Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is gradually undergoing multilevel transformation in the European Union (EU). Hardening of the initially voluntary CSR approach of the EU is progressively taking place in an interaction between the law of the Member States and EU law. Domestic solutions can serve as a model for EU legislation. In this progress, the Non-Financial Reporting Directive, granting considerable flexibility both to companies and the Member States, can indeed be seen as an intermediate stage and it is expected that, under the impact of human rights due diligence requirements recently imposed on companies by Member States, more substantive obligations will also be introduced at an EU level in the future.

The EU has recently decided to regulate the import of cultural goods in the EU. While the new provisions have been widely criticised for various reasons, primarily for having a freezing effect on the European art trade, it cannot be overlooked that the regulation of the import of works of art is not unprecedented, either in international, regional and national legal instruments or at the level of EU legislation. The new legislation can be considered a paradigm shift. It completes the pre-existing EU legal sources that primarily aimed to protect cultural goods originating from the EU and provides equal and symmetric protection for cultural goods arriving from third countries. In this way, the EU regulation transcends a self-centred regional approach and embodies a global vision of the protection of cultural heritage.

No abstract

No abstract

Sometimes, the application of the economic sanctions imposed by the European Union (EU) arises in arbitration proceedings. This article examines the extent to which unilateral EU sanctions are applied uniformly in arbitration. Opting for arbitration between the parties instead of court proceedings, as well as the selection of a particular arbitration venue, may be used to avoid the application of EU sanctions. Although arbitral tribunals have considerable freedom in deciding whether to give effect to EU economic sanctions, which involves an inherent uncertainty in terms of their claim for uniform application, the fact that the parties choose arbitration does not necessarily exclude their application. EU sanctions constitute the public policy of the Member States. The potential for the annulment of the arbitral award by a competent court in an EU Member State or the denial of the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award in the EU may therefore be an incentive for the arbitrators not to disregard these sanctions and may discourage the parties from choosing arbitration or a particular location for arbitration only to escape the application of EU sanctions.