Citizenship deprivation on security grounds – Difference in state practices – Underlying citizenship regimes and states’ constitutional structures – Constitutional roles attributed to the citizen – Judicial decisions on citizenship deprivation – Comparison with a focus on France and the United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights holds that the Bosphorus presumption of equivalent protection cannot apply to the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement – Its reasons focus on EEA Agreement’s lack of primacy, direct effect and adequate enforcement mechanisms – Not applying Bosphorus presumption to EEA Agreement results in the indirect review of EU law by the Strasbourg Court, given that EEA and EU law are substantially identical – Court’s arguments are open to strong criticism – However, its conclusions are correct – They are substantiated by two considerations, which were overlooked by the Court – First, EEA law is to be considered ‘freely entered into’ international law under the Matthews case law – Second, the EFTA Court lacks the power to strike down EEA law breaching upon fundamental rights – Both these consideration are the corollary of the fundamental premises of the EEA Agreement: the retention by EFTA states of sovereign decision-making powers – Refusal to apply Bosphorus presumption to EEA Agreement will likely determine a growing inconsistency between the Convention, EU and EEA law – This entails serious systemic problems

Constitutionalising private law – Horizontal effect of fundamental rights –New legislative techniques in the EU in platform governance – References to the Charter of Fundamental Rights in secondary union law – Article 14(4) of the Digital Services Act – Article 5(1) subparagraph 2 of the Terrorist Content Online Regulation – Compatibility of secondary union law references to the Charter with primary union law – Interpretative methodology of secondary union law references

Protection of personal data as a fundamental right – GDPR’s enforcement dilemma in cross-border cases – “One-stop-shop” model’s inadequacies highlighted – Distinction: regular cross-border enforcement versus cases of common European concern – Proposal: centralised enforcement mechanism for cases of common European concern – Union supervisory authority as a solution – Insufficiencies of the harmonisation proposal of the European Commission – Centralisation’s advantages: uniform enforcement, better coordination, and curbing forum shopping – Implications: fundamental rights protection and EU’s constitutional obligations – Constructive critique of the one-stop-shop model, not a dismissal – European constitutional law mandates effective data protection enforcement.

From ‘strategic autonomy’ to ‘open strategic autonomy’ in the 2021 EU Trade Policy Review – questioning the added value of the qualifier ‘open’ – legal exploration of ‘openness’ in EU external trade – identification of constitutional norms of ‘openness’ in the Treaties – strong constitutional preference for openness – discretion for trade liberalisation and multilateralism and international cooperation but strict obligation for compliance with international law – reviewing recent EU trade instruments in light of these norms – rise in unilateral trade policy instruments adopted since 2021 in pursuit of open strategic autonomy – instruments seeking to restore reciprocity in international trade relations – instruments using access to the internal market as a lever for achieving global sustainability goals – instruments preserving EU security through trade – problematic tensions with international law – very limited ‘openness’ in ‘open strategic autonomy’.