Legal prism · 2026-08-18

Legal prism — 2026-08-18

Archive
Updated: 2026-08-18 14:30
The day's news through a legal prism — grounded in our database of EU legislation.
Original — verbatim from the source Analysis — our legal insight (not a source)

Today's news through the legal prism (3)

Selected for a legal angle. For each: original → fact-check and legal basis → substantive analysis.
Filter by area of law:
Original — Il Sole 24 ORE
Migrants: the Dublin case between Italy and Germany: how many are involved and what are the rules? Copy link
Italy is the EU country that has received the most readmission requests from other member states under the Dublin rules. The case could reach a turning point on Wednesday, August 19, when a 22-year-old Somali asylum seeker, first…
https://en.ilsole24ore.com/art/dublin-case-migrants-in-italy-and-germa
Analysis
Because the instrument is a Regulation, that rule applies directly in every Member State.
Article 31(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC may suspend actual removal until a decision on interim relief, subject to the exceptions listed in that provision.

Core issue

Italy now faces a practical legal position, not merely a political dispute, because the Dublin rule described leaves responsibility with the first Member State.

  • The immediate legal issue is whether Italy may prevent Germany from returning a Somali asylum seeker who was first registered in Italy and is scheduled to be returned on 19 August 2026.
  • The new Pact, which entered into force on 12 June 2026, is said to confirm first-entry responsibility, accelerate transfers, and broaden exceptions, including those based on family ties.
  • The precise dispute is whether the Pact’s entry into force on 12 June altered Germany’s ability to return migrants who arrived before that date.

Legal assessment

Germany’s position is based on continuity: Italy was the first State of registration, and Italy therefore remains responsible for examining the application.

  • Italy’s position is based on a reset: the Ministry of the Interior states that the Pact’s entry into force reset Germany’s count of secondary migrants.
  • The evidence discloses no accepted decision resolving that conflict between Rome and Berlin.
  • On the facts available, the Somali applicant’s case is a classic Dublin case, because he was first registered in Italy and later applied in Germany.
  • That gap supports Italy’s concern about scale, but does not in itself alter the first-entry responsibility rule.
  • Family ties are a stated exception under the new Pact, but the evidence identifies no family-ties fact in relation to this applicant.
  • Article 31(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC provides access to judicial and administrative redress against decisions taken on grounds of public policy, public security, or public health.
  • Article 31(3) of Directive 2004/38/EC requires review of the legality of the decision and of the facts and circumstances, including proportionality.
  • As a Directive, Directive 2004/38/EC is binding through national transposition.

Consequences

For the Somali asylum seeker, the practical issue is whether the planned return to Italy on 19 August 2026 is carried out or prevented.

  • For Germany, a blocked transfer would weaken the practical utility of its readmission requests, particularly where Italy was the first State of registration.
  • For Italy, accepting Germany’s view could renew pressure from pre-12 June cases that Rome says were reset by the Pact.
  • For other Member States, the dispute matters because, on the evidence, Italy is the largest recipient of readmission requests.
  • If Germany’s view prevails, first-entry responsibility continues for migrants who arrived before 12 June 2026, unless an exception applies.
  • If Italy’s view prevails, the Pact’s entry into force would operate as a break in the count for at least some secondary-migration returns.
  • If family ties are established in a future case, responsibility may shift to another Member State under the Pact’s broadened exceptions.
Sources:
Legal basis (3)
• COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2019/1111 of 25 June 2019 on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction Article 105 (statute)
the hearing as indicated in point 4.1 and any other documents this court considers relevant as indicated in point 4.2. The court seised of proceedings on the substance…
the hearing as indicated in point 4.1 and any other documents this court considers relevant as indicated in point 4.2. The court seised of proceedings on the substance of rights of custody may, where necessary, require a party to provide a translation or transliteration, in accordance with Article 91 of the Regulation, of the decision and any other document attached to this certificate (Article 29(4) of the Regulation). 1. MEMBER STATE OF ORIGIN OF THE DECISION REFUSING THE RETURN OF THE CHILD(REN)* (4) Belgium (BE) Bulgaria (BG) Czechia (CZ) Germany (DE) Estonia (EE) Ireland (IE) Greece (EL) Spain (ES) France (FR) Croatia (HR) Italy (IT) Cyprus (CY) Latvia (LV) Lithuania (LT) Luxembourg (LU) Hungary (HU) Malta (MT) Netherlands (NL) Austria (AT) Poland (PL) Portugal (PT) Romania (RO) Slovenia (SI) Slovakia (SK) Finland (FI) Sweden (SE) United Kingdom (UK)
• DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 29 April 2004 Article 31 (statute)
review; or — where the expulsion decision is based on imperative grounds of public security under Article 28(3). 3. The redress procedures shall allow for an examination…
review; or — where the expulsion decision is based on imperative grounds of public security under Article 28(3). 3. The redress procedures shall allow for an examination of the legality of the decision, as well as of the facts and circumstances on which the proposed measure is based. They shall ensure that the decision is not disproportionate, particularly in view of the requirements laid down in Article 28. 4. Member States may exclude the individual concerned from their territory pending the redress procedure, but they may not prevent the individual from submitting his/her defence in person, except when his/her appearance may cause serious troubles to public policy or public security or when the appeal or judicial review concerns a denial of entry to the territory.
• REGULATION (EU) No 650/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL Article 34 (statute)
Article 34 Renvoi 1. The application of the law of any third State specified by this Regulation shall mean the application of the rules of law in force in that State…
Article 34 Renvoi 1. The application of the law of any third State specified by this Regulation shall mean the application of the rules of law in force in that State, including its rules of private international law in so far as those rules make a renvoi: (a) to the law of a Member State; or (b) to the law of another third State which would apply its own law. 2. No renvoi shall apply with respect to the laws referred to in Article 21(2), Article 22, Article 27, point (b) of Article 28 and Article 30.
Original — Global Sources
European Carbon Border Measures Reshape Australian Exports and Supply Chains - Global Sources Copy link
As the EU tightens its carbon border adjustment mechanism, Australian manufacturers, miners, and exporters face new compliance and competitiveness pressures, pushing businesses to adapt emissions measurement, contracts, and strategy for a…
https://www.globalsources.com/sourcing-digest/european-carbon-border-a
Analysis
Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, Article 56(1) matters because classification is the gateway for applying Union trade measures to goods.
Article 6(2) provides that excise duty becomes chargeable at the time, and in the Member State, of release for consumption.

Core issue

Australian exporters now face a documentation and pricing issue before any final carbon liability arises, because EU buyers will require product-level emissions evidence for covered goods. The legal position depends on whether an import falls within covered tariff classifications and whether the importer can substantiate embedded emissions and carbon prices already paid.

  • The governing customs rule in the evidence is Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, Article 56(1), under which import and export duties are based on the Common Customs Tariff.
  • The same article also provides that other Union trade measures governing goods apply, where appropriate, according to tariff classification.
  • Because Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 is a Regulation, it applies directly in every Member State.
  • On the facts provided, CBAM operates through covered product categories, certificate purchase obligations, emissions evidence, and documentation of any carbon price paid in the country of origin.

Legal assessment

EU importers bear the formal CBAM exposure, but Australian suppliers bear the practical evidentiary burden if buyers require verified emissions data.

  • The evidence states that importers may deduct carbon prices already paid in Australia only if they substantiate those payments and emissions with the required documentation.
  • Where that evidence is absent, the commercial consequence is reliance on less favourable default values, potentially with a penalty markup.
  • This makes installation- and product-specific measurement central, because the Commission methodology is not the same as corporate climate accounting under the GHG Protocol.
  • That rule gives customs authorities a product-classification basis for covered imports such as iron, steel, aluminium, fertilisers and hydrogen.
  • The evidence also points to stricter anti-circumvention rules backed by the European Parliament in July 2026.
  • This means routing, product transformation and downstream product coverage may become legally relevant before a final invoice is issued.
  • On the evidence, Australia’s domestic position is not yet a binding border charge.
  • Council Directive (EU) 2020/262 is a Directive, so it binds through national transposition rather than through direct, uniform application as a Regulation.
  • On the evidence, that provision is relevant only to excise goods, and not as the legal basis for CBAM certificates.
  • The evidence identifies no named case law; it states only that a Russian WTO challenge is progressing through the dispute process.

Consequences

Covered Australian exporters should expect EU customers to request auditable emissions figures, carbon-price evidence, origin documents and routing records.

  • Suppliers without that evidence may lose margin because buyers may price contracts using default emissions values or pass CBAM-related costs downstream.
  • Existing offtake and supply contracts are exposed if they do not allocate CBAM certificate costs, change-in-law risk and price-review rights.
  • New contracts in cement, steel, aluminium, lime and hydrogen should address who bears carbon-border costs and what data must be delivered.
  • The competitive effect extends beyond EU customs clearance.
  • The evidence supports consequences for procurement decisions, tender eligibility, financing terms and customer trust.
  • Jindal Steel International’s position on Whyalla illustrates the investment angle: the economics of low-carbon steel may depend on a tariff against high-carbon imports.
  • For policymakers, the next concrete domestic step is consideration during the 2026-27 Safeguard Mechanism review; no exact future decision date is given.
Sources:
Legal basis (3)
• Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 laying down the Union Customs Code Article 261 (statute)
Article 261 Standard exchange system 1. Under the standard exchange system an imported product ('replacement product') may, in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 5, replace…
Article 261 Standard exchange system 1. Under the standard exchange system an imported product ('replacement product') may, in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 5, replace a processed product. 2. The customs authorities shall, upon application authorise the standard exchange system to be used where the processing operation involves the repair of defective Union goods other than those subject to measures laid down under the common agricultural policy or to the specific arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products. 3. Replacement products shall have the same eight-digit Combined Nomenclature code, the same commercial quality and the same technical characteristics as the defective goods had the latter undergone repair. 4. Where the defective goods have been used before export, the replacement products must also have been used. The customs authorities shall, however, waive the requirement set out in the first subparagraph if the replacement product has been supplied free of charge, either because of a contractual or statutory obligation arising from a guarantee or because of a material or manufacturing defect. 5. The provisions which would be applicable to the processed products shall apply to the replacement products.
• Council Directive (EU) 2020/262 laying down the general arrangements for excise duty Article 58 (statute)
15 January 2020 on computerising the movement and surveillance of excise goods (see page 43 of this Official Journal). (13) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU)…
15 January 2020 on computerising the movement and surveillance of excise goods (see page 43 of this Official Journal). (13) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ L 343, 29.12.2015, p. 558). (14) Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ L 269, 10.10.2013, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EU) 2016/2339 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016 amending Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 laying down the Union Customs Code, as regards goods that have temporarily left the customs territory of the Union by sea or air (OJ L 354, 23.12.2016, p. 32).
• REGULATION (EC) No 1907/2006 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 18 December 2006 Article 141 (statute)
[10] Molybdenum nickel oxide; [11] - [11] 12673-58-4 [11] Cobalt lithium nickel oxide 028-058-00-2 442-750-5 — Diarsenic trioxide; arsenic…
[10] Molybdenum nickel oxide; [11] - [11] 12673-58-4 [11] Cobalt lithium nickel oxide 028-058-00-2 442-750-5 — Diarsenic trioxide; arsenic trioxide 033-003-00-0 215-481-4 1327-53-3 Arsenic pentoxide; arsenic oxide 033-004-00-6 215-116-9 1303-28-2 Arsenic acid and its salts with the exception of those specified elsewhere in this Annex 033-005-00-1 — — A Lead hydrogen arsenate 082-011-00-0 232-064-2 7784-40-9 Butane [containing ≥ 0,1 % Butadiene (203-450-8)] [1] 601-004-01-8 203-448-7 [1] 106-97-8 [1] C — Isobutane [containing ≥ 0,1 % Butadiene (203-450-8)] [2] 200-857-2 [2] 75-28-5 [2] 1,3-Butadiene; buta-1,3-diene 601-013-00-X 203-450-8 106-99-0 D Benzene 601-020-00-8 200-753-7 71-43-2 — Triethyl arsenate 601-067-00-4 427-700-2 15606-95-8 Vinyl chloride; chloroethylene 602-023-00-7 200-831-0 75-01-4 Bis(chloromethyl)ether; Oxybis(chloromethane) 603-046-00-5 208-832-8 542-88-1
Original — Newswire
Sri Lankan exporters urged to prepare for new EU packaging rules - Newswire Copy link
Sri Lankan exporters are being urged to prepare for new European Union packaging requirements that could affect market access for key sectors such as tea, spices, seafood, processed foods, and beverages. The EU’s Packaging and Packaging…
https://www.newswire.lk/2026/08/18/sri-lankan-exporters-urged-to-prepa
Analysis
The core rule is PPWR Article 6(1): “All packaging placed on the market shall be recyclable.”
The supported enforcement consequence is the withdrawal of non-compliant products from the market under PPWR Article 39(5).

Core issue

Although the seminar was framed as preparatory, Sri Lankan exporters have, since 12 August 2026, faced an active EU market-access compliance test.

  • Packaging for tea, spices, seafood, processed foods and beverages must comply with EU rules before being placed on the EU market.
  • The legal issue is whether imported packaging complies with Regulation (EU) 2025/40 requirements on recyclability, reuse, recycled plastic content, EPR, traceability and documentation.
  • As this instrument is a Regulation, it applies directly in every Member State.
  • Under PPWR Article 6(2), packaging is recyclable only if it is designed for material recycling and can be separately collected, sorted and recycled at scale.
  • PPWR Article 11 further provides that reusable packaging must meet specific requirements, including recyclability under Article 6 when it becomes waste.

Legal assessment

For exporters, the compliance burden begins with the packaging unit, not merely with the product it contains.

  • PPWR Article 71 requires technical documentation demonstrating the applicable requirements, design, manufacture and operation of the packaging.
  • That documentation must include an adequate analysis and assessment of non-conformity risks.
  • Businesses need evidence relating to packaging design, materials, supplier traceability, certification and sustainability reporting.
  • Recyclability is assessed by performance grades under PPWR Article 6, including material-specific criteria and sorting-efficiency criteria.
  • PPWR Article 6 also permits restrictions on substances of concern where they affect reuse and recycling.
  • The report identifies PFAS restrictions in food-contact packaging from August 2026.
  • Reuse systems must have operational controls under PPWR Article 71, including rules on collection, storage and filling, as well as fair access.
  • They must also have a system operator verifying that reuse is properly enabled.
  • PPWR Article 71 requires reporting on fillings or reuses, rejects, collection rates, sales units and reusable packaging added to the system.
  • PPWR Article 48 requires systems to avoid barriers to trade or distortions of competition.
  • PPWR Article 39(5) gives competent authorities risk-based control powers over declarations of conformity.
  • The same provision supports the withdrawal of non-compliant products from the market.
  • PPWR Article 62 treats failure to meet the Article 6 recyclability requirements and the Article 7 recycled-content requirements as grounds for non-compliance.

Consequences

Exporters selling into the EU should expect packaging to become a condition of market access.

  • Local packaging manufacturers serving export industries will also be affected, because their materials and data feed into the exporter’s compliance file.
  • A practical failure may arise where packaging cannot be separately collected, sorted or recycled at scale under PPWR Article 6(2).
  • Another failure may arise from missing technical documentation under PPWR Article 71.
Sources:
Legal basis (3)
• Regulation (EU) 2025/40 of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (PPWR) Article 71 (statute)
collection; (vi) specify the requirements for packaging storage; (vii) specify the requirements for packaging filling or uploading; (viii) specify rules to ensure the…
collection; (vi) specify the requirements for packaging storage; (vii) specify the requirements for packaging filling or uploading; (viii) specify rules to ensure the effective and efficient collection of reusable packaging, including by providing for incentives for end users to return the packaging to the collection points or grouped collection system; (ix) specify rules to ensure equal and fair access to the re-use system, including for vulnerable consumers; (e) have a system operator that controls the proper functioning of the system and verifies whether re-use is properly enabled; (f) have reporting rules allowing to access data on the number of fillings or re-uses (i.e.
• Regulation (EU) 2025/40 of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (PPWR) Article 11 (statute)
and (i) it fulfils the requirements specific to recyclable packaging set out in Article 6, so that it can be recycled when it becomes waste.
and (i) it fulfils the requirements specific to recyclable packaging set out in Article 6, so that it can be recycled when it becomes waste.
• Regulation (EU) 2025/40 of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (PPWR) Article 6 (statute)
out in Article 45(1), based on the packaging recyclability performance grades.
out in Article 45(1), based on the packaging recyclability performance grades.