medialaws.eu

1. Dall’Effetto Bruxelles alla Politica Industriale: un cambiamento di paradigma A un anno dal lancio dell’“AI Continent Action Plan”, la Commissione europea ha celebrato l’anniversario con la pubblicazione di due documenti significativi del Joint Research Centre (JRC): un documento informativo sull’approccio europeo alle politiche sull’AI e una relazione sul potenziamento dell’adozione dell’AI nelle pubbliche amministrazioni dell’UE.

Abuse of rights is frequently invoked by controllers in the context of requests for access by data subjects under Article 15 GDPR. A particularly disputed question in practice is whether a request submitted with the ultimate purpose of gaining an advantage in legal proceedings against the controller can constitute such an abuse.

The European Biotech Act is one of the most ambitious recent attempts to reorganize the EU regulatory framework for biotechnology and biomanufacturing. Its data-protection architecture is also one of the most consequential, and still relatively under-examined, parts of the proposal. This post analyses that architecture through the lens of EDPB/EDPS Joint Opinion 3/2026 and asks whether the proposed harmonization delivers genuine simplification, or only the appearance of it.

MediaLaws is pleased to share a new report by Marco Bassini and Cristiana Firullo titled “Making Data Protection Fit for the Age of AI”, published by the Centre on Regulation in Europe (CERRE). The study offers a critical analysis of how data protection frameworks can evolve to remain effective in an AI‑driven environment, addressing structural gaps, regulatory tensions, and the need for renewed governance tools.

This article argues that, while borrowing the EU’s formal risk-based architecture, Vietnam’s AI Law reconfigures it through expansive administrative discretion, shaping a distinct regional trajectory that may influence ASEAN’s divergence from the EU’s normative governance.

MediaLaws is pleased to share the Call for Papers for the 11th Academic Days on Open Governments & Digital Issues, an international and interdisciplinary conference that will take place on 3–4 November 2026 in a hybrid format (Paris and online), hosted by the University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, the Institut Juridique de la Sorbonne (IRJS-DreDis) and IMODEV.

This short article will focus on the most intrusive, pervasive, transforming and revolutionary change that has occurred in recent years and has (and will) severely impact the legal profession. I am, of course, discussing Artificial Intelligence (AI).

La profonda evoluzione dell’istituzione parlamentare e della funzione legislativa non ha sempre trovato riscontro in un adeguamento delle proprie norme regolatrici. In questo perenne rapporto tra mutamento e modifica, i Parlamenti si apprestano ad integrare nelle proprie procedure l’Intelligenza Artificiale, trovandosi dinanzi ad un bivio: disciplinarne l’uso o cedere ulteriore autonomia normativa a norme extra-parlamentari.

1. La necessità di un quadro armonizzato di diritto societario europeo Il 18 marzo 2026, la Commissione Europea ha pubblicato la COM (2026) 321 final, relativa al quadro di diritto societario riguardante il 28º regime – “Eu Inc.” [1].

The Opinion of Advocate General Ćapeta in Case C-354/24, Elisa Eesti AS v Vabariigi Valitsuse julgeolekukomisjoni küberjulgeoleku nõukogu and Tarbijakaitse ja Tehnilise Järelevalve Amet, addresses one of the most politically sensitive and legally significant questions currently facing the European Union: the relationship between national security and the EU internal market in the context of 5G telecommunications infrastructure.