Evrigenis Yearbook of International and European Law

Introduction

Paraskevi Naskou-Perraki — 2026-02-05

Introductory information

Paraskevi Naskou-Perraki — 2026-02-05

Table of contents

The prohibition of torture:

Yannis Ktistakis — 2026-02-05

The separate opinion of Professor Dimitrios Evrigenis, the first Greek judge
in Strasbourg following the Greek re-ratification of the European Convention
on Human Rights (ECHR) in 1974, is well-known. This opinion was delivered
in the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on the inter-
State application of Ireland against the United Kingdom in January 19781.The
subject of the application was the so-called five interrogation techniques used
by English police officers against suspects suspected of involvement in ter-
rorist activities of the Irish Republican Army. The main feature of those tech-
niques was the temporary deprivation of one or more human senses by sim-
ple, non-medicinal means.
The prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
is enshrined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in subse-
quent binding rights instruments, such as the International Covenant on Civ-
il and Political Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights and, most
recently, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Finally, it is enshrined in two
specific conventions against torture, one of the United Nations2 and one of the
Council of Europe3, which bear the same title.

Fonder le caractère juridictionnel des organes supranationaux statuant sur des droits sociaux

Nikitas Aliprantis — 2026-02-05

Les droits sociaux nécessitent manifestement le renforcement de leurs effets
pratiques. Ceci suppose tout d’abord la reconnaissance de leur justiciabilité et
la critique des contestations qui persistent. Un attention particulier doit en-
suite être portée aux droits sociaux protégés perde pactes supranationaux qui
ont institué des organes habilités à se prononcer sur des pétitions invoquant
leur violation. Il s’agit de faire apparaître le caractère juridictionnel des dits or-
ganes et de leurs’ actes, ce qui impliquer a de rendre ces derniers obligatoire-
ment exécutifs par les jugements de la justice interne des États.

Reflections on the 200 years of the history of international organisations

Konstantinos D. Magliveras — 2026-02-05

International organisations (IOs) are probably the single most important
achievement in the history of the international community. IOs should be seen
as the most developed form of organizing it on the basis of equality, fairness
and perpetuity. IOs are a relatively new development. Even though (what
we now call) international relations have been present for several thousands
of years, the concept of international institutions and, more generally, IOs,
emerged only 200 years ago.

In dubio pro femina:

Panagiota Vlacha — 2026-02-05

Globally, one in three women (736 million around the world) has been sub-
jected to some type of violence (physical and/or sexual) according to the aggre-
gated statistics of the UN Women, with reporting of number varying based on
the source. According to the Gender Equality Index of the European Institute
of Gender Equality (EIGE) there is a lack of comparable EU-wide quality data
that camouflage the phenomenon’s prevalence. On the other hand, females
compose almost 50% (in certain years, even more) of the forcibly displaced
population (including refugees, asylum seekers, stateless and internally dis-
placed persons) over 57,6 million women and girls according to the Office of
the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

The legal framework and policy dimensions of autonomous maritime technology

Leonidas Sotiropoulos — 2026-02-05

A new era has dawned for maritime industry as the development of new
technologies has influenced the global trade,1 and around 90% of the world’s
trade is carried out by ships2. In the age of smart phones and smart devices it
is about time for shipping to become smart and digital too. This new world of
technologies such as Internet of Things (IoT), Robotics and Artificial Intelli-
gence, represents the fourth industrial revolution and will change the way we
live, work and interact with others. More specifically, maritime trade acts as a
cross-border industry collaborating as a blockchain with a multitude of mari-
time and port actors and operations.

Corporate social responsibility and sustainable development within the EU legal framework:

Marijana Mladenov — 2026-02-05

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has evolved considerably, shap-
ing corporate governance systems and modern practices. In the latest centu-
ries, companies began to assume the responsibility of balancing profit maxi-
mization with creating and maintaining a balance between the needs of their
customers, employees, and society at large. This shift led to companies being
viewed as stewards of their various external relationships, resulting in corpo-
rations assuming social and economic responsibilities1. Today, with increasing
environmental issues and rising societal expectations for more ethical corpo-
rate behavior, CSR has evolved from a simple philanthropic program to an im-
perative paradigm of contemporary sustainable business practices.

Algorithmic justice and constitutional rights:

Konstantinos Kouroupis — 2026-02-05

The rapid proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies across di-
verse sectors has fundamentally reshaped operational paradigms, extending
its transformative influence into the administration of justice. The integra-
tion of machine learning algorithms, predictive analytics, and automated deci-
sion-making systems has ushered in what scholars describe as a “digital trans-
formation of justice,” challenging traditional notions of judicial authority and
procedural fairness.
Criminal justice systems, historically grounded in human judgment, discre-
tion, and experiential knowledge, are increasingly adopting algorithmic tools
to guide or supplement decision-making across various stages of adjudication,
from bail determinations to sentencing. This technological shift raises pro-
found questions about the compatibility of algorithmic decision-making with
established constitutional principles and procedural safeguards that underpin
fair judicial proceedings.

Nudging and learned helplessness in algorithmic sanctioning law in Spain

David Egea Villalba — 2026-02-05

From a terminological point of view, algorithmic artificial intelligence sys-
tems (hereinafter AI) are based indistinctly on statistical learning, machine
learning or1 data mining; distinguishing. In turn, various methods can be dis-
tinguished depending on whether they are guided learning, with labeled data
(supervised learning) or those that use autonomous learning, without labeled
data (unsupervised learning), and there are also reinforcement learning algo-
rithms.

Smart meter deployment in the EU:

Komninos Komnios — 2026-02-05

The European Union’s dedication to a sustainable energy future, legally es-
tablished through Article 194(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the Eu-
ropean Union (TFEU), prioritises energy efficiency and competitive markets.
Within this established legal framework, the implementation of smart metering
systems is regarded as pivotal for achieving the EU’s energy transition goals,
as emphasised by initiatives such as the Clean Energy for All Europeans Pack-
age and Directive 2019/944/EU as amended by Directive 2024/1711/EU. To
further realise these objectives, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU)
2023/1162 was adopted, setting out the technical standards for data access, set-
tlement, and switching for electricity smart metering, thus strengthening the
technical basis for their deployment. These metering systems, legally defined in
Article 2(23) of Directive 2019/944/EU, possess three key features: (i) the capac-
ity to measure both electricity consumption and grid feed-in; (ii) superior infor-
mation compared to traditional meters; and (iii) electronic communication for
data transmission, monitoring, and control. This definition, initially outlined in
Commission Recommendation 2012/148/EU, and now reinforced by Commis-
sion Implementing Regulation 2023/11628 with its detailed technical specifica-
tions, firmly positions smart meters at the heart of EU energy policy.

Les Plaintes dans le Cadre du Règlement (UE) 2021/782

Antoine Maniatis — 2026-02-13

L’histoire du droit ferroviaire fait preuve de la Convention de Berne sur le
transport ferroviaire des marchandises, du 14 octobre 1890, laquelle a été car-
actérisée comme une sorte de code de commerce international et a annoncé à
bien de regards les voies qu’empruntera, dans le dernier tiers du XXe siècle, le
droit de l’Union européenne1. Le déploiement de la politique unioniste pour le
transport par chemins de fer s’est avéré tardif et il a pris la forme de «paquets
ferroviaires» successifs2.
Le règlement (CE) 1371/2007 sur les droits et obligations des voyageurs fer-
roviaires3, dit DOV ou bien OSP (Obligations de Services Publics)4 fait par-
tie du troisième paquet ferroviaire. Souhaitant une harmonisation avec le sys-
tème de droit international existant, l’Union européenne a décidé que l’annexe
I du règlement renvoie à l’appendice A de la Convention relative aux trans-
ports internationaux ferroviaires5. Il a été remplacé par le règlement 2021/782
(refonte), qui est cité règlement DOV ou bien en anglais «RPRR»6 et est consid-
éré comme très complet7. Les nouvelles dispositions sont applicables en princ-
ipe depuis le 7 juin 2023. Dans ce contexte, il importe d’analyser la question
des plaintes des voyageurs.

Intertwined rights:

Nikolaos Gaitenidis — 2026-02-13

The consideration of intellectual property as a human right gives rise to
some particularly complex and, in some cases, unconventional considera-
tions. This is due to the different treatment of issues related to intellectual
property by the legal systems of the states, but also due to the traditional
treatment of intellectual property as part of the body of commercial law. As
a result, consideration of intellectual property as part of human rights law is
relatively more marginalized and quite fragmented. However, the relation-
ship o intellectual property law with human rights provisions needs to be re-
evaluated for several reasons: As Cullet notes: “First, the impacts of intellectual
property rights on the realization of human rights such as the right to health have be-
come much more visible following the adoption of the TRIPS Agreement. Second, the
increasing importance of intellectual property rights has led to the need for clarifying
the scope of human rights provisions protecting individual contributions to knowl-
edge. Third, a number of new challenges need to be addressed concerning contribu-
tions to knowledge, which cannot effectively be protected under existing intellectual
property rights regimes”.

The Distinction between Intra-EU and Extra-EU BITS made by the CJEU in Achmea Case and Opinion 1/17 and the Conflict of ISDS with the Principle of Autonomy of EU Law

Katerina Chalka — 2026-02-13

Over the past years, the principle of autonomy has played a crucial role in
the fields of the EU’s external relations and investment law. The importance
of this principle, the basic concepts and aspects of which are discussed be-
low, is evident in the attempt to delineate the relationship and interaction be-
tween EU law and investment arbitration. The relationship between interna-
tional investment law and EU law has been characterised by the legal theory
as “a stormy one” while the definition of the status and the effect of the latter
both in intra and extra-EU investment arbitration has emerged as a complex
and thought-provoking issue.

International Court of Justice overview:

Maria Spyridaki — 2026-02-13

On 13 July 2023, the International Court of Justice delivered its judgment in
the case of Nicaragua v. Colombia. Nicaragua instituted proceedings against
Colombia on 16 September 2013, with respect to the delimitation of the conti-
nental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast and the con-
tinental shelf of Colombia. By an Order issued on 4 October 2022, the Court
considered that it was necessary to address two legal questions before it could
reach its final decision, and asked the parties to limit their arguments to these:
“Under customary international law, may a state’s entitlement to a con-
tinental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the
breadth of its territorial sea is measured extend within 200 nautical miles from
the baselines of another State?”, “What are the criteria under customary in-
ternational law for the determination of the limit of the continental shelf be-
yond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the ter-
ritorial sea is measured and, in this regard, do paragraphs 2 to 6 of Article 76
of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea reflect customary in-
ternational law?”

International Court of Justice overview:

Maria Spyridaki — 2026-02-13

On 31 January 2024, the International Court of Justice issued its judgment
on the Merits of the case Ukraine v. Russian Federation concerning alleged vio-
lations of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of
Terrorism (hereinafter ICSFT) and the International Convention on the Elimi-
nation of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (hereinafter CERD).
Ukraine initiated the proceedings in 2017 after the occurrence of events in
the Crimean Peninsula in 2014 claiming that the Russian Federation acted in
breach of numerous provisions of the above-mentioned conventions. In regard
to the ICSFT, Ukraine claimed that Russia violated Articles 8(1), 9(1), 10(1),
12(1) and 18(1), as it provided armed groups involved in terrorist acts in the
territory of Ukraine with funding, weaponry and training. Ukraine, also, re-
ferred to the Russian Federation’s failure to freeze or seize monetary resources
used for terrorism funding, to investigate or prosecute alleged offenders and
to cooperate with the Applicant in the relevant criminal investigations.

International Criminal Court:

Ioannis P. Tzivaras — 2026-02-13

In April 2025, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court
(ICC) delivered a landmark judgment on Israel’s appeal concerning the Court’s
jurisdiction under Article 19(2) of the Rome Statute. This ruling revitalizes crit-
ical debates over the ICC’s ability to adjudicate cases involving sitting or for-
mer heads of state—an issue that has dominated international criminal law
since the ICC’s inception. The decision not only alters the procedural posture
of the Israel-Gaza situation, but also resonates across broader ICC caseloads
addressing complex jurisdictional and immunities questions.

European Court of Human Rights:

Kyriaki Patsianta — 2026-02-13

In the case of O.R. v. Greece1, the ECtHR found that there had been a vi-
olation of article 3 of the Convention in respect of an unaccompanied minor
and asylum seeker at the relevant time, who complained about his living con-
ditions in Greece from November 2018 to May 2019 alleging that he had re-
mained homeless for approximately six months, without access to basic neces-
sities and without an officially designated permanent legal guardian.

African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights:

Konstantinos D. Magliveras — 2026-02-13

The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACtHPR) was estab-
lished under the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’
Rights (African Charter) on the Establishment of an African Court on Human
and Peoples’ Rights (Protocol). It was adopted in June 1998 and came into
force in January 2004.Even though the ACtHPR and the African Commission
on Human and Peoples’ Rights (AComHPR), which was established under the
African Charter, operate in the context of the African Union (AU), neither or-
gan is part of the AU’s institutional architecture. In effect, they are both trea-
ty-based organs. For this reason, all contracting parties to the African Charter
come under the jurisdiction of the AComHPR. Presently, of the fifty-five AU
Member States, only Morocco is not a party to the African Charter. In contra-
distinction, the ACtHPR exercises jurisdiction only over those AU Member
States which have ratified the 1988 Protocol.

Human Rights Committee:

Paraskevi Naskou-Perraki — 2026-02-13

On July 19 2024, the Human Rights Committee adopted its views under Ar-
ticle 5(4) of the Optional Protocol2, concerning Communication No. 3582/2019,
the author claiming violation of his right to a fair trial and his right to defence.
The views of the Human Rights Committee were published on August 20243,
with the author requesting anonymity of his identity.
This is one of the few communications ever presented before the Human
Rights Committee against Greece on a sensitive issue that of a fair trial. For
the history we may refer to the fact, that the author had already in his favor a
decision from the European Court of Human Rights, after submitting a com-
plaint4, claiming that his right to be presumed innocent had been violated by
the statement made by the Prime Minister and cabinet minister who, while his
case was pending on appeal, made a series of incriminated statements against
him. The European Court of Human Rights published its decision on 24 May
2011 and found that the author’s rights were violated under article 6 (2) of the
European Convention of Human Rights.

European Committee of Social Rights:

Elisavet Athanasia Alexiadou — 2026-02-13

In 2022 due to the increasing cost of living about 40 millions Europeans, rep-
resenting 9.3% of the EU population, were estimated to be unable to adequate-
ly warm their homes, thus unveiling a disturbing situation that becomes even
more apparent in crisis times (e.g. the climate crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic)
and infringes upon human dignity, while exposing individuals to social exclu-
sion and energy poverty. At this point it is essential to mention that in 2015 the
UN General Assembly’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and spe-
cifically the Sustainable Development Goal 7 explicitly emphasized States’ ob-
ligation to “ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern en-
ergy for all”. Equally important, in 2017 the European Pillar of Social Rights,
though not legally binding, enshrined the right of everyone to access essential
services of good quality, including energy, while it affirmed that support for
access to such services shall be available for those in need (Principle 20).

Editors’ short biographies

Paraskevi Naskou-Perraki — 2026-02-13

Editors’ short biographies