functions for the safeguarding of the EU Member States’ national interests. The article critically reflects on the applicability of EU law in this area by examining the complexities and controversies surrounding the respective judiciary and legislative approaches as well as the emerging surveillance practices deployed under the veil of national security. It argues that, while it is laudable that some aspects of national security were brought within the scope of application of EU law by the CJEU through its data retention jurisprudence, the grounding of the EU law applicability on the activities of private entities (controllers) is problematic. In particular, it creates significant legal uncertainties as private and public bodies are increasingly intertwined in the field of security and Member States push back against such expansion of EU law, while the case law does not take into account new forms of intrusive surveillance such as Pegasus. To counter these issues, the article proposes a new data subject-focused approach for the grounding of the scope of application of EU law -including to national security measures- which shifts the focus from the entity carrying out the national security operation (controller) to the individuals being affected (data subject). As such, it aligns better with fundamental rights and the constitutional foundations of EU data protection law and is urgently needed in the rapidly privatised and algorithmised area of national security.

Links

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15166/2499-8249/855

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Tzanou, M.
AU  - Vogiatzoglou, P.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-11-18
T1  - National Security and New Forms of Surveillance: From the Data Retention Saga to a Data Subject Centred Approach
JO  - European Papers
VL  - 10
IS  - 3
SP  - 803-836
DO  - https://doi.org/10.15166/2499-8249/855
AB  - National security is a regulatory complex area that brings together public and private actors performing a variety of functions for the safeguarding of the EU Member States’ national interests. The article critically reflects on the applicability of EU law in this area by examining the complexities and controversies surrounding the respective judiciary and legislative approaches as well as the emerging surveillance practices deployed under the veil of national security. It argues that, while it is laudable that some aspects of national security were brought within the scope of application of EU law by the CJEU through its data retention jurisprudence, the grounding of the EU law applicability on the activities of private entities (controllers) is problematic. In particular, it creates significant legal uncertainties as private and public bodies are increasingly intertwined in the field of security and Member States push back against such expansion of EU law, while the case law does not take into account new forms of intrusive surveillance such as Pegasus. To counter these issues, the article proposes a new data subject-focused approach for the grounding of the scope of application of EU law -including to national security measures- which shifts the focus from the entity carrying out the national security operation (controller) to the individuals being affected (data subject). As such, it aligns better with fundamental rights and the constitutional foundations of EU data protection law and is urgently needed in the rapidly privatised and algorithmised area of national security.
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {National Security and New Forms of Surveillance: From the Data Retention Saga to a Data Subject Centred Approach},
	author = {Tzanou, M. and Vogiatzoglou, P.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.15166/2499-8249/855},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-11-18},
	journal = {European Papers},
	volume = {10},
	issue = {3},
	pages = {803-836},
	abstract = {National security is a regulatory complex area that brings together public and private actors performing a variety of functions for the safeguarding of the EU Member States’ national interests. The article critically reflects on the applicability of EU law in this area by examining the complexities and controversies surrounding the respective judiciary and legislative approaches as well as the emerging surveillance practices deployed under the veil of national security. It argues that, while it is laudable that some aspects of national security were brought within the scope of application of EU law by the CJEU through its data retention jurisprudence, the grounding of the EU law applicability on the activities of private entities (controllers) is problematic. In particular, it creates significant legal uncertainties as private and public bodies are increasingly intertwined in the field of security and Member States push back against such expansion of EU law, while the case law does not take into account new forms of intrusive surveillance such as Pegasus. To counter these issues, the article proposes a new data subject-focused approach for the grounding of the scope of application of EU law -including to national security measures- which shifts the focus from the entity carrying out the national security operation (controller) to the individuals being affected (data subject). As such, it aligns better with fundamental rights and the constitutional foundations of EU data protection law and is urgently needed in the rapidly privatised and algorithmised area of national security.},
}

Save .bib

Voorbereid external link

van Daalen, O.

POM press, 2025, pp: 264, ISBN: 9789493434196

Abstract

Wetenschappers zijn het erover eens: wereldwijde catastrofe is nog nooit zo dichtbij geweest; de dreiging is nu groter dan tijdens de Koude Oorlog. Rechter-plaatsvervanger, advocaat, burgerrechtenactivist en journalist Ot van Daalen zag en voelde het overal om zich heen, en besloot het beest in de bek te kijken. Hij spitte overheidsdocumenten door, sprak unieke experts die normaal achter de schermen blijven, reisde het hele land door, bezocht bunkers en volgde survivaltraining. Zo kreeg hij een helder beeld van de rampscenario's voor Nederland - wat er kan gebeuren, hoe de overheid dan zal reageren en wat jij zelf kan doen om je beter voor te bereiden.

Links

https://voorbereidboek.nl/

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Tokenistic Decentralisation or Non-Tokenistic Distributism: Capitalist Blockchain Narratives and Varoufakis’s Alternative external link

Smethurst, R., Barbereau, T. & Bodó, B.

Triple C: Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, vol. 23, iss. : 2, pp: 320-337, 2025

Abstract

Yanis Varoufakis wrote a science fiction novel, Another Now: Dispatches from an Alternative Present, to encourage post-capitalist political projects in our so-called real world. Costa, a protagonist from the novel, invents a portal that enables communication between his universe and a parallel universe. The two universes diverged after the global financial crisis in 2008. Private money networks like Bitcoin emerged in Costa’s capitalist universe, while in the alternative universe, a post-capitalist society uses blockchain technology for “a plain vanilla public payments system”. Our essay draws a sophistic comparison between liberal-cum-libertarian blockchain narratives from our universe and the science-fictional blockchain narrative from Another Now. We distinguish tokenistic decentralisation (a liberal-cum-libertarian notion) and non-tokenistic distributism (a post-capitalist concept). Liberal-cum-libertarian narratives treat blockchain as a cause of decentralisation and self-sovereignty (individual empowerment). Varoufakis’s science-fictional narrative, by contrast, describes the use of blockchain for a distributist political cause.

Links

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Smethurst, R.
AU  - Barbereau, T.
AU  - Bodó, B.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-11-10
T1  - Tokenistic Decentralisation or Non-Tokenistic Distributism: Capitalist Blockchain Narratives and Varoufakis’s Alternative
JO  - Triple C: Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society
VL  - 23
IS  - 2
SP  - 320-337
UR  - https://triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/1568
DO  - https://doi.org/10.31269/y8jpac38
AB  - Yanis Varoufakis wrote a science fiction novel, Another Now: Dispatches from an Alternative Present, to encourage post-capitalist political projects in our so-called real world. Costa, a protagonist from the novel, invents a portal that enables communication between his universe and a parallel universe. The two universes diverged after the global financial crisis in 2008. Private money networks like Bitcoin emerged in Costa’s capitalist universe, while in the alternative universe, a post-capitalist society uses blockchain technology for “a plain vanilla public payments system”. Our essay draws a sophistic comparison between liberal-cum-libertarian blockchain narratives from our universe and the science-fictional blockchain narrative from Another Now. We distinguish tokenistic decentralisation (a liberal-cum-libertarian notion) and non-tokenistic distributism (a post-capitalist concept). Liberal-cum-libertarian narratives treat blockchain as a cause of decentralisation and self-sovereignty (individual empowerment). Varoufakis’s science-fictional narrative, by contrast, describes the use of blockchain for a distributist political cause.
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Tokenistic Decentralisation or Non-Tokenistic Distributism: Capitalist Blockchain Narratives and Varoufakis’s Alternative},
	author = {Smethurst, R. and Barbereau, T. and Bodó, B.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.31269/y8jpac38},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-11-10},
	journal = {Triple C: Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society},
	volume = {23},
	issue = {2},
	pages = {320-337},
	abstract = {Yanis Varoufakis wrote a science fiction novel, Another Now: Dispatches from an Alternative Present, to encourage post-capitalist political projects in our so-called real world. Costa, a protagonist from the novel, invents a portal that enables communication between his universe and a parallel universe. The two universes diverged after the global financial crisis in 2008. Private money networks like Bitcoin emerged in Costa’s capitalist universe, while in the alternative universe, a post-capitalist society uses blockchain technology for “a plain vanilla public payments system”. Our essay draws a sophistic comparison between liberal-cum-libertarian blockchain narratives from our universe and the science-fictional blockchain narrative from Another Now. We distinguish tokenistic decentralisation (a liberal-cum-libertarian notion) and non-tokenistic distributism (a post-capitalist concept). Liberal-cum-libertarian narratives treat blockchain as a cause of decentralisation and self-sovereignty (individual empowerment). Varoufakis’s science-fictional narrative, by contrast, describes the use of blockchain for a distributist political cause.},
}

Save .bib

Top Keywords

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex