<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>KluwerLawOnline.com - European Business Law Review</title>
<link>https://kluwerlawonline.com/Journals/European+Business+Law+Review/383</link>
<description>Penetrating commentary and analysis on the dimension of European law for business, legal, and political issues.</description>
<language>en-gb</language>
<pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2025 00:01:06 GMT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2025 00:01:06 GMT</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>
<item>
<title>The (R) Evolution of the EU Financial Supervisory Framework: Architecture in Search of an Architect?</title>
<link>https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/European+Business+Law+Review/36.2/EULR2025011</link>
<category>European Business Law Review</category>
<description><p class="MsoNormal"><i>This article explores
some major institutional challenges emerging from the recent developments of
the European Union (EU) financial supervisory framework. In particular, it
first examines the evolution of the financial supervisory architecture since
the creation of the three European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) and the
establishment of the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM). It then gives an
appraisal of the 2019 reform of the ESAs, highlighting the key achievements
attained as well as its shortcomings. It then analyses some recent sectoral
legislative developments which have significantly broadened the supervisory
mandate of the ESAs, in particular of the European Securities and Markets
Authority (ESMA). The article finally examines the Market in Crypto-Assets
Regulation (MiCAR), and the emergence of new supervisory models, before
concluding with a discussion of the challenges associated with the observed
institutional evolution of the EU financial supervisory framework, with a
selected focus on the overall coherence of the system, the institutional and
constitutional balance, and future prospects and reforms.<o:p></o:p></i></p>Volume 36 Online ISSN 0959-6941</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2025 00:01:06 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/European+Business+Law+Review/36.2/EULR2025011</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>Misuse of Electronic Signatures and eID Owner Liability: A Comparative Analysis of Estonian and Norwegian Legislative Frameworks and Practice</title>
<link>https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/European+Business+Law+Review/36.2/EULR2025012</link>
<category>European Business Law Review</category>
<description><p class="MsoNormal"><i>The issuance of electronic
identity (eID) will become compulsory across the EU according to Regulation
(EU) 2024/1183 which amends Regulation (EU) 910/2014 as regards establishing
the European Digital Identity Framework. Estonia and Norway both have extensive
experience in the use of eID. Ample Norwegian and Estonian civil and criminal
case law exists analysing the eID owner’s liability in cases of misuse of eID
by a third person. Civil courts tend to take a different approach than criminal
courts. In civil proceedings, the eID owner is often found liable, whether in
contract or tort, in cases of misuse of eID by a third person. In criminal
proceedings, courts tend to find the misuser of eID guilty (in cases of
computer-related fraud) and ground the eID misuser’s liability in tort. This
creates a situation where the creditor can choose against whom to bring their
claim (depending e.g. on the financial status of the eID owner and the misuser)
in order to ensure that their interests are well protected. However, the eID
owner’s obligation to repay money to the creditor may depend on the type of
proceedings chosen by the creditor. Focusing on situations where a third party
has misused an owner’s eID, the authors analyse Estonian and Norwegian
legislation and case law in order to determine who should be held liable under
civil law.<o:p></o:p></i></p>Volume 36 Online ISSN 0959-6941</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2025 00:01:06 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/European+Business+Law+Review/36.2/EULR2025012</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>Unequal Protection under Sovereign Immunity for Economic Crisis Resolution Measures: Central Bank Measures versus Sovereign Debt Restructuring</title>
<link>https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/European+Business+Law+Review/36.2/EULR2025013</link>
<category>European Business Law Review</category>
<description><p class="MsoNormal"><i>This article examines
the scope of protection provided by sovereign immunity rules for two core
economic crisis prevention and resolution measures: central banks’ efforts to
stabilize the economy, in particular through foreign exchange reserves, and
sovereign debt crisis resolution through so-called debt restructuring. The aim
is to analyse how sovereign immunity rules may influence a state’s monetary
power, defined as its capacity to effectively prevent and solve economic
crises. What we see is that while central bank policies are largely shielded,
sovereign debt restructuring measures are not protected by sovereign immunity
rules. A consequence is that the states most in need of crisis resolution tools
are those least protected by immunity. The article seeks to critically examine
why the protection of two economic crisis prevention and resolution measures
has evolved in different directions, including asking whether sovereign
financing can be treated separately from monetary policy when discussing
economic crisis resolution measures.</i></p>Volume 36 Online ISSN 0959-6941</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2025 00:01:06 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/European+Business+Law+Review/36.2/EULR2025013</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>Editorial Introduction to Special Issue: Transformation in the Third Decade of the 21st Century – Challenges and Pressing Issues in the Realms of Company Law, Financial Markets Law and Beyond
</title>
<link>https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/European+Business+Law+Review/36.2/EULR2025008</link>
<category>European Business Law Review</category>
<description>Volume 36 Online ISSN 0959-6941</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2025 00:01:06 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/European+Business+Law+Review/36.2/EULR2025008</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>(Generative) Artificial Intelligence in the Third Decade of the 21st Century and Beyond – Selected European Legal, Regulatory and Supervisory Aspects with a Particular View on Companies in Financial Markets</title>
<link>https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/European+Business+Law+Review/36.2/EULR2025009</link>
<category>European Business Law Review</category>
<description><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
normal;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-IN;mso-fareast-language:
EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">The profoundly transformative (current and
potential future) effects of (generative) AI particularly on individuals,
societies, states and economies might not be overstated. The law in the realm
of AI accordingly further develops rapidly. At European Union (EU) level, the
Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) is of utmost importance, here. This paper
analyses aspects of the EU legal, regulatory and supervisory approach to the currently
most advanced and challenging AI: general-purpose Artificial Intelligence (AI)
models and general-purpose AI systems. Focus is particularly on how the EU
regime for AI responds to the wide spectrum of risks linked to (generative) AI
with a sector-specific emphasis on financial markets.</span></i></p><p>
</p><p class="MsoNormal"><i>&nbsp;</i></p>Volume 36 Online ISSN 0959-6941</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2025 00:01:06 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/European+Business+Law+Review/36.2/EULR2025009</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>Suitability Assessments: Assessing Bank Directors’ Knowledge, Skills and Experience
</title>
<link>https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/European+Business+Law+Review/36.2/EULR2025010</link>
<category>European Business Law Review</category>
<description><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:normal;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
&quot;TimesNewRomanPSMT&quot;,serif;mso-bidi-font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT">The article
explores the suitability requirements for directors in European Union&nbsp;</span></i><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
&quot;TimesNewRomanPSMT&quot;,serif;mso-bidi-font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT">(“EU”) banks
with a focus on the knowledge, skills and experience criteria. After an&nbsp;</span></i><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
&quot;TimesNewRomanPSMT&quot;,serif;mso-bidi-font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT">introduction
in part 1, part 2 considers the evolution and legal basis for the fit and</span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:normal;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
&quot;TimesNewRomanPSMT&quot;,serif;mso-bidi-font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT">proper
assessment for bank directors in the EU. It describes the assessment of
directors&nbsp;</span></i><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
&quot;TimesNewRomanPSMT&quot;,serif;mso-bidi-font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT">conducted
pursuant to Article 91 of Directive 2013/36/EU as amended (CRD IV)&nbsp;</span></i><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
&quot;TimesNewRomanPSMT&quot;,serif;mso-bidi-font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT">by the
nominating banks and by the relevant competent authority. The latter’s
assessment&nbsp;</span></i><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
&quot;TimesNewRomanPSMT&quot;,serif;mso-bidi-font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT">serves a
critical gate-keeping function when it forms part of the initial decision&nbsp;</span></i><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
&quot;TimesNewRomanPSMT&quot;,serif;mso-bidi-font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT">to authorise
a bank, or to approve candidates for board positions or newly appointed&nbsp;</span></i><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
&quot;TimesNewRomanPSMT&quot;,serif;mso-bidi-font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT">directors.
The banks too play a key role by ensuring that the directors they nominate&nbsp;</span></i><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
&quot;TimesNewRomanPSMT&quot;,serif;mso-bidi-font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT">meet the
suitability standards and continue to do so throughout their tenure. This part&nbsp;</span></i><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
&quot;TimesNewRomanPSMT&quot;,serif;mso-bidi-font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT">also examines
the revised framework for suitability assessments set out in Directive&nbsp;</span></i><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
&quot;TimesNewRomanPSMT&quot;,serif;mso-bidi-font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT">2024/1619
(CRD VI). Part 3 explores the meaning of the knowledge, skills and experience&nbsp;</span></i><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
&quot;TimesNewRomanPSMT&quot;,serif;mso-bidi-font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT">criteria and
the difficulties faced by competent authorities and banks in making&nbsp;</span></i><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
&quot;TimesNewRomanPSMT&quot;,serif;mso-bidi-font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT">suitability
assessments. Part 4 reflects on the “new” categories of knowledge needed&nbsp;</span></i><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
&quot;TimesNewRomanPSMT&quot;,serif;mso-bidi-font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT">around the
board table with a focus on ESG risk and technology risk. It considers&nbsp;</span></i><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
&quot;TimesNewRomanPSMT&quot;,serif;mso-bidi-font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT">whether these
needs could be addressed by the appointment of directors with expertise&nbsp;</span></i><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
&quot;TimesNewRomanPSMT&quot;,serif;mso-bidi-font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT">in these
areas or the establishment of special committees with mandates in these&nbsp;</span></i><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
&quot;TimesNewRomanPSMT&quot;,serif;mso-bidi-font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT">areas. Part 5
explores the concept of collective suitability and its implications for the&nbsp;</span></i><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
&quot;TimesNewRomanPSMT&quot;,serif;mso-bidi-font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT">assessment of
suitability of individual directors. Finally, part 6 examines the manner&nbsp;</span></i><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
&quot;TimesNewRomanPSMT&quot;,serif;mso-bidi-font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT">in which
education and training can remedy any deficits in directors’ knowledge base.</span></i></p><p>
</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><i>&nbsp;</i></p>Volume 36 Online ISSN 0959-6941</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2025 00:01:06 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="true">https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/European+Business+Law+Review/36.2/EULR2025010</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>