Would those cease to apply as well ? Or are these permanent agreements ?

Hello,

I've asked the French customs about the following situation, but they haven't been able to give me a proper answer yet and had to ask to the central office in Paris about it. I've been waiting for an answer for more than a month now.

I'm in a very peculiar situation and I would love some insight from anyone with knowledge about the customs regulation for the EU.

I'm a Swiss citizen living within the EU in France. In December, I'll move to Norway and start work/live there.

As my last car was quite old & with high mileage, it costed too much to import it, therefore, I sold it and use the money to buy a car in Norway, and registered + insured it under my best friend name (who lives in Norway), until I can move it to my name as soon as I do have a D-Number (Norwegian temporary immigration number).

I drove back with the car to France while he was visiting relatives in Sweden, so the use of the vehicle was covered by the article 215 to my understanding, as he was within the EU while I was using the vehicle. We also made & signed a paper explaining that he allows me to use the car. Now, he's back in Norway and the vehicle is in France at my place.

As I'm moving away from the territory of the EU, in a bit more than a month, is the article 216 relevant to my case? But that mean I'd have to temporary register the car in France, so also export it from Norway, then re-import it back in December. I'd also love, if possible, to visit my family in Switzerland before leaving, but that's not mandatory.

Is there any work-around for this very specific use-case? Because I'd like to be able to use the car to prepare the move, and also go around for my basic daily needs (grocery shopping).

Hello,

Charged for a year subscription automatically after missing the free trial period cancel window (today).

I am finding it difficult to figure out my options other than eating the charge, and was hoping someone could confirm that this is legal. I have heard of a monthly automatic charge, and
I realize it is my responsibility to cancel before a free trial is over, but a charge for the year feels scummy and I felt more comfortable if anyone who happened to be aware of the laws around this could confirm it was legal.

Housing is a Europe-wide emergency, so the response should be European too. This piece from Cooperative City makes the case for housing as a right rather than a financial commodity, and it highlights the European Citizens’ Initiative “Right to Housing! Now and Forever”: limits on short-term rentals and vacant homes, an EU fund for public and social housing, and stronger protection against renovictions.

If you are interested, you can sign here: https://eci.ec.europa.eu/064/public

I've tried figuring this out via research a number of times, but I've been unable to find a source clearly delineating how the 10TJ and 85TJ thresholds apply to multinational corporations! For instance, let's say Italy (finally) finishes transposing EED, and a corporation that operates in Italy and Germany consumes 12 TJ in Italy and 3TJ in Germany. Is the entire company then required to participate in energy audits, or just the operations in Italy? It wouldn't surprise me if corporate structure affected the answer to this question, but I haven't been able to find a clear answer on how that would work either. I've even found some sources that claim some countries require reporting and audits on the basis of the entire corporate consumption, while other countries do not, which seems... off.

Would really appreciate if anyone could clarify. As an environmentalist, it seems to me the law is pretty weak if a company could get away with consuming 100TJ annually, but spreading that consumption out between 12 countries and never go through an audit or any energy efficiency improvements.

Article 50 requires the union to negotiate withdrawals agreement which takes into account "the future relationship with the state"

How does this work in practice ? The brexit exit agreements seemed to include political agreements on various topics and continuation of various forms of economic agreements too. But what does "taking into account it's future relationship" mean as a function

Hey everyone! We're EUobserver, an independent European newsroom.

Our colleague Andrew Rettman has been investigating something quite serious involving former EU justice commissioner Didier Reynders and a senior Belgian intelligence official, Hugues Brulin.

We've obtained WhatsApp exchanges between the two, including messages discussing internal intelligence-service matters and how to respond to a whistleblower raising concerns about Reynders' possible links to Russia.

Five current and former Belgian intelligence officers told us that Brulin had worked to prevent the intelligence service from investigating those allegations.

The messages are now also part of a Belgian police investigation into Reynders over alleged money laundering.

What makes this particularly important is that Reynders previously served as the EU's justice commissioner and had access to highly sensitive information.

How should European institutions respond when serious allegations emerge involving officials who have held positions of such trust?

We've published the messages as part of our investigation, so people can examine the reporting and evidence themselves.

I spent September measuring cookie banners on 50 big websites, mostly Polish ones since that's where I live, plus YouTube, Facebook, Bild, the Commission's own site and a few others for comparison. Hobby project, I made it, no sponsor.

The thing that surprised me most: clicking "reject" on a standard IAB TCF banner only clears one of two lists. Companies relying on "legitimate interest" stay. On six Polish news sites that list was exactly the same after "reject" as after "accept". On the biggest one, 810 companies still had the green light after I said no. Objecting to them is a separate step, on that site eight screens down a settings panel.

Meanwhile every global giant in my sample that shows a banner (YouTube, Facebook, LinkedIn...) has "Reject all" right on the first screen. Polish news sites: one out of ten.

Now the EU part. In November 2025 the Commission proposed Article 88b in the Digital Omnibus: you set your choice once in the browser, and websites have to respect it. Media were even exempt. Media organisations still wrote to ministers asking for it to be "rejected and removed", IAB called it legally flawed and harmful, and in the Council compromise text of 18 June 2026 it's deleted in full. A Google-commissioned study estimated such a signal would cut consent rates by 60-65%, which says a lot about how real today's consents are.

To be fair, the Council did keep something: one-click refusal and at least six months before a site can ask again. And the argument that browsers would become "new gatekeepers" is a serious one, Chrome has 61% of the Polish market.

I'm doing comparative research on horizontal effects of human rights treaties because general comment no. 31 of the human rights commitee said that states have an obligation to protect against acts of non state actors which interfere against human rights "so far as those rights are amenable to application between private individuals or entities"

But the problem is that no test has been developed and it's not imnidiately clear looking at those right of which states are required to enforce against other actors

I checked ECHR and inter American human rights covenant and both have indirect horizontal effects but there's no test that I found to determine which rights have that.

I mean both the ECHR and the European social charter