Explore the vast range of titles available.

European islands and other remote territories areas have specific features and constraints and they thus require a targeted assistance at EU level. As a result, the EU has put in place numerous provisions that have been providing an invaluable support, particularly through its rural development policy and in its dedicated programme for agriculture in EU outermost regions. Currently, discussions for a reform of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) are ongoing at the EU Parliament and Council. The new system proposed by the Commission legislative proposal submitted in June 2018 is based on the two key concepts of increased subsidiarity and the so-called “delivery model.” A crucial question is therefore what the impact of this reform could be, once approved, for agricultural activities in European islands and other remote regions for the future programming period (2021–2027). Our hypothesis is that the “delivery model” and subsidiarity complement each other: the new proposed CAP aims at being more subsidiary because, thanks to the result-based approach of the “delivery model,” the carrying out of performances at local level will be enhanced. This increased autonomy presents some challenges for insular and remote territories; however, it also presents huge opportunities in terms of political discretion in the choice of the best tools for the management of their own territory, as well as in terms of voice in EU negotiations. In sum, there is reason to believe that enhanced subsidiarity, coupled with the “delivery model,” would eventually help insular and remote territories to reduce the gap between Brussels and the most far-out territories of the EU

This book explores the extent to which EU Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) pursue sustainable agriculture in third country parties. It contends that this should be part of a duty for the EU enshrined in the Treaties to promote its fundamental values in its external action. It suggests that the extent to which this occurs in practice, may be reviewed judicially by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Against this background, selected agreements concluded by the EU with developed and developing countries (Canada, South Korea, Ukraine, Chile, SADC countries and Vietnam) are taken as case studies. The author concludes that, in spite of the remarkable progress made hitherto, EU trade policy is still far from being in line with the increasingly strong commitment of the EU to take the lead in the international arena for environmental and climate matters. This work adopts primarily a legal methodology, but it broaches the subject in interdisciplinary terms. It is addressed not only to (EU) policy-makers, but also to scholars of different fields and to the wider public interested in topics that have become of common concern for the future of our planet. With a foreword by Daniel Calleja Crespo, Director General of the European Commission - DG Environment.

[...]with extension of the above-mentioned ban even to the hypothesis in which there is no likelihood of confusion, the Court effectively outlines an excessive protection of the consumer, ie even if his or her rights to be informed are not impaired. [...]a measure can be dismissed only if manifestly inappropriate, having regard for the objective which the competent institution is seeking to pursue. 11 As far as common organisation of agricultural markets is concerned, such objectives “consist, in particular, in improving the economic conditions for the production and marketing as well as the quality of such products. [...]a comparison of the technical rules and procedures adopted in order to regulate the various sectors of the market cannot constitute a valid basis for the purpose of proving the complaint of discrimination between dissimilar products which are subject to different rules”. [...]on the one hand, permission is given to the food business operators to make autonomous marketing choices, although with the limits spelled out above; on the other hand, this freedom is limited to some market sectors only, justifying this stance by virtue of an apodictic call to consumer protection, even when such protection is not needed at all. * Food Lawyer and Managing Partner at LEX Alimentaria, Italy–pisanello@lexalimentaria.eu. ** Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa–l. ferraris@santannapisa.it. 1 Case C-422/16, Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV v TofuTown.com GmbH (TofuTown) [2017].

[...]in the absence of any scientific evidence - which follows from the lack of authorization by the European Food Safety Authority ('EFSA') - the company had put into practice deceptive promotional messages, unlawful under Reg. Claims that in various capacities must be authorized by EFSA can be either \"nutrition claims\" (under Art. 2(2)(4), any claim which states, suggests or implies that a food has particular beneficial nutritional properties due to its caloric value, nutrients or other substances); \"healthclaims\" (under Art. 2(2^5), any claim that states, suggests or implies that a relationship exists between a food category, a food or one of its constituents and health); and, finally, \"reduction of disease risk claim\" (under Art. 2(2)(6), any health claim that states, suggests or implies that the consumption of a food category, a food or one of its constituents significantly reduces a risk factor in the development of a human disease). [...]in Meglio In Salute-Apparecchi Trattamento Acqua Potabile (PS10106), ICA established that even an explicit mention (that the utilization of the product will by no means replace the relevant medical care) cannot per se be sufficient to keep the company away from sanctions, if in practice a deceptive effect is objectively produced...