Online platforms are indispensable to our daily activities as users. In addition, businesses are increasingly using online platforms in the business model. As online platforms boost innovation and develop the economy, few online platforms act as gatekeepers by controlling a large digital market, likely leading to unfair practices and conditions for business users and end users. These gatekeepers have challenged the traditional enforcement of competition law in the digital markets. To address the behaviour of large online platforms in the internal market, on 24 March 2022, the EU adopted a regulation commonly known as the Digital Market Act.

Likewise, in the EU, the growth of digital platforms and e-commerce platforms has created new challenges for WBc National Competition Authorities in handling cases concerning online platforms. This research focuses on the impact of the Digital Market Act on the Western Balkan countries’ competition law. Moreover, the paper discusses whether Western Balkan countries’ national competition authorities have dealt with online platforms and outlines the main challenges encountered in the digital economy. The paper adopts doctrinal and comparative legal research. Doctrinal research analyses and interprets the Digital Market Act and the Western Balkan countries’ competition laws. Comparative legal research examines whether and to what extent Western Balkan countries’ competition law addresses the behaviour of online platforms.

The paper argues that pursuant to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement harmonisation clause, the Western Balkan countries must transpose the Digital Market Act into their domestic legal system and National Competition Authorities should be empowered to address issues raised by online platforms. As it stands currently, the Western Balkan countries’ national competition authorities lack the necessary human, financial, and technical resources to handle these kinds of cases.

In the beginning of 2024, the Greek Parliament voted the establishment of University Education Legal Entities, special purpose non-profit legal entities with the sole purpose of providing higher education services. Law no. 5094/2024 allows the establishment of University Education Legal Entities as branches of higher education institutions that are based in other EU member states or third countries. The law triggered constitutional debate as to its compliance with the Constitution. In particular, article 16, para. 5 states that “education at university level shall be provided exclusively by institutions which are fully self-governed public legal entities. Moreover, paragraph 8 of the same article adds, “the establishment of higher education institutions by private individuals is prohibited”. On the other hand, article 14, para. 3 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights guarantees the freedom to found educational establishments, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of such freedom and right. Furthermore, according to the well-established case law of the CJEU, education falls under the scope of internal market law, the right of establishment (article 49 TFEU) and freedom to provide services (article 56 TFEU). Therefore, the right to establish non-public (private) higher education institutions has been developed through the case law of the Court of Justice as a right provided under EU law. The aim of this presentation is to review the establishment of non-public Universities in Greece from a national and EU law standpoint, which will add to the matter of conflict between national and EU legislation.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has played a pivotal role in interpreting and shaping socio-economic rights within the European Union. Through landmark decisions, such as Grzelczyk (2001), Dano (2014), and the recent 2024 ruling against Italy (Joined Cases C-112/22 and C-223/22), the CJEU has significantly influenced member states’ social welfare policies. These rulings address critical issues such as non-discrimination, the free movement of individuals, and the balance between national sovereignty and EU-wide equality principles.

This paper explores how CJEU decisions have impacted the accessibility and inclusivity of social welfare systems, with particular attention to the implications for socio-economic inequality. A special focus is given to the Long-term Residence Directive (2003/109/EC), which guarantees equal treatment for third-country nationals residing in the EU for five years or more. By analyzing key CJEU rulings, including the 2024 case invalidating Italy’s ten-year residency requirement for social benefits, the study highlights the directive's role in promoting social inclusion and reducing disparities.

The analysis aims to demonstrate that the CJEU decisions have strengthened the rights of both EU citizens and long-term residents while also revealing persistent tensions between national and EU-level priorities. By examining these developments within a broader socio-economic context, the study seeks to uncover the role of the CJEU in advancing social justice across the European Union.

As a contribution to the second direction of analysis of the relationship between EU law and socio-economic inequalities in the EU, I propose a paper on the institution of EU citizenship under the lens of distributive justice in the EU. The main question that the paper seeks to answer is: How should EU citizenship rights be distributed?

As of today, EU citizenship rights are distributed largely by way of nationality in Member States. Nationality serves as the exclusive link between the individual and EU citizenship which is the primary conveyor of civil and social rights on the EU level. Meanwhile, these rights to equal treatment and to move and reside freely within the Union have far-reaching implications in a socio-economic sense. Rights akin to those enjoyed by EU citizens are granted to (some) third-country nationals (TCNs) by other means than EU citizenship status, including family members of Union citizens, and various other groups of TCNs in the EU whose statuses have been approximated those of EU citizens, by means, for instance, of the Long-Term Resident Directive and the Blue Card Directive. However, while some authors have gone as far as to argue that the Long-Term Resident Directive created a status that can be considered ‘a subsidiary form of EU citizenship’ and a ‘truly post-national form of membership’ (Acosta, 2015), I argue in this paper that EU citizenship remains valuable. EU citizenship civil and social rights are safeguarded better by EU citizenship and are less fragmented and stratified. EU citizenship matters.

In the paper, I also argue that the EU can be seen as an actor of justice (Kochenov, 2015), and that it is possible to conceive of a political conception of social justice in the EU. This argument has important conceptual implications for the institution of EU citizenship and the question of how EU citizenship rights should be distributed. In the paper I will show that once we examine EU citizenship in view of a political conception of social justice in the EU, we will see that for EU citizenship to be just, the distribution of EU citizenship cannot be contingent on nationality: a morally arbitrary connecting factor between the individual and EU citizenship which, as of today, as an institution, exacerbates socio-economic inequalities in the EU. We need to think of an alternative connecting factor, which, in line with social membership theory, could be a five-year residence criterion.

The inclusion of maritime emissions within the European Union’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) under the European Green Deal background represents a significant evolution in regional climate policy and a critical response to global regulatory gaps. This research examines the process through which the European Commission led the European Union to present a unified stance in global climate governance between 2019 and 2024. This research analyses the European Commission’s leadership in climate governance, showcasing its ability to balance ambition with pragmatism. By analyzing the legislative process behind the inclusion of maritime emissions in the EU ETS, this study examines how the Commission, particularly DG CLIMA, navigated complex interactions with Member States and international actors. Through the lens of Two-Level Game Theory and Constructivist Role Theory, it reveals the strategies and compromises that shaped this pivotal climate initiative.

Internally, the European Commission managed differing perspectives among Member States, with some, such as Greece and Cyprus, expressing concerns due to their significant maritime interests, while others, including climate-progressive actors, voiced strong support for decarbonisation measures. Externally, the policy sought to align regional action with broader global governance efforts by engaging with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and third countries, addressing complexities at the intersection of internal and external EU policies.

Using a qualitative approach, this research draws on interviews with EU officials—primarily from DG CLIMA and other relevant DGs—policy documents, and process tracing of key decision-making milestones to analyse the intricate dynamics between the European Commission, the European Parliament, and Member States in shaping and advancing this policy. Specifically, it investigates how the Commission balanced its dual leadership role, managing institutional tensions and varied national interests within the EU, while promoting ambitious climate policies at both regional and global levels. The study pays particular attention to the maritime sector, a domain where regulatory gaps persist, offering insights into how regional initiatives can catalyse global governance innovation. This research fills a critical gap in the literature by highlighting how the Commission bridges regional and global governance frameworks and coordinates with key internal stakeholders to align diverse interests with broader climate objectives as a leader. The findings contribute to understanding how supranational actors adapt governance mechanisms to foster global climate action under multi-level constraints.