European Union Court of Justice Series: Interview with Advocate General Laila Medina

Episode #17 May 08, 2026
Listen on:
Borderlines European Union Court of Justice podcast series cover image, episode #17 with Advocate General Medina, blue background with yellow lines

Borderlines CJEU Episode #17: European Union Court of Justice Series
Interview with Advocate General Laila Medina

Show Notes:

Berkeley Law’s Borderlines podcast host, Professor Katerina Linos, and guest co-host, Professor Mark Pollack (Temple University), conduct a special interview series profiling Judges and Advocates General serving at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Luxembourg.

Episode #17 of the Borderlines CJEU Series features CJEU Advocate General Laila Medina (Latvia) in conversation with Professor Mark Pollack (Temple University). Appointed Advocate General at the Court of Justice in 2021, Advocate General Medina shares her journey, from maritime law in Malta to EU law during Latvia’s pre-accession era, driven by a “strong belief in European values,” and her government roles advising on EU matters, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the United Nations. Listeners will explore her transition from policymaker, seeing law as interconnected across domains, to Advocate General, emphasizing opinions as “stories” with structure to provoke debate and innovate. She also underscores her commitment to judicial independence, noting that her “only master…is the law” when drafting opinions for the Court’s most complex cases, and expresses her deep appreciation for oral hearings as a crucial forum for discovering new perspectives.

The podcast discusses COVID-related package travel disputes, such as the UFC-Que Choisir and Touristik cases. These cases tested key consumer rights under the 2015 Package Travel Directive during the pandemic. Another major topic is the fingerprints and ID cards dispute (Case 61/22). This case (Landeshauptstadt Wiesbaden) addressed issues of data privacy and fundamental rights and weighed competing legislative legal bases in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), specifically Article 21 (EU citizenship and free movement) versus Article 77 (borders and checks).

The interview also explores forward-looking legal issues, such as the expanding horizontal reach of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Advocate General Medina explicitly notes that new “digitalization” legislation, such as the Digital Markets Act, will likely present similar horizontal legal challenges across different areas of law. As an example, she highlights a recent case regarding the digital publication of company register documents and its impact on privacy. Other future-facing cases include environmental access-to-justice, highlighted by the Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN) dispute over agricultural pesticides and the latest scientific knowledge.

Additionally, the conversation covers the Right to Know case regarding free public access to harmonized technical standards. Advocate General Medina illustrates this concept using the Toy Safety Directive as a practical example of EU law that relies on these private standards.

Finally, she discusses how the CJEU’s uniquely balanced outputs can serve as a source of global inspiration, akin to the “Brussels Effect.” This comparison prompts Professor Mark Pollack to propose the new term, “The Luxembourg Effect.”

Born in Jelgava, Latvia, Advocate General Medina earned a master’s degree in international maritime law in 1995 from the IMO International Maritime Law Institute in Malta, and a master’s degree in European law in 2002 from the Riga Graduate School of Law, which included studies at the Copenhagen Business School. Her government career began at the Latvian Ministry of Transport, where she subsequently served as Adviser to the Secretary of State for European Affairs. Following her time at the Ministry of Transport, she became the Deputy Head of the European Affairs Office at the State Chancellery. She then moved to the Ministry of Justice, serving as Director of the Policy Planning Department and later as Deputy Legal Secretary until 2021. During her government tenure, she represented Latvia at the EU, OECD, and UN levels, and was deeply involved in providing legal advice to the government during the COVID crisis. She was nominated by the Latvian government to join the Court of Justice in 2021, a process that included vetting by the Article 255 Committee. Alongside her government service, she maintains a strong teaching background, having lectured at the Latvian School of Public Administration, trained judges and notaries on Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 (Rome III Regulation), and served as a board member of the Law Faculty of the Turība University Business School, Latvia.

Cases and sources mentioned in the podcast:

  • Link to Article 255 (judicial appointments vetting)

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12012E255

  • Links to judgment and Advocate General Medina’s opinion in case C‑407/21, UFC-Que Choisir (package travel, COVID as extraordinary circumstances)

https://curia.europa.eu/site/upload/docs/application/pdf/2023-06/cp230094en.pdf
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62023CC0233

https://curia.europa.eu/site/upload/docs/application/pdf/2022-09/cp220150en.pdf
https://curia.europa.eu/site/upload/docs/application/pdf/2022-09/cp220150en.pdf

  • Links to judgment and Advocate General Medina’s opinion in case C-61/22, Landeshauptstadt Wiesbaden, regarding Fingerprints/ID Cards (legal basis, data privacy)

https://curia.europa.eu/site/upload/docs/application/pdf/2024-03/cp240050en.pdf
https://curia.europa.eu/site/upload/docs/application/pdf/2023-06/cp230112en.pdf

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12012E021

  • Link to Article 77, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (borders, visas)

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12012E077

  • Link to General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (Regulation 2016/679)

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679

  • Link to Package Travel Directive 2015/2302

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2015/2302/oj/

  • Link to Rome III Regulation (Council Regulation [EU] No 1259/2010) (legal framework establishing uniform rules to determine which national law applies to divorce and legal separation in participating EU Member States)

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2010/1259/oj/eng


Selected speeches and publications by Advocate General Medina for further research:

Citation: Linos, Katerina and Pollack, Mark. Episode #17: Interview with Advocate General Laila Medina. Borderlines podcast, European Union Court of Justice Series (May 8, 2026).
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/podcast-episode/episode-17-interview-with-advocate-general-laila-medina/

Berkeley Law’s Borderlines features exclusive content with the world’s leading international law experts. Check out interviews with former ICJ President Donoghue and ICC President Hofmański – be sure to subscribe so you don’t miss an episode! And please rate Borderlines on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite app, which can help others find useful resources. Thanks for listening!


Episode Transcript

Transcript: Advocate General Laila Medina Interview

Katerina Linos: [00:00:00] Welcome to Borderlines. I’m Katerina Linos, the Michael Heyman Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley.

Mark Pollack: And I’m Mark Pollack, Freaney Professor of Political Science and Law and Jean Monnet Chair at Temple University.

Katerina Linos: This is our series of interviews conducted in summer and winter 2024 with the Judges and Advocates General of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg.

Little is known about the backgrounds, careers, and personalities of the key decision makers on Europe’s highest court, and we hope to create an archive to shed light on these jurists.

Mark Pollack: Our guest today is Advocate General Laila Medina of the Court of Justice of the EU. Appointed in 2021, she brings to the Court a rich background of government service, including senior roles in Latvia’s Ministry of Justice, and extensive experience advising on EU and international legal matters.

In our conversation, she reflects on her journey from a young lawyer caught up in her [00:01:00] country’s accession to the European Union, to a national legal advisor and policymaker, and now to an advocate general whose role is to assist the Court in its most complex cases.

She offers a compelling vision of her advocate general opinions, not just as legal analysis, but as structured “stories” designed to aid the judges in their deliberations, to provoke debate, and to shape the development of EU law.

Along the way, we discuss several major cases she has worked on, including COVID-era consumer rights disputes, the legality of the EU’s biometric ID cards, and emerging issues in data protection, environmental law, and access to justice. It’s a wide-ranging conversation about law, institutions, and the evolving role of the Court in a rapidly changing Europe.

Advocate General Laila Medina: My name is Laila Medina, and I’m coming from Latvia. Currently, I work as Advocate General in the Court of Justice of the European Union, since 2021.

Mark Pollack: Thank you for [00:02:00] speaking with me today, for sharing your experiences as Advocate General on the Court of Justice of the European Union. I want to come to those experiences. But I’d like to start a bit earlier, by asking you about your path to EU Law and then eventually to the Court. Let me start with your education. You actually received your first degree in Maritime Law in 1995 at the IMO International Maritime Law Institute, and then later went on in 2002 to earn your degree in European Law at the Riga Graduate School of Law.

 I wonder if you can tell us about your initial choice to move into European Law – what European Law was like back in the pre-accession days in Latvia, what the European Law community is like there now.

Advocate General Laila Medina: When I look back in history – in the late ‘90s, beginning of 2000 – you cannot really talk about EU Law community in Latvia. I think there were few [00:03:00] people, who would be interested about EU Law, as such. It was more a very, very strong belief in European values, or the willingness of the society, as such, to belong to the European part of the world – to cut the connection with the history and turn completely, or strongly, to another direction, to show that we belong to the European community, and we share those values. I’m talking a little bit now in big terms. But, in small things, that was the feeling, that we want to be part of Europe.

I have always been a person that, if I believe in something, I want to be active in that. It’s not just sitting on the couch at home and being happy that Europe is coming closer to Latvia. Then, when that movement was slowly growing, and growing, and growing – it was clear to me that I would like to have an active role to play. Being a [00:04:00] lawyer at the time – I’m working for the Ministry of Transport – my idea was that I could study EU Law and be an EU messenger, or help Latvia to actually have the accession process done.

That was one of the elements that, once that move was so clear in society, I could be an active citizen. In my capacity as a government official, I could do my part to make it happen. I think also, a little bit of a personal ambition to learn something new. At the time, I was not anymore 20; I could encourage anybody, when you are in your 30s or 40s: try to study again! Because I remember my time of studies as the most wonderful time. I really appreciated the possibility to study; to devote my time, to read the books, to discuss with my fellow students, to discuss [00:05:00] with professors, and fully understanding how fantastic it is to be a student. I think from that period, I got never-ending thoughts to learn something new, because I had fully appreciated that fantastic time. We first studied in Riga, and we had half a year also in Copenhagen – Copenhagen Business School – where we did part of our studies. Also, to integrate in another society; to see how EU Law is studied in other countries. That was like a full immersion. Since then, I have always loved, in one way or the other, to learn something new.

That’s how I came to EU, and that actually turned my career towards the EU. Right away, I became an advisor to State Secretary on EU Law matters and then slowly, one by one, it added up.  Although, exposure to the international world or being outside Latvia, it started already, with education with maritime [00:06:00] law in Malta. That experience, maybe, can be a bit of a turning point, to see how the world is outside. Because we were very, very closed, at the time when I grew up, behind the Iron Curtain. To see what happens behind there, to meet people from all over the world, of all races, of all different traditions – that set my mind to be opened up to new challenges, to something different.

Mark Pollack: That’s fabulous. Thank you for sharing that. That leads me into – you already mentioned it – your professional background. After your EU Law degree, you went on to serve as Deputy Head of the European Affairs Office in the State Chancellery; as Director of the Policy Planning Department, and Deputy Legal Secretary at the Latvian Ministry of Justice, where you served until your appointment here. You share that experience of government [00:07:00] service in the early years of membership with, I think, several of your colleagues here at the Court. I wonder if you can say what it was like, making the transition from a career of national government service as a Legal Advisor to Advocate General at this supranational Court.

Advocate General Laila Medina: I have to divide it in two parts. The aspect of moving from national to international was actually rather easy, because a big part of my duties in the Ministry of Justice was connected with the international activities and representing Latvia at EU level, or OECD, United Nations. So, being in international community, that felt natural to me, like my well-known waters.

The biggest change I experienced – I knew, consciously, that that will be the case, but it was clear, also, for my mind – how difficult it is to change the view from a policy developer [00:08:00] to someone who has to treat the case with a specific question, with a specific problem, with specific boundaries of what kind of arguments can be brought. How you can address the issue; how you ensure that you stay within the limit of the case.

Because for years, when I see an issue on my table, in one way or the other, my mind goes in all directions. What kind of issues are connected? What are the side problems? What could be the reasons for the problem? What could be the development of the specific issue? Of course, there are smaller problems, also, in the government, but very often, you meet a problem you need to work with for 10 years, or maybe longer, from the moment you get the problem on your table until it is a new law or it’s implemented law.

So, this was the biggest change, to grow from a policymaker to someone who has to deal with a specific case. But, on the other hand, what I really take [00:09:00] from that experience is that, in making policy, you see there are no real boundaries between the different law areas. They tend to influence each other. They tend to interconnect. If you deal with the issue – I don’t know, with a criminal law – you just need to be open-minded, to see if there’s maybe some interconnection with some other areas of law. . . human rights. There can be economic crime; you immediately go to the company law. You might have some civil law implications, because of compensation for the victims. You may have constitutional issues, of the independence of the courts, and so on. It’s all so interconnected. And that ability to let your mind to go in all directions helps a lot, because here it’s only difficult cases which arrive to the Court of Justice. Where you have these interconnections, where you have the overlapping of different law domains. That [00:10:00] helps to feel more comfortable when you confront the issue, where you see many areas of law laying on your table, and then you have to make sense out of that.

Mark Pollack: Interesting. We’re going to hear that in some of the cases we talk about later. Just very quickly, as a sort of side trip: You joined the Court of Justice in 2021, after being nominated by the government of Latvia, and one of the things that occurred to me in preparing for this interview is that we academics all know about the judicial appointment process, in principle. We all know there’s a nomination process from the home government. We know that there’s a vetting by the so-called Article 255 Committee. But, I don’t think academics have any sense of what that process is really like. So, before we get to your experiences on the Court, can you say a little bit about how you experienced that process?

Advocate General Laila Medina: I think [00:11:00] for those who wish to join the Court of Justice, the 255 Committee is a very well-known committee. It starts with the national procedure, and every country differs. In Latvia, there’s a special committee, and people who have power to invite someone to participate in a competition. That’s how, by working in the Ministry, the Minister considered that he could invite me to participate in that competition. There were several candidates in that process.

But in 255, it’s really a process where you go through your own career. You see what you have achieved; there are very open criteria you have to meet and you have to be sure that you meet those criteria yourself. You should feel confident about it, and you have to show that you have job experience which corresponds to those criteria. [00:12:00] And it consists of two parts. You submit certain documents which show the actual involvement in different topics of your own choice. Then there’s an interview, which is like a final moment, where you discuss with the Committee, where they can ask you whatever questions they consider necessary, based on the file which a person has him or herself prepared and submitted.

The Treaty says specifically why the Committee is there. I cannot speak on the Committee’s behalf – how they feel, which candidates should get approval and which shouldn’t – but I think, for persons who wish to become the Member of the Court: first go through self-process of understanding. Can I really – not only in my wishes, but in reality – can I really become a Member of the Court? Can [00:13:00] I really prepare all the dossiers that is needed? Then, the Committee is the one which verifies, from outside, that true ability, willingness. That’s a motto for OECD, which I like, and I think fits very well here. “Being willing, and being able.”

Mark Pollack: Obviously, the Article 255 Committee was satisfied. You are now here. [Laughter] You serve in the Court in the position of Advocate General, which is a vitally important position, but a very unusual one that doesn’t have any exact correspondent, in the American legal system or at most international courts. Certainly, outside of Europe, but even among many EU citizens, it’s not a well-understood position. Could you tell our listeners about the role of the Advocate General in the life of the Court – your experience in that role so far?

Advocate General Laila Medina: The primary role, is, of course, connected with what is written in the Treaty. And the [00:14:00] Treaties were explicit, that we are here to help the Court arrive to the most just judgment in a specific case. Also, when you look at the Treaty, you can see the other two elements: we have to be independent, and provide views in a case where such assistance is needed; that is, the most complex cases.

Mark Pollack: Right. So, only about 40 percent?

Advocate General Laila Medina: Around 40 percent of the cases. Where there is sufficient case law of the Court, or where the answer is sufficiently clear, then those cases go without opinion. The message, I think, when you read between the lines of the Treaty, what we are asked to do is to dive into the law, as deep as we can. That’s an interesting part, where we interact with academia. We discuss, in a written way, which doctrine seems to be applicable to a specific issue we have before us. We look at the historical way of [00:15:00] developing the issue. And, we present rich arguments, and our primary audience is the Court, the judges. To me, how I see it: the only master I have, that’s the law.

And that’s how I see the independence. I look at the law as it is, which I am supposed to study; look what other people have said about the law – what has been the case law of our Court, very often when it relates to human rights, to the  Court of Human Rights – and then I try in the best way possible to argue how that law should be understood, interpreted, and what guidance can be given to the national court in case of preliminary reference. This is the role, in more general terms.

More specifically, when the case arrives to the Court, each case is attributed to a reporting Judge and Advocate General. During that process, while the case is getting ready, we serve a bit as a second pair of eyes. When the [00:16:00] case is ready, and it’s decided that there will be [an] opinion, then we go into discussing all the issues of message which should deliver – all the nitty-gritties, how the question should be addressed. That is the most substantial work. During the process, we also serve to make sure that the process follows the rules of procedure, that nothing is missed. That how it works on a daily basis. That is the invisible part of the work.

Mark Pollack: Although, I actually found out fairly recently, there’s also a visible part, in the sense that the Advocate General takes part in the hearing, if there is one.

Advocate General Laila Medina: That is in the cases where there is an opinion.

Mark Pollack: Mm-hmm. Right.

Advocate General Laila Medina: If there is an opinion, and the hearing is decided, then that is that visual part. We are there and we have a chance to ask questions to the parties, to clarify the issues which – in preparing the case, in studying the materials – remain still unclear. That is the connection with the outside world; the most [00:17:00] direct.

Mark Pollack: Do you make use of that opportunity?

Advocate General Laila Medina: I really like that opportunity. It’s not only the possibility to ask the questions, to debate the issues, but at the moment of hearing, I’m really focused on that specific case. Hearing all the arguments – in the same room, from different people – at least for me, it helps really to clarify. Even the issues which seem to be clear, or seem like I would be certain – you see different angles, which, by sitting at your own desk and studying materials, might not come to your mind. The people come from different countries, of different experience. There are judges at the bench with different legal backgrounds, as well. The issues which are raised during the hearing can show the angles of the case you haven’t thought about, and I see that as extremely valuable.

Mark Pollack: That’s really interesting. So, you’ve talked about the primary audience for your opinions [00:18:00] being the Judges in the Chamber. Do you have secondary audiences in mind? Whether it’s the legal community or the broader public. Related to that is the style of opinions, versus the style of the judgments. There’s a general view that the Advocate General opinions – because they’re written by a single person, because they’re not bound by the formalistic style of the judgments – tend to be more accessible, more readable, especially to non-experts. The judgment of the Court might begin, “At issue in this case is the proper interpretation of Article 12 of the Directive.” The Advocate General’s opinion is much more likely to start with, “Here’s an area of law,” and then move into the case. I found that to be the case in some of your opinions that I’ve read. I guess in there is both audience and style.

Advocate General Laila Medina: Of course, as I said, the [00:19:00] primary audience, for me, is the Court.

Mark Pollack: Mm-hmm.

Advocate General Laila Medina: That’s my task, to help the Court settle the case. But, I understand very well, and working here, I understand even more, that the opinion (not in every case, of course) can serve not only that specific case, but it can serve the development of the specific area of law, as well. The opinion, dissenting in a sense, or the opinion which is not followed by the Court – or being followed because there are arguments which are more detailed, which relates to specific doctrine existing in that area – is a development of the specific law area where the opinion is prepared. In that aspect, I realize more and more how important is this indirect dialogue; the legal community who studied the law, the universities and the students, the professors – everyone there. Maybe [00:20:00] because I’m coming from the government, I very often think also about how that case will be resolved and settled. It’s a specific issue when it has arrived from the national court. What will be the implications in the specific case? And, also, if my arguments, in one or the other way, can help in some other cases in national courts.

Of course, I don’t have a possibility to discuss with every court. But with my own country, I really encourage judges to come to the Court to visit. I discuss with them, also in Latvia. Then, it is nice to hear that they use the argumentation as a source of inspiration. They see the good quote in a judgment. But then, to understand what is behind it. They can go to the opinion, and see and be inspired to resolve another case. You see it as the primary stone. You throw it in the water for the judges, but then it has the waves which [00:21:00] you sometimes, maybe, even don’t expect to have.

Mark Pollack: Right. You mentioned dissent, and we’ll come back to that.

Advocate General Laila Medina: Coming to the style, which I didn’t talk about. I was thinking about, what is important for me when I write an opinion? I think the most important is that it’s a story. It’s a narrative. It has to deliver a message. So, it is that creative part, of thinking about the legal problem. It has to be delivered to someone so it is understood. “Why do I say that?” “Why do I argue that?”

But, at the same time, I am very much a person who likes to have what I call Ordnung: a really clear structure. Sometimes it’s just not doable. But, I try to have this creativity of a story, of a narrative with a message, connected with a very strict structure, where each argument follows the previous one, and delivers the [00:22:00] result, or shows why I have arrived to this reasoning. For me, a story which is structured – that is the most important part.

Mark Pollack: I can see that story in the opinions of yours that I’ve read. So, dissent. Of course, there is no dissent; no separate opinions in the judgments of the Court. Chamber Judges don’t have an individual voice. They have a collective voice in their judgments. Whereas, the Advocate General does have an individual voice. One of your colleagues once said, “This is both the best and the worst job,” because you get to speak with an individual voice, but then you are also the individual voice associated with that decision when it’s unpopular.

What has it been like for you to have the visibility of your individual opinions and the attention and public scrutiny that comes with that? What’s been your experience?

Advocate General Laila Medina: [00:23:00] In a way, once the opinion is ready, and announced, I feel it’s like a baby which has started his or her own life. [Laughter] It’s normal that in democratic society, the opinions differ. That’s why there is a conflict. There is a dispute before the Court. Definitely, someone will be happy and someone won’t be happy. As long as they discuss it on substance, on merits, of the case, I always remind myself, even if you disagree with a disagreement, but, that is great, that I have provoked a debate. As long as it remains in a professional level, and I haven’t actually experienced that it wouldn’t be so.

Coming from the government, as well – we had discussions, different opinions, and so often people disagreed with me. I know it’s not personal. It’s just, people have different opinions. It’s true that, being signed by my name, it gives me a possibility to really create my [00:24:00] story the way I think it should be addressed.

That I see as a part of this independence, that I don’t consult with other opinions. This is how I, independently, think about the issue. But, that comes with a great responsibility. Of course, that is the reason why we work really, really hard to get a well-argued, coherent text, which I can let go and live its own life. And, see it with the pride that someone is happy to refer to it, even when criticizing, and it has played its role for the Court and outside the Court. Of course, when I see that the Court has followed my opinion, I’m very happy; that they not only followed, I’m more happy when I see that some innovative ideas or some specific arguments have been taken. That they have agreed that’s how it should be argued. That makes me happy to see that it helped the Court to shape its view [00:25:00] and shape its judgment.

Mark Pollack: It would be interesting to get a concrete sense of what it’s like for you to encounter a case as Advocate General; work through the legal issues, draft an opinion for the Court. We’ve spent some time, looking over your many opinions over the last several years. A few stood out as having received a significant amount of public attention, or attention in the legal community. I wanted to ask you about a couple of those cases.

One example would be an opinion in 2022, the Touristik case. There is a 2015 EU directive that spells out the responsibilities of travel companies with respect to package tours, including the rights of consumers in the event of interruptions and early cancellations. The interpretation of that directive was, of course, tested by COVID, and tested in particular in a case from Germany, where package tours were cut [00:26:00] short or canceled by the COVID crisis of 2020. The Court, and you, were called upon to decide what the responsibilities and the liability of those tour operators might be under EU law. Your opinion in that case generated a fair bit of press coverage, partly because there were real dollars attached to however the Court came down. But, I think, also partly because this was a case that directly affected the consumer rights of European citizens, in a way that people could readily understand.

Can you tell us how you went about applying a 2015 directive to a really unforeseen COVID crisis, and how you came to a solution?

Advocate General Laila Medina: Here I need to step backwards in time. Once the cases came to Court related to COVID, I was really eager that some of them land on [00:27:00] my table, because part of my time when I served the government was exactly during the COVID time, and I was very, very deeply involved in providing legal advice to the government. So, I saw with my own proper eyes, how hard it is to fight that the law remains in place when really difficult decisions need to be taken by the government or the Parliament. And, what are the red lines, where the law shouldn’t step back? Of course, to address the different difficulties, governments all over the world had to take very difficult decisions. You really have to make sure that law remains in place, and it is adjusted only as far as it’s necessary.

The other issue, which was very important in thinking about the solutions in those cases, was the extreme uncertainty in scientific knowledge and legal understanding – what it means, what kind of measures [00:28:00] are possible? – and also, how it impacts the interconnectivity. Something happening in one country, and affecting something in the other country and the user of whatever services or products. It’s impossible to follow and to predict what’s going to happen, in a week’s time, in two weeks’ time. Something which is valid today, tomorrow may be completely invalid.

That knowledge helped me to shape my mind in those cases. I have to start with another one: UFC-Que Choisir. That was a case where the Court decided that COVID, although it was really a big crisis, mega-crisis – you have all possible descriptions, calling it all possible names – it is still “extraordinary circumstances” within the meaning of the Package Travel Directive.

Which was extremely important for further cases, because that was the key point. To show that the [00:29:00] rights which are given to travelers, to consumers – if they are key rights, they remain intact. The right to compensation; the right to reduction of the price, unless it is passenger’s fault; those rights remain there, and they may claim the compensation, they may claim the reduction of the price. Of course, in practical terms, you have to take into account the difficulties the organizers faced. For example, the directive requires the payment of compensation within 14 days. When you have a total collapse, and all travels are canceled, no travel organizer can pay, even if it has money. To treat all those cases takes more than 14 days. So, it’s a certain flexibility, but not to the level that you would take away the key rights a traveler has. That view, that you keep the key elements of EU law primacy – the fact that EU has regulated, that means all the [00:30:00] travelers within the EU can enjoy those rights – should be there. That has been the trend, which has followed throughout the opinions, in different cases related to Package Travel Directive.

It’s actually rather a little joke. I talked to my colleague, after all those cases, from the Commission’s legal service. And she said, “I even didn’t know that directive exists.” [Laughter] Suddenly, this is the directive on my table. That’s the only thing I’m working with.

That just shows that the crisis – any type; COVID was a health crisis – for the law point of view, it depends what kind of measures the governments were taking. That it can, at certain points, challenge the basic premises of the law, and that is for the lawyers, for the courts, to take that stand, that the basic elements should remain, but we should show also a certain flexibility to apply them in practice. That’s how I came about with the opinions, [00:31:00] and also in the Touristik case – if it is recognized as a key right, under directive, COVID cannot take away that key right.

Mark Pollack: So, the force majeure of the COVID crisis and the government regulations doesn’t take away the right.

Advocate General Laila Medina: Because the directive clearly provides that the right to reduction of the price can be taken away only if it’s a fault of the traveler. Being already decided that COVID is “force majeure circumstances,” within the meaning of the directive – and the directive hadn’t provided that that right of the traveler would disappear in case of force majeure – that would mean that right remains even if all the troubles are caused by COVID because COVID is not something outside and beyond. And for that reason, the UFC-Que Choisir case is extremely important, because it defined the limits of COVID’s impact on the Package Travel Directive.

Mark Pollack: And the Court followed your reasoning quite closely.

Advocate General Laila Medina: It [00:32:00] added some additional arguments, but the line of interpreting the directive, the Court followed the opinion. In that line of cases – I had several – it has been following the ideas I have had in the opinions.

Mark Pollack: There’s another high-profile case from 2023, Case 61/22. It’s another preliminary reference from Germany. The case concerned a plaintiff who challenged the legality of an EU regulation that mandated the mandatory collection of fingerprints for EU citizens for their identification documents.

The referring court – the German court – asked the Luxembourg Court, whether the provision in the regulation requiring the fingerprints was valid. They raised three possible objections to that validity: whether the directive had been adopted on the wrong legal [00:33:00] basis; whether it violated the Charter of Fundamental Rights; and, whether it violated the General Data Protection Regulation. I found this case interesting. There’s so many issues of EU law raised and the stakes of the case were very public. Data privacy is something that is highly salient in European society. I think that’s reflected in the fact that it was finally decided by a Grand Chamber judgment.

I’m interested in your view about the fact that the Grand Chamber, in its decision, followed your opinion in part, but also departed from it in part, particularly with respect to the legal basis for the directive and the outcome.

Advocate General Laila Medina: As you mentioned in your question, that was a case which put on the table several issues. The security of people’s data, and also security of the documents which identify you. It was also a big issue of the mobility of EU citizens, and free movement – one of [00:34:00] the EU freedoms which is always on the high list of protection for the Court of Justice.

At the same time, it related a more theoretical question of what is an appropriate legal basis. For the EU institutions to adopt secondary laws, in a form of directive or regulation, there should always be a legal basis in Treaty. And, what is also important to remember: depending on the legal basis, the legislative procedure might differ. Which was the case, in this particular case, where the legal basis for issuing the document in question was Article 21, which provides for the ordinary legislative procedure, which involves both the Council and the Parliament. So, both legislative institutions participate in that.

Mark Pollack: And the Council voting by qualified majority.

Advocate General Laila Medina: And the Council voting by qualified majority. Whereas Article 77, that would be the Council [00:35:00] with unanimity and Parliament only consulted. That is the big differences on the theoretical basis. And also, when you look at the legal base in Article 21, that talks about free movement of people, of freedoms. Whereas, Article 77 talks more about the borders, the checks, and the security. The overall message is different – the purpose, why we regulate one or the other matter.

In this case, the discussion I had in my opinion, regarding the data protection and the fundamental rights, seemed to convince the Court. That having fingerprints, as such, in ID cards is a part of the security measures to make sure the ID card is safe and it can be verified against them.

But the question of legal basis: there, the opinions differed. This is one of those cases where, [00:36:00] reading the Court’s argumentation and the result – it made me think a lot, that I was not really sharing the opinion of the Court; that the ID card is only there to serve for the purposes of crossing the borders, or issues like that.

For me, going through the process of drafting that opinion, was to identify what we have as EU citizens, being accepted, in different authorities, different private or public institutions. And showing our ID card, we are everywhere accepted, that we are EU citizens, and we can have our rights enforced. Whatever the directives, regulations, have given to us as EU citizens – wherever we travel, we can get it, because we can show we are EU citizens by presenting the ID card. That is for me, a symbol of the freedoms we [00:37:00] have. From this perspective, I looked at it – that this is a small piece of a document, that is a symbol of the fact that we have the rights to have health services received, we have the rights to move freely within the European Union without borders. We are trusted.

It’s, in fact, a question of trust that we put in each other. If the authority in one country has issued an ID card, every other authority trusts the validity of that card, and they are ready to accept me as an EU citizen. That is something which I really don’t share with the Court, thinking that it is so narrow, what the ID card is there to give us as EU citizens. But the argumentation is clear and of course, that is for the Judges to decide. I was putting a lot of emphasis in this wider message. That was part of what I saw as a narrative, to show how important and good it is to be an EU [00:38:00] citizen.

The Court has given two years to legislate on the ID cards. I really hope that this will be a successful process, because having those ID cards is very good thing. Even in the U.S., it works everywhere. I mean, it goes beyond European Union borders. I was recently visiting New York. I was renting a car. And it was fine to identify me with an EU ID card. It is, all over the world, accepted as a document which identifies you, which is trusted, that it’s safe, that it won’t be forged. And it’s possible to check on it, and it is regulated in details when you have access to the fingerprints. It has produced the trust which represents, in a very strange way maybe, the whole notion of European Union and its citizens. [00:39:00]

Mark Pollack: And their rights and their free movement.

Advocate General Laila Medina: Exactly.

Mark Pollack: Right. We were talking about the purpose of an Advocate General opinion, when it is followed and when it is not followed entirely. Can you tell us how you think about this question, of what role your opinions play when they are or aren’t followed?

Advocate General Laila Medina: I haven’t really researched that, but it is said that once the opinion is not followed, it actually lives longer, and it’s more known, because it represents a different solution of a problem which the Court has faced. That shows there is a plurality of use and that the question can be addressed differently. Maybe, in future that will be a first step to shift Court opinion or develop it further in a different direction. It is also said – when I studied [00:40:00] the role of Advocates General, before becoming one – that it is also the role of Advocates General to be a little bit provocative, to be innovators, to sometimes throw ideas. Because the Court, they have to be more grounded. They bring the binding decisions, so they have to be more connected to the case, more connected to the questions asked.

Whereas, the Advocates General, we have the possibility, also, to show that there’s a possible way forward, maybe one day. So, mostly I really don’t mind at all if I’m not followed. I’m really happy when the ideas I have put in have been taken on board. And even if they are changed a bit – having got another shape – I can see that I have helped the Court with my arguments in their deliberations and in [00:41:00] forming the judgment. I really do see that it’s part of the job. And in fact, I think if my opinion would be always followed, that would show that I don’t do my job properly.

Mark Pollack: Mm-hmm.

Advocate General Laila Medina: Because all I do is I study history. I don’t look forward. I don’t look for conflicting views or possible solutions which differ from previous case law. I’m not open to new challenges. That’s how I look at it.

Mark Pollack: That’s fascinating. We’ve covered a great deal of ground, and I really appreciate your talking about these specific cases. As we wind down, I wanted to ask you a question about the wider agenda of the Court today and in the years to come. Because the set of legal issues facing the Court has changed. It’s expanded dramatically over the years. The case we were just talking about wasn’t simply about the [00:42:00] interpretation of a directive. It was also about data privacy. It was also about fundamental rights. Compared to the earlier cases about supremacy and direct effect in the ‘60s or the internal market in the ‘70s, the Court faces a much more diverse set of legal questions and challenges. In your view, what are the primary legal and constitutional issues coming before the Court today? What are the issues on which you think the Court is going to have the greatest impact?

Advocate General Laila Medina: One has to keep in mind that the Court is, in a way, reactive. Because it’s always the legislature which will come first. There will be a problem; the legislative solution; and then, a problem which needs to be resolved. So, definitely, the Court’s agenda will be impacted by what is on the table before the Parliament or Council, and what the Commission has decided. I’m absolutely certain that the whole [00:43:00] package – of artificial intelligence, of digitalization – will definitely arrive to the Court in different ways and forms [than] what we have seen with GDPR.

At the beginning, the GDPR was more specific GDPR – really, really, “data protection, data protection.” Now, we see more and more how GDPR gets connected with other matters. That’s the case we discussed. Data protection is such a horizontal matter that impacts everything. You start to see more and more how it impacts other areas of law.

Just one little example. I had recently a case where it was about the publication of the documents in a company register. And how making public those documents affect the rights of people for privacy and their data being protected. Because the old-time tradition – that you take a document from a company, you register, and you keep it intact – doesn’t [00:44:00] function anymore in the digital world. If before, it was in a file, now it is digitally available to everyone. So, you have to find how different traditions, or running different procedures, are impacted by the GDPR. I think the same will be a very horizontal issue with “digitalization,” in a very, very general term, because there’s new pieces of legislation, and Digital Markets Act, and so on. Definitely.

The issue of human rights, and the constitutional issues of independence of judiciary in different forms, I think that will remain. Maybe in a different way, but I think it will remain important.

Another issue which has come already to the Court, but I think it will only expand: that’s everything to do with environment. Access to justice in environmental cases; different possibilities, how we implement what is on paper to protect – how we really get it done on the ground. The need to [00:45:00] have environmental impact assessment. What kind of procedures one should follow.

I was really happy to see the Court following me in Pan Europe case, about the use of pesticides in agriculture. That was a question about the procedures between Member States and European institutions, and what scientific knowledge we take into account. My proposal to the Court was that, it is the latest scientific knowledge which is relevant, even if it adjusts the procedures a little bit (in very general terms). So that, I think, will be part of the Court’s agenda.

And, the issues connected with the institutional framework – the democracy issues, transparency issues, the way institutions function – that, from different aspects, will come in. To make sure that the institutions of European Union become more and more transparent, and more and more taking care of people’s rights. [00:46:00] Access to justice – access to this Court in general – because the whole area of direct actions before our Court, I think, is an area which will be developing.

One of the cases I wanted to mention, which is connected to that, is a rather recent judgment in a case: Right to Know. That is a case about harmonized technical standards. I don’t know how much you know about it. There are standards, which are developed by private entities, but under the Commission’s coordination. It was set as a response in late ‘80s; it was called a “wave of harmonization” when it was just thought, “Everything could be regulated. It’s to improve the internal market.” Recognizing it’s impossible to regulate every single item by the terms of directives or regulations, the system was introduced of “harmonized technical standards,” produced by private entities, [00:47:00] but which are mentioned in the specific directives or regulations as a reference to the standard. And over time, what has developed – those standards have been including more and more information, or rights and duties and obligations, for private parties. Although they are products of a private process – although controlled by the Commission – they contain rights for people, and they can affect how you enforce rights under the EU law.

Just a simple example: there is a directive dealing with the safety of toys, which contains the reference to the standard. If someone has an issue with a toy which has broken, in order to show that presumption of conformity (guaranteed if a company follows a technical standard) is actually not [followed; e.g.,] there is a problem, a person has to have the standard. But, you can have the standard only if you pay a fee. And it’s quite an expensive fee. It’s not free of charge. [00:48:00] So, that was the issue. They had asked access to some of the standards, and the Commission had refused, saying “You have to pay a fee to get the standard.”

That as a case of appeal came to our Court. I proposed to the Court, because the standards contain the rights and obligations of the parties, because they form part of the EU law, everyone should have free access to those standards. I was really happy to see that the Court followed that idea. And they followed the idea that the EU institution – as a Commission – is controlling the process of producing those technical standards.

Although they are protected by copyright, because there is an overriding public interest, because they contain rights and obligations for private parties, and they form part of EU law, the person who requests can have free access to those technical standards. I think that is a very good step forward, to transparency, to openness, and to [00:49:00] access to justice, in case you have a conflict with a producer of a product or provider of services. That I find, on that level, a very important step by the Court. It was also decided by Grand Chamber. I’m really looking forward how it will be in the future, how the Commission will react. Because I think they need to address how exactly it should happen: the whole access to the standards, how it should be provided, for the public to be able to learn what are their rights and obligations.

Mark Pollack: Thank you for sharing that case. I’m very aware that we’ve only covered a fraction of the issues on your agenda.

I wonder if you want to leave us with any final thoughts, about what either European legal scholars, or the European public, should know about the Court of Justice and about your role here.

Advocate General Laila Medina: I don’t know how much it is appreciated that the Court of Justice is an absolutely unique place, where 27 different legal [00:50:00] systems come together and try to find the best way how to communicate, how to interpret, and how to get the EU law – which is its own unique legal order – to integrate in the daily life of every single Member State, which is based on different legal traditions, different historical traditions, and economic situations. This overall way of Court’s decisions, that we are all equal before the law and the principle of primacy of EU law, that we all should be protected – this is so unique. When you really think about it, this is so, so special in the first place.

This is also a place where 27 law languages are developed, because all the documents which go out – public judgments, orders, opinions – they are translated in 22 languages [00:51:00] of the European Union. It is how European Court of Justice is also developing the legal language, which is very, very important.

The third aspect, the judgments which come from the Court, the opinions which come from the Court – it’s also the product of trying to find the balance, between different legal positions, different possibilities, how to develop the law. And that is, perhaps, the benefit of not having dissenting opinion. Because the Judges have to work together, as long as they arrive at something which is acceptable for everyone. And that delivers the product, which gives the legal concepts, or understanding, which can [00:52:00] function not only within the EU, but it can very well be helpful as a source of direct, or less direct, inspiration beyond. If one looks at the Court’s work in that way, it’s a very unique institution. When you see, in such a well-regulated way, how you produce legal concepts which are valid for 27 different countries, and can have an impact beyond its borders.

Mark Pollack: We’re going to have to talk about “The Luxembourg Effect” from now on.

Advocate General Laila Medina: I found it fascinating, seeing arguments why there is “a Brussels Effect.” And leaving aside the economic, which is maybe beyond my capacity or ability to comment, that argument – that what is produced as a law in EU, is the production of 27 Member States discussing in the Council and then discussing with the Parliament, which represents parliamentarians [00:53:00] from 27 countries – that is something so balanced. Not always, but still – that it can function. It can function, and it has shown over the years that it functions for 27 countries. And it’s very often taken as a model. The Court of Justice is the one which gives the clarity to that legal regime. The way it is adjudicated here is how you find a balance between conflicting interests. I think that the Court is the best expert in balancing conflicting interests.

Mark Pollack: That is a great note on which to end. With that, Advocate General Medina, thank you so much for joining us today.

Advocate General Laila Medina: Thank you very much for having me. It was a great pleasure.

Mark Pollack: That was our interview with Laila Medina, Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the EU.

I was struck by a number of issues in our conversation, including her introduction to European law as a young lawyer during her country’s accession to the [00:54:00] EU. That’s a story that we’ve now heard in various permutations from many of the Judges and Advocates General, from the Member States that joined the EU in and after 2004 as a formative experience.

I was also particularly struck by Advocate General Medina’s discussion of the correct legal basis for the adoption of a 2019 regulation on the identity cards of EU citizens. This was one of the relatively rare cases in which the Court did not follow the Advocate General. And what struck me most about the case was Advocate General Medina’s strongly felt view that EU identity cards were fundamentally entwined with the rights of EU citizens, and therefore correctly adopted on the basis of Article 21 with relation to free movement, which featured qualified majority in the Council and participation of the European Parliament. The differences between Advocate General Medina and the Court in this case did not turn on whether they favored “more or less Europe,” [00:55:00] as such decisions are often expressed, but on different conceptions between the Advocate General and the judges about the purpose and the meaning of EU identity cards – a much more subtle analysis than I had been used to seeing for legal base cases.

As always, we’d like to thank our producer Toni Mendicino, our sound engineer, Keith Hernandez, and the many staff members of the Court of Justice who made this and all of our CJEU interviews possible. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe to Borderlines and stay tuned for more conversations with leading voices in European and international law.