By making the headlines in the major European newspapers in 2013, the horsemeat scandal impaired consumer confidence in the transparency of the European food chain to a significant extent. In spite of its negative economic impact on the European Union (EU) market, the scandal in question has stimulated an unprecedented reflection in the area of food fraud by the EU institutions, national authorities, other stakeholders as well as by members of academia and the legal profession in general.

On an EU level, the European Commission swiftly responded to the scandal with the adoption of a wide-ranging action plan consisting of targeted policy, legislative and enforcement measures.

An issue that may arise for both the plaintiff and defendant in a patent dispute involving pharmaceutical technology concerns the risks associated with selling an allegedly infringing product prior to the dispute being resolved. The plaintiff has the option to seek a preliminary injunction. Deciding whether to grant an injunction involves fact specific analysis. The economic components in such an analysis, which are addressed in this report, are: assessing whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, measuring the balance of harms to the plaintiff and defendant, and evaluating whether the public interest will be served by an injunction.

Examples abound of highly politicized instances of risk controversies, such as the climate debate, counterterrorism, and the commercialization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Numerous reasons, such as divergent perspectives, ways of communication, and interests, explain why involved actors often find themselves locked in a controversy.

For instance, in the GMO debates environmental politicians, NGOs, industrial parties, consumers, and GMO scientists have exerted very distinct ways of communication, resulting in a highly polarized and contested gene-risk landscape. As a consequence, some industrial players have left or terminated R&D activities in the EU, while other scientists escape the gaze of EU-regulations and started experimenting in places with a different approach to GMO regulation and control.

Setting a minimum unit price for the sale of alcoholic beverages has been on the agenda of the Scottish government for many years. As far back as 1999 the then newly formed Scottish Government decided to review data on the use of alcohol that revealed trends in Scottish alcohol consumption such as the fact that in the two decades following 1994 alcohol sales went from being split equally between the on-trade and off-trade to the off-trade comprising around 70 per cent of sales. Further studies reveal that the affordability of alcohol throughout the whole United Kingdom increased steadily between 1987 and 2007, with duty increases frequently short of inflation, and with supermarkets continuing to use alcohol as a loss leader. The result has been an increase in the affordability of wines and beers by 129% and 153% respectively.

Case T-397/13, Tilly Sabco v Commission, Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 January 2016, ECLI:EU:T:2016:8

Article 263 TFEU allows applicants to challenge regulatory acts which are of direct concern to them and do not entail implementing measures. In this judgment the General Court held effectively that the implementing measure cannot be hypothetical but must follow-on naturally from the underlying regulatory act. This note discusses the significance of this seemingly new element in the meaning of ‘entail implementing measures’ and its potential consequences.