DEFINITION
The objective of this section of the questionnaire is to reveal different attitudes and tendencies in different jurisdictions on which tools are missing to make the EU Charter more efficient. We focus on a procedural perspective, and we want to understand what avenues are being used or can be used instead of collective redress. We understand that the protection of digital rights as fundamental rights has predominantly taken place on a CJEU level, with the efficient use of Article 267 TFEU. However, we are aware that there are other avenues for using the EU Charter in national jurisdictions, such as administrative courts, independent authorities, outof-court processes to name a few.
01.
Please describe any alternative judicial pathways to using/ invoking the EU Charter in your jurisdiction.
The Ligue des Droits Humains regularly brings actions for annulment before the Constitutional Court to challenge the legality of legislative norms. These actions can trigger referrals to the CJEU for preliminary rulings based, among other things, on the EU Charter. Preliminary ruling requests can also occur in the context of actions brought under Article 209 (and 220) of the Law of 30 July 2018.
02.
What are the most common obstacles in getting a ruling using the EU Charter on a national level in your jurisdiction?
Delays. Procedural times are extremely long. For example, file C 333/22 was submitted to the Court of First Instance in 2020. The Court of Appeal’s decision dates from 2022, and the CJEU’s ruling from 2023. We are now still before the Court of Appeal, and the case should be argued in 2025. The PNR case was brought in 2017, and the Constitutional Court ruling dates from 2019. The CJEU ruling dates from June 2022 and the new Constitutional Court ruling dates from 2023.
01.
Please describe any alternative judicial pathways to using/ invoking the EU Charter in your jurisdiction.
Any data subject can initiate a complaint before the Croatian DPA regarding the processing of their personal data by a controller. While the DPA’s decision cannot be appealed, an administrative claim can be filed against it; however, as the DPA is a specialised body, the administrative courts seldom disagree with its findings.
Administrative courts, as well as civil courts in general, rarely refer to the Croatian Constitution or the EU Charter, despite their applicability.
Anyone who believes their rights have been violated by state bodies, local authorities, or public officials, or who suspects discrimination, can file a complaint with the Ombudswoman. The Ombudswoman is the commissioner of the Croatian Parliament who promotes and protects human rights and freedoms under Croatian and international law.
After exhausting the judicial pathways, individuals can file a constitutional complaint. The Constitutional Court, a special body in Croatia, supervises the constitutionality of laws and elections and handles constitutional complaints. These complaints can be filed against the decisions of government bodies, local authorities, or public entities that have violated a person’s fundamental constitutional rights.
The Constitutional Court regularly publishes its decisions, in which it often refers to the EU Charter (most prominently in criminal procedure cases).
02.
What are the most common obstacles in getting a ruling using the EU Charter on a national level in your jurisdiction?
An important obstacle is a lack of awareness of the EU Charter among the courts–we found only one instance of a county court directly referring to the EU Charter. The High Administrative Court has issued some decisions referring to the Charter, once when resolving a GDPR-related administrative claim (decision ref.no Usž 3388/2021-2, from 6 April 2022).
In our opinion, there has been some progress in recent years, however, there is room for improvement in educating the public, civil servants, and legal professionals about the EU Charter’s provisions, direct application, and significance. By raising awareness, more legal professionals would be empowered to invoke the Charter’s provisions directly, and the courts would consider them when rendering decisions.
Please describe any alternative judicial pathways to using/ invoking the EU Charter in your jurisdiction.
In France, an initial assessment of the collective redress system was published in a parliamentary report in June 2020, which noted the failure of the French-style collective action. Only 35 collective actions have been brought since the procedure was introduced in 2014, and only a few have reached conclusion, as many have either been deemed inadmissible or have been withdrawn.
There are various alternatives for protecting digital rights more quickly and less expensively than through traditional court proceedings, while still offering adequate protection of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the EU Charter.
At present, the provisions of the EU Charter are rarely invoked on their own in France, which presents an obstacle for litigants in terms of the accessibility of Charter rights.
One avenue for invoking EU Charter rights is by filing a claim with the Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL). Article 8 of the DPA defines the CNIL as an independent administrative authority that assists professionals in achieving compliance and helps individuals control their personal data and exercise their rights. Created by the DPA, the CNIL is responsible for ensuring the protection of personal data contained in computer files or on paper, both public and private.
The CNIL is further responsible for ensuring that information technology serves the citizen and does not infringe human identity, human rights, privacy, or individual or public freedoms.
The CNIL has invoked the EU Charter, notably Articles 7, 8, and 41, in decisions to impose a financial penalty. Individuals who believe that their digital rights have been violated, in particular their right to privacy or their right to protection of their personal data, may lodge a complaint with the CNIL.
The CNIL can only investigate issues relating to the protection of personal data on the basis of 1) a complete and precise complaint, 2) issues identified as priorities, 3) facts reported in the press or on the internet, or 4) a report from another European CNIL.
If breaches of the DPA are established, the Commission may decide to take corrective measures, such as issuing reminders, formal notices, or financial penalties.
If, following an in-depth legal analysis, the complaint is considered to be unfounded, a letter is sent to the complainant informing them of this.
The CNIL undertakes to inform the person concerned of the progress made and the outcome within three months of the complaint being filed. If the victim is not satisfied with the outcome of the complaint, they may lodge an appeal by post to the attention of the President of the CNIL within two months of the decision to close the complaint.
The CNIL is one of the authorities whose decisions may be appealed to the Conseil d’État at first and last instance on the basis of Article R.311-1, 4°
of the Code of Administrative Justice. Victims may appeal to the Conseil d’Etat provided they have an interest in the case.
The DPA allows for collective actions for the protection of personal data (Article 37). This procedure allows victims of material and nonmaterial damage caused by a personal data controller to join together before the courts.
Civil (Article 848 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that the group action is applicable to ‘the action opened on the basis of Article 37 of law no. 78-17 of 6 January 1978 relating to data processing, files and freedoms.’
Administratives (Article 77-10-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice, which states that the group action is applicable to ‘actions brought on the basis of Article 37 of law no. 78-17 of 6 January 1978 relating to information technology, files and civil liberties’.
The conditions for bringing a collective action under the DPA are as follows: 1) at least two consumers must consider that they have suffered harm as a result of the same breach by the data processing professional; and 2) individuals must have recourse to an association for the protection of privacy and personal data that has been in existence for at least 5 years. This consumer association or trade union must have a statutory purpose that relates to the interests being defended.
The person who caused the damage may only be held liable if the event giving rise to the damage occurred after 24 May 2018 and is of the same nature for all the persons concerned in the action. The collective action must be brought within five years of the date on which the victim knew or ought to have known of the facts enabling them to bring the action.
A draft law on the legal regime for collective actions, amended by the Senate, was submitted on 23 July 2024 and referred to the Committee on Constitutional Law, Legislation and the General Administration of the Republic. The aim of the draft is to simplify collective actions, provide better compensation for victims, and reduce the time taken to reach a decision.
Article 38 of the DPA allows any person to appoint an association or organisation to act in their name and on their behalf. The agent may be one of the persons targeted in the collective action, an association or organisation whose statutory purpose is related to the protection of rights and freedoms, or an association of which the data subject is a member and whose statutory purpose involves the defence of interests related to the purposes of the disputed processing.
02. What are the most common obstacles in getting a ruling using the EU Charter on a national level in your jurisdiction?
The Cour de cassation and the Conseil d’Etat both invoke the EU Charter in disputes between private individuals where the dispute falls within the scope of EU law and one of the national provisions at issue is an implementation of EU law.
The provisions of the EU Charter which meet the criterion of selfsufficiency may be relied on autonomously, in the context of private law relationships, in order to set aside a contrary rule of national law. It was in these circumstances that the Cour de cassation referred a question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 27 of the Charter on the right of employees to be informed and consulted within the undertaking, a right which is given concrete form in Directive 2002/14/ EC. The question before the Court of Cassation was whether Article 27 of the Charter could be invoked in a dispute between private individuals. However, the CJEU refused to recognise such a horizontal effect, ruling that Article 27 ‘is not sufficient in itself to confer on individuals a right that can be invoked as such.’
However, whether before the administrative or judicial courts, some authors regret that the EU Charter is rarely invoked in isolation by applicants.
According to Professor Romain Tinière, the Charter rarely appears on its own in the reasoning of the French courts, which means that it cannot produce an identifiable legal effect that would allow any added value to be assessed, especially as the judge may choose to give priority to betterknown sources to develop their arguments. Judges often prefer the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights or constitutional provisions, and the Charter is often of a suppletive nature. As things stand, therefore, it is difficult to suggest that the Charter has had a significant influence on national litigation relating to the application of EU law.
01.
Please describe any alternative judicial pathways to using/ invoking the EU Charter in your jurisdiction.
There has been significant litigation involving consumer protection organisations in the field of digital rights and personal data. Prominent examples include the case by VZBV against Meta Platforms on the relation between collective redress under competition law and the GDPR, which resulted in a referral to the CJEU (CJEU - C-319/20, see answer to question 6). We assume that, with the implementation of the RAD, there will be a trend towards stronger digital rights litigation. Consumer organisations are closely monitoring the implementation of the DSA and have already begun to initiate proceedings (e.g. VZBV against Shein and Temu for alleged DSA violations).
02. What are the most common obstacles in getting a ruling using the EU Charter on a national level in your jurisdiction?
Not aplicable
01.
Please describe any alternative judicial pathways to using/ invoking the EU Charter in your jurisdiction.
Both private sector and public sector actors can submit a report to the Greek Ombudsman. The Greek Ombudsman’s guiding principle and drive as a mediator is its commitment to the win-win approach, i.e. visualising solutions from which both the citizens and the administration can benefit. The Ombudsman is an independent authority that stands by citizens affected by the financial crisis, investigates problems caused by legislation or administrative acts or omissions, and undertakes targeted initiatives based on its expertise and competence. In addition, the Ombudsman acts as guardian of the people’s rights in both the public and private sectors, with a special emphasis on monitoring and promoting the implementation of the principle of equal treatment, the rights of the child, and the rights of vulnerable groups. The Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs is responsible for the office of the Ombudsman.
When the law is violated, civil penalties will be imposed to fully compensate the victim. Compensation covers material and moral damage and any incidental or consequential damage. Administrative and criminal penalties can also be imposed, in accordance with the provisions of law.
Out-of-court dispute resolution for consumers will be made quicker and easier by the recent proposal to amend the Alternative Dispute Resolution Directive (ADR), which would improve the availability of personalised support to consumers, especially vulnerable ones. Contact points in EU Member States can facilitate communication between consumers and traders, assist with the ADR process, and provide information on consumer rights and redress.
Parties may choose (but, as a rule, are not obliged to opt for) mediation or arbitration as the means to resolve their disputes, even with respect to actions pending before a court. Mandatory mediation has been introduced in Greece for the first time for certain disputes (not including product liability or safety claims).
The ADR applies to Greece as a result of Ministerial Decision 70330/30.6.2015, which implemented the Directive and set supplementary rules for the application of the Online Dispute Resolution Regulation 524/2013. The use of the ADR was relatively limited in the past; however, the discussion that preceded the latest Mediation Law 4640/2019, and eventually its enactment, gave some momentum to mediation and to a general shift in culture towards this kind of alternative dispute resolution. Mediation as a form of alternative dispute resolution is therefore now expressly provided for in various laws on the settlement of disputes.
The Greek National Commission for Human Rights (GNCHR) was established by Law 2667/1998 as the independent advisory body to the Greek State. The creation of the GNCHR emanated from the need to constantly monitor developments regarding human rights protection on the domestic and international plane, to inform Greek public opinion about human rights-related issues, and to provide guidelines to the Greek State aimed at the establishment of a modern, principled policy of human rights protection. Decisions and positions on data protection issues can be found here.
02. What are the most common obstacles in getting a ruling using the EU Charter on a national level in your jurisdiction?
The EU Charter is directly applicable in domestic legislation. Member States have a duty to respect and observe the EU Charter when acting within EU law. In general, ensuring effective implementation and application of EU Charter on the ground such as local decision makers, administrators and national courts is very crucial. Also, collaboration and solidarity in addressing human rights challenges.
In Greece the application and use of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is not widespread. Case-law rarely refers to the Charter and when it does it is only by reference to the Charter as a human rights instrument, with courts rarely interpreting its provisions and directly applying its articles. Public administration and civil society do not use the Charter consistently as a human rights framework. This means that it is important to ensure that institutions with expertise and experience on the Charter play a more active role in the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the EU Charter. In Greece, there are two bodies with a human rights remit which could play a crucial role in monitoring the application and adherence to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the UNCRPD: the Greek Ombudsman and the Greek National Commission for Human Rights (GNCHR).
Going forward, please find below the following obstacles and key recommendations:
• Ombudsman must be sufficiently equipped with high level of expertise through its multiple mandates, endowing this institution with in-depth knowledge of fundamental rights implementation requirements.
• Secure and sustainable digital infrastructures. The digital environment should be safe and secure. The need to accelerate and deepen the collective efforts, including through policy measures and investment in digital technologies, skills and infrastructures. Consumers should be at the centre of the digital transformation, supporting solidarity and inclusion through connectivity.
• Digital transformation. The availability of modern systems, with advanced technology infrastructure and digital data systems.
• Qualified lawyers with sound knowledge of the scope and interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
• Complaint mechanism dealing with complaints relating to the fundamental rights dimension of implemented programmes.
• Publicly available quantitative and qualitative data.
01.
Please describe any alternative judicial pathways to using/ invoking the EU Charter in your jurisdiction.
In relation to digital rights, the main judicial pathway is through the ordinary courts. Ireland does not have a separate administrative court system, nor a separate constitutional court. We are not aware of any digital rights actions which were successful in specifically invoking EU Charter rights before independent authorities or in out-of-court processes. The closest situation would be decisions of the Data Protection Commission, which often refer to the EU Charter when interpreting data protection rights.
02. What are the most common obstacles in getting a ruling using the EU Charter on a national level in your jurisdiction?
After a slow start, as a general rule Irish courts are now receptive to claims which raise the EU Charter and frequently make references to the CJEU for preliminary rulings regarding Charter rights. The main obstacles, from our perspective, are the practical issues of cost and delay and complexity in the Irish legal system. For example, in GD v Commissioner of An Garda Síochána it took seven years from the initial filing of the case until the CJEU ruling.
Please describe any alternative judicial pathways to using/ invoking the EU Charter in your jurisdiction.
In Italy, the EU Charter can be invoked in multiple settings.
Courts can recognise the direct effect of the EU Charter provisions (although, even at the European level, it is uncertain which provisions have direct effect and to what extent), interpret national legislation in light of the Charter to ensure conformity with EU law, and disapply national laws that conflict with EU law on the basis of the primacy principle. EU Charter provisions and their interpretations can be a basis to refer matters of great normative importance to higher courts (the Court of Cassation for civil and criminal matters, the Constitutional Court for constitutional review, and the Council of State for administrative matters, following the applicable procedures).
Actions can be brought before the Supreme Court to challenge decisions issued by ordinary judges in the first instance and on appeal. According to Article 360 CPC, the grounds for bringing an action before the Supreme Court relate to: 1) jurisdiction, 2) violation of the rules of judicial competence, 3) violation or misapplication of legislative acts and national collective labour contracts and agreements, 4) nullity of the judgment or proceedings, and 5) failure to examine a contested and decisive fact in the judgment.
The Court of Cassation plays a nomophylactic role (Article 65 of the Royal Decree 12/1941). A new preliminary procedure was recently introduced by Article 363bis of the CPC, whereby the Court of Cassation can be asked to pronounce on a new legal issue of significant importance. The Court’s decision will bind the parties as well as influence the broader judiciary thanks to the Court’s nomophylactic role.
The Constitutional Court can receive referrals from national judges regarding the conformity of a legislative provision applicable in a given case with the Italian Constitution. The EU Charter can be invoked in referrals of this type, and Charter provisions can be grounds for annulling a legislative provision as national laws that conflict with EU norms may violate Articles 11 and 117 of the Constitution. In cases involving both EU law and the Italian Constitution, it is unclear under debate what the respective roles of the Constitutional Court and the CJEU may be.
The types of cases and procedures where the Charter may be invoked depend on the fundamental right involved and the specific context of the infringement. For instance, trade unions may invoke the Charter in actions challenging anti-union behaviour by employers based on Article 28 of the Italian Workers Statue. Indeed, this instrument has already shown potential (although without reference to the Charter) in the field of collective digital rights litigation. The Italian Workers Statute was invoked in the context of the digital rights granted to individuals and trade unions on automated decision-making by the new Decreto Trasparenza (D.Lgs. n. 104/2022).
Likewise, potentially important for upholding Charter rights is the procedure provided for by Article 700 of the CPC, which establishes an urgent and precautionary procedure allowing the judge to take provisional emergency measures to secure the effect of a future decision on the merits.
02. What are the most common obstacles in getting a ruling using the EU Charter on a national level in your jurisdiction?
The answers to the previous questions have identified obstacles to applying the EU Charter that derive from the specific procedural configuration of the collective redress system. In addition to those already identified, three further obstacles can be mentioned here.
First, there is an ongoing debate as to whether fundamental rights can be invoked directly between private parties, such as relying solely on norms of the Italian Constitution. Second, there is uncertainty surrounding the content and application of the rights in the EU Charter, such as Article 8 on ‘Protection of Personal Data’. Third, EU principles such as effectiveness and proportionality have been applied inconsistently at both European and national levels.
01.
Please describe any alternative judicial pathways to using/ invoking the EU Charter in your jurisdiction.
Individuals may submit complaints directly to the Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens (AP) if they believe their rights under the GDPR have been infringed. The AP is empowered to investigate complaints, conduct audits, and impose fines or other corrective measures. It is also possible to request documents from the AP about (ongoing) investigations under the Open Government Act (Wet open overheid). Decisions made by the AP can be appealed directly to the administrative courts. Additionally, the National Ombudsman handles complaints about improper conduct by government bodies, including data protection issues. Complaints may invoke GDPR rights under the EU Charter, providing an alternative route to formal legal action.
The Netherlands Institute for Human Rights, an independent monitoring human rights body, can be approached as well. For example, a student submitted a complaint to the institute alleging that her university employed racist software during the pandemic that failed to recognise her as a human being due to her dark skin. Another complaint was filed against Meta, Facebook’s service provider, alleging that Meta’s algorithm was discriminatory in the way it displayed job vacancies.
In addition, the project committee on Online Content Moderation of the Ministry of Justice is working on a pilot-platform for victims of harmful online content. In the (near) future, alternative pathways can also be provided by out-of-court dispute settlement bodies under Article 21 of the Digital Services Act.
A case that is not a collective action or alternative judicial pathway, but which concerns digital justice in a broader sense, is that of Uber and Ola drivers, who initiated a legal action against their respective employers. In accordance with Article 15(1)(h) of the GDPR, the drivers requested information regarding the operation of the algorithms used by Uber. For instance, they sought to ascertain the methodology employed in determining prices. The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the claimants, ordering the defendants to comply with the information requests.
02. What are the most common obstacles in getting a ruling using the EU Charter on a national level in your jurisdiction?
[to be discussed]
01.
Please describe any alternative judicial pathways to using/ invoking the EU Charter in your jurisdiction.
The alternative resolution methods available for civil actions are those already available under the general provisions of national procedural legislation, including mediation (Law 29/2013) and arbitration (Law 62/2011).
The Comissão Nacional de Proteção de Dados (CNPD) is an independent administrative body, with legal personality under public law, powers of authority, and endowed with administrative and financial autonomy, which operates within the Portuguese Parliament. The CNPD monitors and supervises compliance with the GDPR, Law 58/2019, Law 59/2019, and Law 41/2004, as well as other legal and regulatory provisions on the protection of personal data, in order to defend the rights, freedoms, and guarantees of natural persons in the processing of their personal data. Public and private organisations must cooperate with the CNPD, providing it with all the information it requests, as well as access to computer systems, personal data files, and documentation relating to the processing of personal data.
The Portuguese Constitutional Court is a court like the other courts provided for in the Constitution. However, it is also more than a court, it is a constitutional body, and it has important characteristics in terms of its composition, competence, and operation. As a constitutional body, the Constitutional Court has a specific position and a power to intervene in the constitutional system of political power. First, it can declare legal norms, in particular legislative norms, unconstitutional, with the result that they cease to apply. Second, it has competences with regard to the President of the Republic and national and local referendums, and with regard to political parties, political office holders, and elections. As a court, the Constitutional Court shares the characteristics of all courts: it is an organ of sovereignty (Article 202 Portuguese Constitution); it is independent and autonomous, and it does not depend on or work alongside any other body; its judges are independent and immovable; and its decisions are binding on any other authority.
The administrative and tax courts decide disputes arising from relations between private individuals and the public administration. The administrative and tax courts have jurisdiction over disputes arising from administrative and tax relations.
02. What are the most common obstacles in getting a ruling using the EU Charter on a national level in your jurisdiction?
As far as we know it has not been tested yet.
01.
Please describe any alternative judicial pathways to using/ invoking the EU Charter in your jurisdiction.
There are no alternative judicial pathways for collective actions. While the Draft Bill reviews the alternative resolution methods available for civil actions (e.g. mediation), it leaves all collective issues to the examined in collective actions.
Despite the fact that Article 51 of the EU Charter limits its application when it comes to individual actions, there have been some cases where a court has successfully invoked and taken into account provisions of the Charter, albeit not as the sole legal basis for the claim.
A 2020 judgment of the Pontevedra Appeal Court invoked Article 8 of the EU Charter (on personal data protection) in a case relating to the wrongful inclusion of an individual on a defaulter’s list. These cases are normally judged applying Law 1/1982 (see Privacy Law, explained I question 6) and the Spanish Constitution, so this is a first step towards introducing and considering the EU Charter more regularly in lower courts for digital rights cases.
Lastly, under Article 11(1) of the LEC, qualified consumer associations have legal standing to bring ‘recursos de amparo’ before the Constitutional Court. In the Spanish legal system, the ‘amparo’ appeal is an extraordinary remedy whose sole purpose is to protect against infringements of fundamental rights. Constitutional complaints of this kind may also be used for collective redress actions if there is an infringement of fundamental rights.
02.
What are the most common obstacles in getting a ruling using the EU Charter on a national level in your jurisdiction?
The lack of possibility for individuals to invoke EU Charter provisions between themselves is an important obstacle to getting rulings using the Charter. Spanish case law mainly concerns State actions or legal provisions that are contrary to EU, and therefore refers to case law of the CJEU.
Spanish Courts have been keener to make preliminary references to clarify the interpretation and scope of the EU Charter, but this has taken place in the context of worker’s law cases, not in civil jurisdiction cases (see CJEU Daouidi case).
This questionnaire was compiled by Alexandra Giannopoulou, Digital Freedom Fund
Authors
Belgium
Catherine Forget, Attorney-at-law, Juscogens / Belgian Ligue des droits humains
Franck Dumortier, Researcher, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Croatia
Duje Prkut, Politiscope
Duje Kozomara, Politiscope
Anella Bukovic, Politiscope
France
Emmanuel Daoud, Attorney at Law, VIGO Cabinet d’avocats
Germany
Joshka Sellinger, Lawyer, Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte e.V. / Society for Civil Rights
Ali Ighreiz, Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte e.V. / Society for Civil Rights
Greece
Vicky Tsega, Legal advisor, EKPIZO Consumers’ Association “The Quality of Life”
Ireland
TJ McIntyre, Associate Professor, University College Dublin
Italy
Francesca Episcopo, Assistant Professor, Department of Private Law, University of Amsterdam, and Project Coordinator of APPLIED – Assessing collective Private Parties Litigation In the Economy of Data.
Chiara Angiolini, Research Fellow, Law Department, University of Siena
Stefano Rosetti, media and privacy lawyer, noyb - European Centre for Digital Rights
Netherlands
Dr. J.M.L. (Anna) van Duin, Associate Professor of Private Law, University of Amsterdam
r. A.L. (Aart) Jonkers, Assistant Professor of Private Law, University of Amsterdam
K.V. (Kirsten) Meiring LL.M., Research Assistant, University of Amsterdam
Portugal
Carolina Ramalho dos Santos, Secretary-General, Ius-Omnibus
Spain
Julia Suderow, Partner at Suderow Fernández Abogadas. Lecturer, University of Deusto
Clara Fernández López, Partner at Suderow Fernández Abogadas
Alejandro Martínez Luna, Junior associate at Suderow Fernández Abogadas
Laura San José Fernández, Trainee lawyer at Suderow Fernández Abogadas
Translation
Belgium
Sincère de Talla
Croatia
Duje Prkut
Duje Kozomara
Anella Bukovic
France
Emmanuel Daoud
Germany
Stela Knezevic
Greece
Sofia Tzelepi
Italy
Sarah Lupi
Netherlands
Lien Santermans (copyediting)
Selien Coolen (translator)
Portugal
Leandro Moura
Spain
Mamen González
Copyeditor
Emma Irving
Graphic design
Justina Leston
Illustrations
Kruthika N.S
Creative Coordinator
Marea Zan
Copyright
This work is published under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license, allowing anyone to use it freely with full attribution to the authors. You can download the full document as a PDF or learn more about the specific guidelines here
Funder’s credit:
Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the CERV Programme. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.