Written by Anna Flynn.
The annual Europe Day celebrations mark the anniversary of what is widely regarded as the founding act of the European Union.
After World War II, coal and steel were considered indispensable due to their role in economic growth and defence. Head of the French Planning Committee, Jean Monnet, and French Foreign Minister, Robert Schuman, believed that pooling these resources would not only be financially strategic, but would consolidate European peace and unity.
Schuman presented this concept during a press conference on 9 May 1950 at the Quai d’Orsay. The text, known as the Schuman Declaration; outlined that ‘solidarity in production’ would make another war ‘not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible’. It stated that ‘world peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it.’
In April 1951, Belgium, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg signed the Treaty of Paris, which created the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). After entering into force in 1952, the ECSC facilitated a common market and freedom of movement of coal and steel between the six signatories. Notably, this was the first supranational organisation in Europe.
The ECSC was comprised of a High Authority that had decision-making competencies (the foundation of what is currently the European Commission), as well as a Special Council of Ministers, a Court of Justice, and a Consultative Committee.
The ECSC was also supported by a Common Assembly, which had 78 members (selected by national parliaments), supervisory power, and the right to dismiss the High Authority.
As the ECSC Common Assembly had the autonomy to write its rules of procedures, it unanimously decided, at its plenary session in June 1953, to allow the creation of political groups. With this decision, it became the world’s first international assembly organised in political groups (other international assemblies established after World War II were largely structured by grouping nations).
In 1958, the Common Assembly was renamed the European Parliamentary Assembly, , and Schuman was elected as its President.
Now, 76 years later, it is the European Parliament’s 10th legislative term; and it is made up of 720 Members across eight political groups; representing over 450 million citizens in 27 Member States. Between 2014 and 2019, 396 proposals were presented under the ordinary legislative procedure, all of which involved Parliament.
The peace, strength and unity, and integration that Robert Schuman championed several decades ago are values that continue to characterise the EU’s priorities and actions today. From an initiative to integrate industry to the world’s largest supranational democracy, the 9 May celebrations commemorate the inception of an idea that changed Europe forever.
Links:Ce fut l'un des plus grands sculpteurs du XXeme siècle, un pionnier du modernisme yougoslave célébré dans le monde entier. Depuis janvier, le musée de la Ville de Bjelovar consacre une exposition à Vojin Bakić.
- Articles / Croatie, Une - Diaporama, Culture et éducation, Courrier des Balkans, Yougonostalgie, Une - Diaporama - En premierAs environmental challenges, including climate change and biodiversity loss, increasingly shape global policy discussions, the integration of environmental concerns into regional trade agreements (RTAs) has gained significant importance. A novel database on environment-related provisions for agriculture, fisheries, and forestry (Ag-ERPs) in RTAs allows us to analyse their effects on trade and environmental outcomes. Putting the spotlight on sustainable agricultural practices, these provisions aim to ensure that trade liberalization does not come at the cost of environmental degradation. Agriculture-related environmental provisions can most directly contribute to positive environmental outcomes by altering the trade flows of partner countries within the respective RTAs. The purpose of this study is therefore to explore how Ag-ERPs influence agricultural trade flows between partner countries, with specific emphasis on the composition of trade and the environmental outcomes these provisions might foster. The study analyses the impact of Ag-ERPs on agricultural trade flows using bilateral trade data, which allows for a detailed examination of product-level trade patterns. It looks at both economic and environmental effects.
As environmental challenges, including climate change and biodiversity loss, increasingly shape global policy discussions, the integration of environmental concerns into regional trade agreements (RTAs) has gained significant importance. A novel database on environment-related provisions for agriculture, fisheries, and forestry (Ag-ERPs) in RTAs allows us to analyse their effects on trade and environmental outcomes. Putting the spotlight on sustainable agricultural practices, these provisions aim to ensure that trade liberalization does not come at the cost of environmental degradation. Agriculture-related environmental provisions can most directly contribute to positive environmental outcomes by altering the trade flows of partner countries within the respective RTAs. The purpose of this study is therefore to explore how Ag-ERPs influence agricultural trade flows between partner countries, with specific emphasis on the composition of trade and the environmental outcomes these provisions might foster. The study analyses the impact of Ag-ERPs on agricultural trade flows using bilateral trade data, which allows for a detailed examination of product-level trade patterns. It looks at both economic and environmental effects.
Der neuesten Steuerschätzung zufolge dürfte der Gesamtstaat bis 2030 jedes Jahr fast 18 Milliarden Euro weniger als noch im Oktober erwartet zur Verfügung haben. Auf Bundesebene fehlen im Vergleich zum vergangene Woche präsentierten Finanzplan des Bundesfinanzministers im kommenden Jahr voraussichtlich vier Milliarden Euro und 2028 und 2029 jeweils zwei Milliarden Euro. Dazu eine Einschätzung von Teresa Schildmann, Wissenschaftlerin in der Abteilung Makroökonomie im Deutschen Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin) und Mitglied des Arbeitskreises Steuerschätzung:
Die aktuelle Steuerschätzung ist ein Warnsignal für die Finanzpolitik der Bundesregierung. Der finanzielle Spielraum des Bundes wird wieder enger – nicht nur aufgrund der wirtschaftlichen Folgen des Iran-Kriegs, sondern auch wegen zusätzlicher steuerlicher Entlastungsmaßnahmen der vergangenen Monate. Das dürfte die Haushaltsaufstellung für die kommenden Jahre weiter erschweren.
Zwar profitiert der Staat kurzfristig teilweise von höheren Preisen vor allem bei Energie, da diese die Einnahmen etwa bei der Umsatzsteuer erhöhen. Gleichzeitig überwiegen jedoch die negativen Effekte: Die hohe Unsicherheit belastet Konsum und Investitionen, die wirtschaftliche Dynamik schwächt sich ab und insbesondere bei gewinnabhängigen Steuern fallen die Einnahmen geringer aus. Hinzu kommen neue steuerpolitische Maßnahmen wie die dauerhafte Umsatzsteuersenkung in der Gastronomie, die dauerhafte Senkung der Stromsteuer für das produzierende Gewerbe oder der Tankrabatt, also die temporäre Absenkung der Energiesteuer auf Kraftstoffe, die die öffentlichen Haushalte zusätzlich belasten.
Die Bundesregierung steht damit zunehmend vor einem Zielkonflikt: Einerseits besteht weiterhin der politische Wunsch nach Entlastungen für Bürger*innen sowie Unternehmen. Andererseits werden die Spielräume für zusätzliche Ausgaben kleiner. Zusätzliche Einnahmen durch höhere Verbrauchsteuern etwa auf Tabakprodukte und zuckerhaltige Getränke können dabei nur begrenzt helfen.
Es spricht daher vieles dafür, dass die Politik künftig stärker auf die Ausgabenseite schauen muss. Dazu gehören eine konsequentere Prüfung und gegebenenfalls der Abbau von Subventionen, eine effizientere Verwaltung und langfristig auch Reformen bei den Sozialversicherungssystemen. Entscheidend wird sein, die öffentlichen Finanzen nachhaltig zu stabilisieren, ohne die wirtschaftliche Erholung zusätzlich zu belasten.
Plongée au cœur d’un chef-d’œuvre naturel, l’OPEC Bulletin célèbre, dans son numéro de mai 2026, le Tassili n’Ajjer. Qualifié de « musée à ciel ouvert », ce […]
L’article Le Tassili n’Ajjer séduit l’OPEC : ce trésor algérien dévoile les secrets d’un Sahara vert est apparu en premier sur .
Written by David De Groot
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered a landmark judgment in case Commission v. Hungary, concerning Hungary’s 2021 law restricting access to LGBTI-related content.
IntroductionThe EU has considerable leverage over candidate countries that backslide on the conditions for accession (the Copenhagen Criteria), including respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law. However, once a country has joined the EU, the EU institutions have far fewer tools to respond should Member States backslide on core values. This problem is often referred to as the Copenhagen Dilemma. In Repubblika (Case C-896/19), the CJEU found a connection between Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) (on accession) and Article 2 TEU, which sets out the EU’s founding values.
The CJEU ruled that Member States may not lower the level of protection of EU values following accession, thereby establishing the principle of non-regression.
Building on that case law, on 21 April 2026, the CJEU delivered its judgment in Commission v. Hungary (Case C-769/22). The judgment is a landmark ruling: the Court found, for the first time, both a breach of Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) (on human dignity), and a self-standing breach of Article 2 TEU (on values of the EU).
BackgroundOn 15 June 2021, the Hungarian Parliament adopted Act LXXIX of 2021 on ‘tougher action against paedophile offenders and amending certain laws to protect children’ (the ‘Propaganda Law’), which curtailed LGBTI+ content, in particular its availability to minors, by introducing Section 6/A into the Child Protection Act.
On 15 July 2021, the Commission launched an infringement procedure concerning the contested act. One year later, on 15 July 2022, the Commission decided to bring the case before the CJEU; the case was formally lodged on 19 December 2022.
In its action against Hungary, the European Commission alleged violations of the Services, Audiovisual Media Services and e-Commerce Directives, as well as the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Additionally, it alleged a self-standing infringement of Article 2 TEU.
The hearing took place on 19 November 2024, with the CJEU sitting as a full court, reflecting the exceptional importance it assigned to the case.
On 5 June 2025, Advocate General Ćapeta issued her opinion, in which she agreed with the Commission, considering that Article 2 TEU imposes certain ‘red lines’, which are determined by the ‘negation of the values’ laid down in Article 2.
JudgmentIn its judgment of 21 April 2026, the CJEU considered that the secondary legislation mentioned in the Commission’s action had been violated, as had Articles 1 (on human dignity), 7 (on private and family life), 11 (on freedom of expression) and 21 (on non-discrimination) of the CFR. Concerning Article 1 CFR – the violation of which marked a first – the Court considered that ‘that association [with paedophilia] and that stigmatisation entail a group of persons forming an integral part of a society in which pluralism prevails being treated as a threat to that society meriting special legal treatment, which results in such persons’ social ”invisibility” being established, maintained, or reinforced, in breach of Article 1 of the Charter’ (para. 489).
Concerning Article 2 TEU, the Court first considered, hinting at the Copenhagen Dilemma, that ‘compliance by a Member State with the values contained in Article 2 TEU is a condition for the enjoyment of all the rights deriving from the application of the Treaties to that Member State. Compliance with those values cannot be reduced to an obligation which a candidate State must meet in order to accede to the European Union and which it may disregard after its accession’ (para. 523).
As to the types of violations capable of giving rise to a breach of Article 2 TEU, the Court held that:
only manifest and particularly serious breaches of one or more values common to the Member States may give rise to a finding, in the context of an action for failure to fulfil obligations, that there has been a failure by a Member State to fulfil legally binding obligations under Article 2 TEU, such breaches being incompatible with the very identity of the Union as a common legal order of a society in which pluralism prevails. (para. 551)
In the case at hand, the Court held that the contested act:
results in the stigmatisation and marginalisation of non-cisgender or non-heterosexual persons, solely on the ground of their gender identity or sexual orientation, with those consequences being intensified by the fact that that law also makes an association between the fact of not being cisgender or not being heterosexual, on the one hand, and being convicted of paedophilia, on the other, suggesting that non-cisgender or non-heterosexual persons constitute a fundamental threat to Hungarian and European society, an association which is capable of encouraging the development of hateful conduct towards those persons. (para. 554)
The Court continued that
Such stigmatisation and marginalisation, which is tantamount to establishing, maintaining or reinforcing the social ”invisibility” of some members of society, runs counter to the values of respect for human dignity, equality, and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, as referred to in Article 2 TEU. (para. 555)
The Court, therefore, concluded that
it must be held that the [contested Act] is in breach, in a way that is both manifest and particularly serious, of the rights of non-cisgender persons – including transgender persons – or non-heterosexual persons, as well as the values of respect for human dignity, equality and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, as referred to in Article 2 TEU, with the result that it is contrary to the very identity of the Union as a common legal order in a society in which pluralism prevails. (para. 556)
OutlookThe judgment – while ruling that it is indeed possible to establish a stand-alone infringement of Article 2 TEU without a necessary connection with other Treaty provisions – still leaves many questions as to the circumstances under which such a finding can be made.
In March 2025, Section 6/A of the Child Protection Act, introduced by the contested act, was linked to the Act on the Right of Assembly, which prohibits any public events that portray ‘divergence from self-identity corresponding to sex at birth, sex change or homosexuality’. This was considered a Pride ban. In line with the judgment, such a prohibition would also constitute a breach of Article 2 TEU.
In a joint statement, the Commissioner for Equality, Preparedness and Crisis Management, Hadja Lahbib, and the Commissioner for Democracy, Justice and the Rule of Law, Michael McGrath, stated that discrimination has no place in the EU. They ‘warmly welcome the ruling. Ours is a Union of Equality, where you can be who you are and love who you want’.
Read this ‘at a glance’ note on ‘Hungary’s anti-LGBTI law and EU values: The CJEU’s landmark Article 2 TEU judgment‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.