Effectiveness and Coherence in Article 102 TFEU: CELS Lunchtime Seminar

Speaker: Professor Niamh Dunne, LSEBiography: Niamh Dunne is a professor at the Law School of the London School of Economics, where she teaches and researches in competition law.Abstract: Is it possible to reconcile the competing visions of what constitutes ‘effective’ abuse of dominance enforcement that emerge from the contemporary jurisprudence of the Commission and the Court of Justice? Article 102 has been a focal point for efforts both to modernise but also to render more effective the application of EU competition law, with different strands of recent case law emphasising the pursuit of market efficiency, the protection of equality of market access, and the prevention of exploitation by dominant undertakings. This presentation will explore the coherence of these developments, and consider whether this question matters in light of the Commission’s stated objective of achieving ‘a robust enforcement’ of Article 102. For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Professor Morten Rasmussen, University of CopenhagenBiography: Morten Rasmussen is Associate Professor at the SAXO Institute, University of Copenhagen and a leading expert on the legal histories of European integration and the League of Nations. He has published numerous articles and book chapters on these topics. The most recent publication is a general history of early period of European Union Law from 1950 to 1993. He is currently co-editing a Cambridge Handbook of the League of Nations and international law.Abstract: Professor Rasmussen will present on his forthcoming publication 'The History of European Union Law - Constitutional Practice, 1950 to 1993'. The formative period of EU law witnessed an intense struggle over the emergence of a constitutional practice. While the supranational institutions, including the European Commission, the European Court of Justice and the European Parliament, as well as EU law academics helped to develop and promote the constitutional practice, member state governments and judiciaries were generally reluctant to embrace it. The struggle resulted in an uneasy stalemate in which the constitutional practice was allowed to influence the doctrines, shape and functioning of the European legal order that now underpins the EU, but a majority of member state governments rejected European constitutionalism as the legitimating principle of the new EU formed on basis of the Treaty of Maastricht (1992). The lecture traces the struggle and accounts for eventual stalemate over the constitutional practice and the fragile and partial system of rule of law that exists in the EU today.For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Professor Halvard Haukeland Fredriksen, UIB, NorwayBiography: Halvard Haukeland Fredriksen is professor of European law at the University of Bergen, Norway. Besides his Norwegian law degree, he holds the degrees of Mag.Jur. and Dr.Jur. from the University of Göttingen (Germany) as well as a PhD from the University of Bergen. Member of the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters. Co-Director of the Bergen Centre of the Europeanization of Norwegian law. Editor-in-chief of the Norwegian Law Journal. Member of the 2022-2024 ‘EEA Review Committee’ that assed Norway’s current affiliation to the European Union.Abstract: For more than three decades, the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) has integrated Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway into the better part of the EU internal market. Over the years, the Agreement has been supplemented by numerous other agreements between Norway and the EU, creating a complex patchwork of agreements commonly referred to as ‘the Norway model’. Notwithstanding the model’s democratic problems, the general view in Norway is that it has worked well as a compromise between those in favour of membership of the Union and those very much opposed to this idea. However, the EU’s strive for ‘strategic autonomy’ in the current geopolitical situation makes it more complicated to remain part of the internal market without being part of the customs union and the common commercial policy. The seminar will discuss the legal challenges confronting ‘the Norway model’ as well as possible remedies.For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

The Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS), The Centre for Public Law (CPL) and the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law (LCIL) held a roundtable event on 'The Future of the European Convention on Human Rights in the United Kingdom' on 21 February 2026.The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) remains one of the most significant instruments of human rights protection in Europe. Yet in the United Kingdom, its place in the constitutional order is increasingly contested. Political debate has raised questions about the appropriateness of the ECHR's reach, its domestic incorporation through the Human Rights Act 1998, and the proper balance between parliamentary sovereignty and Strasbourg supervision.The aim of this roundtable was to bring together Cambridge academics to consider possible trajectories for reform and the mechanisms to achieve this. The discussion provided a space not only for doctrinal and legal analysis but also for assessing political realities and potential path. The roundtable started from the perspective that there is a perception, very strong in some quarters, that the ECHR is not fit for purpose.Chair: Catherine BarnardNabil KhabirpourJan KlabbersMarcus GehringChair: Sandesh SivakumaranDarren PetersonStevie MartinFor further information:CELS: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/CPL: https://www.cpl.law.cam.ac.uk/LCIL: https://www.lcil.cam.ac.uk/

Case C-181/23 Commission v Malta (investor citizenship) is one of the most important decisions the Court has handed down on EU citizenship. It is of significant interest not just because of the issues raised, but because of the reasoning of the Court and the Court’s view of citizenship in the EU legal order. This seminar provides the opportunity to hear from both those closest to the decision and academic commentators on their assessment of this momentous decision.Chair: Professor Catherine Barnard, University of Cambridge Discussants: Professor Markus Gehring, University of CambridgeDr Emilija Leinarte, University of CambridgeProfessor Daniel Sarmiento, Universidad Complutense, MadridDr Martin Steinfeld, University of Cambridge Professor Takis Tridimas, Luxembourg Centre for European Law (LCEL) For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Professor Daniele Gallo, Luiss University, ItalyAbstract: The seminar, building upon Professor Gallo’s book, Direct Effect in EU Law (EU Law Library Series, OUP, 2025), will explore the uneasy trajectories of a transformative doctrine such as direct effect. By reassessing both the present and future of this legal and political construct, it will argue that such chameleon-like principle has evolved into a broader legal category than it was at the outset of the European integration process and that this development has been only partially captured by the CJEU. In doing so, Professor Gallo will revisit the no horizontal direct effect rule of contemporary directives and argue for its overcoming in light of the text, scope, and objectives of legal acts that are substantially different from those envisaged by Article 288 TFEU.For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Dr Raphaële Xenidis, Sciences Po Law School, FranceAbstract: EU anti-discrimination law has been a subject of choice for critiques from various disciplines. One influential motif that has durably structured the critical analysis of EU anti-discrimination law is the distinction between formal and substantive equality. Substantive approaches seek to diagnose and remedy the disjunctions between formal equality frameworks and social realities. Yet, such critiques often remain implicit in their engagement with social theory, leaving the very notion and construction of ’social realities’ largely unexamined. This paper thus asks: How does the principle of non-discrimination mediate and produce specific forms of individual subjectivity, interpersonal relationships, institutional arrangements, material and spatial organisation and ultimately social order? How does it authorise the existence of certain subjects and groups while excluding and rendering others invisible? What 'forms of life' does EU anti-discrimination and its jurisprudential construction by the Court enable or preclude?For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Dr Julian Ghosh, Cambridge University Abstract: In this seminar Dr Ghosh will address what, post-Lipton are the rules for REUL/AL; examples of UK Court decisions which should but do not apply REUL/AL and will provide a useful template for future litigation.For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

An online debate considering the recent Supreme Court case of 'For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers' which was handed down on 16 April featuring Aidan O’Neill KC (Scot.), KC (E&W), BL (Ireland) who appeared for For Women Scotland. In the discussion Aidan reflected on his experiences of the case, the judgment and participate in a debate of the issues it raises going forward. This was followed by a response from Dr Lena Holzer, and then a question and answer session.For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/activities-archive

Speaker: Dr Bernadette Zelger, University of InnsbruckAbstract: The debate about the future of the European Union has long left academic circles, arrived in the midst of society and been awarded political attention. Meanwhile, there has been an increase of Euroscepticism accompanied by more nationalist political developments echoed in the swings to the right all across the EU. These developments may, arguably at least in parts, be explained by social resentments of the peoples of Europe. While acknowledging that law constructs and contributes to a social reality of its own it is thus, arguably also about the lack of a genuine socio-economic equilibrium within the law and political system of the EU. This imbalance is not only found within the EU legal constitutional framework, but also within the case-law of the European Court of Justice. However, possible solutions to solve this socio-economic imbalance are limited: It is either (i) Treaty reform or, alternatively, (ii) a change in the approach of the Court in its jurisprudence. While these alternatives are both valid and, to some extent, mutually exclusive, they unveil and epitomise different visions as regards the future of the European Union. However, while acknowledging the differences in the approach, they are arguably different means to serve the very same end: Warrant the European Union’s future success. For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series