​

Hungarian President Tamás Sulyok has signed the 17th amendment to Hungary’s Fundamental Law, confirming that his own presidential mandate will end the day after the legislation is officially published in the Hungarian Gazette.

Sulyok announced the decision on his Facebook page on Saturday. The amendment, adopted by Parliament earlier this week, forms part of the new Tisza government’s sweeping constitutional reforms following its landslide election victory.

Continue reading at https://dailynewshungary.com/president-sulyok-ends-his-own-mandate/ | DailyNewsHungary.

The effects of war are tremendous on humans, animals & the environment. Obviously certain people in charge of countries that engage in war would not vote in favor of this… but would it be possible to split the costs like this:

1. Weapon/ missile/chemical weapons/ “defense contractors” : pay all lifelong costs relating to healthcare/income/housing for affected individuals (& next 2 generations as PTSD & chemical exposure etc has effects on DNA seen 2 generations downline); all costs associated with injuries/food/housing for animals affected by acts of terrorism and war.

2. Individuals responsible for choosing to attack their own or people living in another country (Presidents, people in ”think tanks” advising the leaders responsible, individuals who are in Congress, government that vote or rule in favor of harming others, people who would profit like Musk, individuals from oil/gas/food/energy/ software & hardware companies) : all costs relating to environmental issues, rebuilding destroyed infrastructure of cities/homes, farmland, costs of global warming.

If the individuals cannot afford these costs on their own, all finances from their next generations of descendants will not be allowed to have any money or stay in a work camp. The criminals responsible will likely try to hide money in trusts, accounts overseas, etc, so help from each nation would be required.

Examples would be Netanyahu & his associates cover all costs of their own false flag attacks and also the costs for Palestine, Lebanon, etc. Trump, Miller, Rubio & responsible individuals covering the costs for Iran, Venezuela, Cuba. If they can’t afford it all members of their next 2 generations have to pay & stay in work camps. Obviously Putin pays for Ukraine.

This would eliminate the financial benefits from responsible individuals & companies & put the cost where it belongs. It would ensure weapons manufacturers are not trying to profit & that they ensure their weapons are only used for defense. The US military being the biggest cause of global warming should consider more factors when having to pay for the costs of global warming to those affected in other countries.

Is this a global law that could be passed, or everyone agree to participate in, by not housing the people or confiscating the financial accounts and companies to help redistribute the wealth?

Hello everyone. I'm a high school student (16M) from Italy, soon to enter University (just two years or so).

Because I've always been deeply fascinated by the topics of geopolitics, history, humanistics, economy and international dynamics, and I enjoy the comodity of speaking 4 languages fluently (of which English and French), and always aspired to suit myself for an intellectual profession that had some administrative touch, I've looked myself around for a long time, and became intrigued by the idea of pursuing forensic studies in the italian triennale (+ 1 year of ERASMUS+ in France) to then get a Master's degree that allows me to work in any field in EU law, may it be becoming a Think Tank, an international legalist of any sort, or even undergoing the EPSO exam one day and see what comes out of it.

Despite all of this, and the thought of working this job already making me feel an intense pang of prevident accomplishment, i'm not entirely convinced.

At first it was the thought of tackling one of the most over-saturated work markets ever discouraging me, but the more I matured and the more I realised that with the right determination and with the right cards played, I'll eventually find my comfortable place in the sector that suits me most.

My current unconvinction is mostly due to my total unaquaintance with the work roles itself. I'm looking for a way in which I can make a difference, in which i can stimulate my brain and knowledge daily, and not deal with an entanglement of burocratic papers, not because I feel to boast it all (there would be no point), simply because I want to feel accomplished, and know i served my duty well by making the world (not only Europe, because the Brussels effect influences everybody's life) a better place, and waking up every morning at dawn, feeling great knowing I'll have to check in my work in an hour or two.

Because i'm trustful of the fact that the E.U. is one of the only functioning (despite the flaws and the corruption, but that is ubiquitous for the time we live in) entity and institutions that actually impact our living conditions positively and mutually benefit every country that interacts with, I really sense that vocation tugging me in. But at the same time, because I'm afraid the political scene could be a little too stagnant or the amount of pointless burocracy could be a slope into a never ending sea of papers (and wasted time), and the overall fear of not actually doing anything concrete and impactful, I'm stuck here.

My only question Is one and simple: for anybody working in this sector, what are the things I MUST know, before making my definitive judgment call? What is your work like, and how are the studies? I would be infinitely grateful to anybody that responds. I would gladly ask qualified adults but for some reasons, they're really secretive about it (starting from my Law teacher at school and his co-worker of the same subject. When I asked both about any whereabout for this dream of mine, they mysteriously both pretended that i didn't ask the question, and kept on talking).

Thank you very much

Hi everyone, I’m trying to understand the legal situation regarding performance-enhancing compounds and research chemicals in Malta, especially under EU regulations.
I’m planning to apply for Law at the University of Malta in about a year (assuming I pass all my exams), and one of the application requirements involves providing a police conduct certificate. Because of this, I’m trying to understand whether importing or possessing certain substances could potentially create legal issues or affect future opportunities.
I’m specifically asking about the legal status of things like research peptides (for example retatrutide and similar compounds), HGH/growth hormone-related products, anabolic steroids such as testosterone, and medicines sometimes associated with steroid use, such as aromatase inhibitors.
These would only be for personal use, not for selling, distributing, or supplying to anyone else.
My questions are:
How are these substances treated legally in Malta and the wider EU?
Are they considered illegal substances, or are they mainly regulated as prescription medicines/unauthorised medicinal products?
If someone imports these types of products for personal use, what are the possible consequences?
Could a person realistically receive a criminal conviction for importing or possessing these substances for personal use?
Are there any documented cases in Malta or the EU where someone has been criminally convicted for importing peptides, HGH, steroids, or similar products for personal use?
If something like this did result in a conviction, would it appear on a police conduct certificate and potentially affect entry into law school or a future legal career?
I’m mainly looking for information on the legal side, official sources, or experiences from people familiar with Maltese/EU regulations. Thanks.

​

Hungary could miss the opportunity to rejoin the European Union’s Erasmus+ student exchange programme in time for the start of the 2026/27 academic year unless the government submits its outstanding rule-of-law reforms to Brussels soon, despite earlier optimism from both Prime Minister Péter Magyar and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

Following Magyar’s election victory in April, both the Hungarian government and the European Commission indicated that Hungarian students could return to Erasmus+ from September. However, according to Euronews, time is now running short, and without immediate administrative action, the suspension is unlikely to be lifted before the new academic year begins. https://dailynewshungary.com/hungary-risks-quick-return-to-erasmus/

Continue reading at https://dailynewshungary.com/hungary-risks-quick-return-to-erasmus/ | DailyNewsHungary

Hello everyone, I’m currently on my last year of bachelor degree in law in Kazakhstan
I’m thinking about to do my master in European Union, but I’m still not sure which sphere of law I want to choose because I also wanted to stay there after my master to find a stable job etc.
Is there any Kazakh who chose master in Law in EU ?
Could u give me some advices pls 🙏🏼

A couple of months ago, we started a community for AI-forward lawyers. However, reception has been very low since launch. We also spoke to legaltech founders, and it seems that this problem is not unique. Are lawyers less interested in AI? Are Lawyers more sceptical about results?

Most lawyer offices also just tell us "We need someone to come to our office, analyse workflows and just tell us which tool we can use," but this is almost impossible to scale.

Would any of you be interested in sharing your views on AI adoption? You would really help us out.

We are trying to understand what would create value for lawyers in terms of AI.

European Union at its finest :/ There are new regulations regarding mandatory Intelligent Speed Assistant system in cars. According to reports from 2030 it's gonna enforce obeying the speed limits by choking the throttle. More details: https://cenyavto.com/en/from-2030-cars-in-the-eu-will-automatically/
So it seem from that year any overtaking gonna be a dangerous gamble. Good luck in overtaking a lorry on one lane road, where you can go past mere 12Mph (20km/h) speed advantage.

Dear all,

As in a previous post, one of the users reported concerns about the operations of the European Ombudsman, I wanted to let you know that I created a website to document a concern related to a case of mine, because I know that these concerns become effective only when multiple instances are brought to light.

https://www.powerabuseeurope.eu/

Yours faithfully,

“The damage to the pipelines (both the ruptures and the dent) was ‘directly or indirectly occasioned by, happening through, or in consequence of war,'” Judge Clare Moulder said in her ruling on Monday, handing a victory to the insurers. “Such damage was excluded from cover by the terms of Exclusion 2.i of the policies.”

I'm trying to understand the legal reasoning behind exempting certain political communications from the proposed EU Chat Control rules.

If the stated goal is to detect serious crimes, why should communications involving politicians receive greater protection than those of ordinary citizens? Arguably, people who hold public office and exercise state power should be subject to at least the same level of scrutiny, not less.

Because of that, the exemption for political communications doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Doesn't it also raise questions about the EU principle of equality before the law, especially if politicians are effectively creating exemptions that benefit their own communications?

Could such an exemption be challenged before the CJEU or would there likely be a legal justification for treating politicians differently?

I'm interested in the legal perspective rather than the political one.

I was researching the EU AI Act Article 50 and noticed big law firms charging people $15 for a similar tool, so...

I built a website to answer a specific question: does Article 50 apply to my business, and if so, what disclosure text do I need?

Article 50 (transparency obligations) becomes enforceable 2 August 2026. Its four triggers: direct AI interaction, synthetic content marking, biometric/emotion systems, and deepfakes/public-interest text.

How it works:

- 5–7 yes/no questions specific to your product

- Deterministic scoping — the decision is code, not an LLM

- For any gap, an LLM drafts plain-language disclosure copy (chatbot intro, content label, etc.)

- Shareable report link, PDF-friendly for filing

- Zero signup, zero data harvesting

https://article50-tool-jwest08s-projects.vercel.app

Not legal advice. Would especially appreciate anyone spotting where I got the scoping logic wrong.

Not legal advice. Would especially appreciate anyone spotting where I got the scoping logic wrong. Nor is it a promotion. Im just curious if this can help anyone.

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

I'm pretty sure that when physical disk seize to exist. The only place to get playstation games will be the PS store. That sounds like a monopoly and places them in a similar place like apple with the app store. So either we get the xbox store/epic store/steam on the ps6 or the EU will make them ig.

On 15 May, the 46 member states of the Council of Europe adopted the Chișinău Declaration — a political statement reaffirming support for the Strasbourg Court and the Convention system. The same week, five EU governments (Germany, Netherlands, Austria, Denmark, Greece) were meeting in Brussels to form a coalition for building return hubs in third countries, probably in Africa.

The tension is structural, not coincidental. The Council of Europe and the EU are different institutions with overlapping membership — every EU state is also a CoE member. In the CoE, through Chișinău, the same governments are reaching for what Karl Loewenstein called “militant democracy”: defending the order from within, by consensus, through law. In the EU, through the new Return Regulation and bilateral treaties with third states, they’re reaching for something closer to Carl Schmitt: recovering the decision, building zones where the protective norm isn’t meant to apply.

The interesting legal wrinkle: on the international plane — where the actual hubs will be built, by bilateral treaty — courts exist but jurisdiction is consensual and revocable. The Strasbourg Court has held (Hirsi Jamaa v Italy, 2012) that states carry their Convention obligations beyond their borders. The Italian centres in Albania are the live test case. The day that Court rules against an externalised return, the two tendencies may collide.

Question for discussion: Is the CoE/EU split a coherent division of labour by states that know exactly what they’re doing, or does it represent a genuine tension that will eventually force a choice?

\[Longer piece here if anyone wants the full argument: click on the link\]