PhD defence Michiel Luining

• Thursday 11 June 2026 - 5 p.m.
• Supervisors: prof. dr. Patricia Popelier (University of Antwerp), prof. dr. Catherine Van de Heyning (University of Antwerp) & prof. dr. Tom Van Hout (Tilburg University)
• Interdisciplinary PhD in  Law and Linguistics
• If you would like  to attend the defence, please register via this link.

Abstract

This interdisciplinary dissertation offers a systematic study of how the Orbán-led government has developed its illiberal constitutional model in Hungary between 2010 and 2025, how it has sought acceptance for it within the EU, and how it has sought to reshape the EU itself. Combining legal analysis with Critical Discourse Analysis, in particular the Discourse-Historical Approach, it introduces and conceptualizes Trojan horse discourse (THD) as an analytical framework. In this way, it advances both constitutional scholarship and discourse studies in examining contemporary constitutional erosion. Against this backdrop, the study also provides several political-legal recommendations to address THD in the EU.

The concept of Trojan horse discourse
Inspired by the Greek myth of the Trojan horse, the concept captures how constitutional ideas – originally meant to protect democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental rights – are strategically appropriated to legitimize autocratic reforms. Actors engaging in THD aim to gain and maintain acceptance within the ‘city of Troy’ – that is, the EU as a shared political and legal space. To achieve this, they refrain from overt breaches of democratic norms and instead introduce narratives and measures that may not immediately raise concern. Autocratic goals are embedded in familiar legal language and practices, repurposing rather than rejecting established concepts. In this way, change is ‘smuggled in’ – concealed within the proverbial Trojan horse.
Over time, this abusive discursive governance shifts what people see as acceptable within constitutional democracy.

In the Greek myth, the priest Laocoön warned the Trojans about the danger of the horse. When he tried to expose it in frustration by striking it with a spear, he was killed by serpents sent by the gods. Some versions say this was punishment for earlier wrongdoing. Either way, the Trojans took his death as proof that his warning was wrong and accepted the horse. This dissertation draws a parallel with EU actors: even when they correctly identify threats to constitutional democracy, they may lack – or feel they lack – legal authority or public support to act decisively. EU institutions face a dilemma. They need to respond to anti-democratic developments, but if they act too forcefully – or apply rules inconsistently across Member States – they risk being seen as lacking legitimacy. This can weaken their response and allow THD to succeed.

Joint PhD defence Marina Smojver (Tičić)

• Tuesday 9 June 2026 - 10 am CET @University of Rijeka, Croatia - Faculty of Law
• Supervisors: prof. dr. Thalia Kruger (University of Antwerp) & prof. dr. Ivana Kunda (University of Rijeka, Croatia)
• Joint PhD University of Rijeka & University of Antwerp
  

Abstract

As the European Union (EU) works to create a unified judicial area where rights can be exercised across borders, enforcing monetary claims between Member States remains complex. Despite progress in simplifying cross-border cooperation through various regulations, challenges persist. Legal and practical barriers still limit the effectiveness of these instruments. This doctoral thesis explores a core tension in EU private international law: the aim of mutual trust versus fragmented legal systems and procedural differences. It focuses on the enforcement of judgments or settlements across borders – something that should function smoothly under EU law, yet often doesn’t.

The research delves into why this is the case. It examines a variety of issues: how different principles that govern cross-border enforcement of judgments and settlements in the EU interact under the current system; how terms like ‘judgment’ or ‘court settlement’ are interpreted differently by Member States, creating friction; whether refusal grounds, meant to be rare, may still be improved upon; etc. Focusing on monetary claims, the thesis analyses key EU instruments: Brussels I Recast Regulation, European Enforcement Order Regulation, European Order for Payment Regulation, European Small Claims Procedure Regulation, European Account Preservation Order Regulation, and the Maintenance Regulation. These tools, though designed for different aspects of debt recovery, face common hurdles. Using doctrinal interpretation, comparative legal analysis, and case law, the study identifies gaps and proposes reforms – harmonising definitions, clarifying refusal grounds, and improving procedural alignment – to help EU civil justice deliver on its promise.

Keywords: Brussels I Recast Regulation; cross-border enforcement; European Union; EU private international law; monetary claims

PhD defence Naoual EL Yattouti

• Monday 8 June 2026 - 5 p.m.
• Supervisors: prof. dr. Kristof Van Assche (University of Antwerp, Faculty of Law), prof. dr. Thierry Vansweevelt (University of Antwerp, Faculty of Law) & prof. dr. Sarah Van de Velde (University of Antwerp Faculty of Social Sciences)
• If you would like  to attend the defence, please register via this link.

Abstract

This dissertation examines how law responds to, regulates, and ultimately helps shape the identity of healthcare providers in their interactions with patients. In European healthcare systems, patient-centred care, professional neutrality, and equality are presented as guiding principles. Yet these principles may come into tension when the identity of the healthcare provider becomes visible, contested, or invoked within the clinical encounter. While focusing on the overarching theme of the healthcare provider’s identity, this dissertation can be divided into two main parts. The first part analyses the wearing of religious dress or symbols by healthcare providers in healthcare settings. It examines how restrictions are justified through concepts such as neutrality, patient vulnerability, trust, and health and safety concerns. The dissertation argues that legal and institutional responses at times rely on assumptions about professionalism, impartiality, and patient protection that are not always sufficiently substantiated. Such restrictions may further disproportionately affect minoritised groups, particularly Muslim women, and reveal how neutrality can operate not merely as a protective principle, but also as a regulatory mechanism that defines ‘acceptable professional identity’.

The second part addresses patient preferences and refusals of care based on the healthcare provider’s identity characteristics, including gender, ethnicity, and religion. It questions whether patient choice is and should be limited by non-discrimination law or principles, and how healthcare institutions should respond when preferences become exclusionary or discriminatory. The analysis shows that non-discrimination law is primarily structured around patients’ access to services and therefore provides only limited protection to healthcare providers who are rejected by patients. Labour law, especially through harassment protections, offers more guidance in how institutions should respond, yet provides only a partial solution. Empirical research with healthcare professionals further demonstrates that such refusals can have significant emotional and professional consequences and may contribute to broader patterns of exclusion within the healthcare workforce.

The dissertation adopts a comparative and socio-legal approach, combining doctrinal analysis of European law and the legal frameworks of Belgium, the Netherlands, France, and the United Kingdom with empirical insights. Drawing on substantive equality theory, it identifies structural blind spots in formally neutral and colourblind legal approaches, particularly their limited ability to capture cumulative, relational, and institutional forms of harm. The dissertation argues that law does not merely regulate healthcare practice, but also shapes professional norms, identities, and power relations. It therefore proposes a framework grounded in autonomy, dignity, and reasonableness to guide legal reform and institutional policy.

PhD defence Michael Marcondes Smith

• Tuesday 21 April 2026 - 5 p.m.
• Supervisors: prof. dr. Wouter Vandenhole (University of Antwerp) & prof. dr. Frédéric Vanneste (University of Antwerp)
• If you would like  to attend the defence, please register via this link.

Abstract

This thesis explores the potential of equality and non-discrimination as a norm of international law in tackling rising socio-economic inequalities. Amidst dissatisfactions regarding the contribution of human rights to socio-economic redistribution, it identifies renewed expectations that the normative structure of international law may hold untapped potential in addressing socio-economic inequalities. This hope is materialised in the call for the ‘revitalisation of the equality norm’. To unpack the potential and limits of a normative shift, it engages with the sources and content of the equality norm as it conceptually relates to the phenomenon of socio-economic inequalities. It arrives at a working concept of international equality and non-discrimination and finds that its relevance as a framework for assessing socio-economic inequalities has not yet been fully explored. It centres its analysis, however, on the conditions of this assessment, outlining the criteria that allow for a comprehensive approach to socio-economic inequalities under international law. 

The first chapter engages with the sources of the equality norm under international law and outlines a conceptual framework that can be coherently examined in relation with socio-economic inequalities. 

The second chapter outlines the content of the equality norm. It identifies its core concern as placed on acts that lead to instances of relative group disadvantage in the enjoyment of entitlements guaranteed by law. It identifies, therefore, the delimited plane within which equality and non-discrimination can relate to socio-economic inequalities as a phenomenon. 

With an operational conceptualisation of the equality norm, the third chapter explores its relation to a broader understanding of redistribution beyond status-based issues of relative disadvantage. It develops a general understanding of redistribution as encompassing more than group-related issues of disadvantageous treatment, particularly as they relate to economic policies that are designed from an individual perspective. Despite identifying limits in the scope of equality and non-discrimination, it delineates openings through which socio-economic inequalities may be scrutinised. 

The fourth chapter unpacks such potential by engaging with the tools of non-discrimination in scrutinising socio-economic inequalities. Considering the status-based nature of non-discrimination, it examines the development of socio-economic grounds of discrimination as a method for the insertion of vertically redistributive matters into the horizontal scope of non-discrimination. It considers, further, the role of positive measures in effecting socio-economic redistribution. 

The thesis concludes with a framework for the scrutiny of acts leading to the creation, maintenance or exacerbation of socio-economic disadvantages as an important tool in addressing rising socio-economic inequalities.

Joint PhD defence Rebecca Ricifari

• Thursday 19 March 2026 - 10 am CET @Aula Seminari Valerio Onida, Via Festa del Perdono 7, Milan, 
• Supervisors: prof. dr. Johan Meeusen University of Antwerp) & prof. dr. Stefania Barriati (Università degli Studi di Milano)
• Joint PhD Università degli Studi di Milano & University of Antwerp
• The defence can be attended online via this MS Teams link.

Abstract

Despite the crucial role of corporate mobility in ensuring the proper functioning of the internal market, and although Articles 49 and 54 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union expressly recognize the freedom of establishment for certain – albeit not all – legal persons, the European Union still lacks a coherent, explicit, and comprehensive regime governing the law applicable to such entities. While recent legislative developments – most notably Directive (EU) 2019/2121 – have improved coordination among Member States’ legal systems, they fail to address, at least expressly and holistically, the problem of the law applicable to companies and other bodies.

 As a result, the matter remains, at least formally, governed by national private international law provisions and techniques, with the undesirable consequences this entails. Member States, in fact, not only rely on different connecting factors to determine the law applicable to companies and other entities but also disagree on which institutions fall within the scope of “company law” and should therefore be governed by choice-of-law rules on companies. All this often results in the non-recognition of companies and other entities incorporated under the law of a Member State and having their registered office, central administration, or principal place of business therein and in the impossibility for such entities to transfer their seat to another Member State, thereby significantly hindering cross-border corporate mobility and, hence, the effective exercise of the freedom of establishment.

Nevertheless, the very nature of the European Union legal order, along with the complex interaction between Union and national sources of law, makes it mandatory to use the adverb “formally” when affirming that the regulation of the law applicable to companies is left to national legal systems. Multiple sources of EU law directly affect – and prevail over – national law. First, the Court of Justice of the European Union has assigned to Article 54 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union a meaning that exceeds well beyond its literal function of identifying the legal persons entitled to exercise the freedom of establishment. The provision, in fact, requires Member States to recognize companies that are validly incorporated in another Member State and have their registered office, central administration, or principal place of business within the Union and to permit operations resulting in a modification of the law applicable to the entity. Secondly, the EU legislator has enacted a range of secondary law instruments that, in different ways, exert an influence over domestic conflict-of-law regimes. Indeed, on the one hand, when these instruments harmonize substantive law, they render – at least to some extent – immaterial the lingering divergences among national conflict rules. On the other hand, where they harmonize private international law in fields adjacent to company law, they define and redefine the institutions ascribable to the lex societatis.

Building on these premises, this research reconstructs the current legal framework governing the law applicable to companies within the European Union by identifying and analyzing the impact of EU law on national choice-of-law provisions concerning the law applicable to companies and other entities. Hence, first, the present study analyzes how, when, and to what extent European Union law supersedes national private international law rules and mechanisms governing the law applicable to companies. This inquiry demonstrates that, although formally, matters related to the law applicable to companies remain unharmonized, the pervasive influence of EU law considerably limits national regulatory autonomy and mitigates the impact of the consequences arising from the formal differences that still persist in Member States’ private international law regimes. This, in turn, supports the claim that a European private international law regime on the matter, to a large extent, already, de facto, exists. Secondly, the study critically assesses whether the current EU regulatory framework in this field is consistent with, and adequate to serve, the objectives of the European Union established by Treaties. Building on this latter analysis, the present study advocates for the adoption of a regulation on the law applicable to companies and other entities and examines its possible content.

Défense publique Richard Kasereka Ndekeninge

• Mardi 17 mars 2026 - 5 p.m. CET
• Directeur de thèse: prof. dr. Steven Dewulf (Université d'Anvers) et feu le professeur Koen De Feyter (Université d'Anvers)
• Si vous souhaitez assister à la soutenance, vous pouvez vous inscrire via ce lien.

Résumé

La présente thèse analyse la protection des déplacés internes, avec un focus sur leurs droits de propriété sur les biens qu’ils sont contraints de quitter, c’est-à-dire à peu près tout ce qu’ils ont comme biens matériels : logements, terres et autres propriétés. Appliquée au Nord-Kivu, en République démocratique du Congo, cette recherche ne se limite pas à l’examen du cadre juridique en vigueur, dont elle questionne l’efficacité. Grâce à une méthode ethnographique basée sur 120 entretiens semi-directifs, elle en analyse l’applicabilité – et l’application – dans ce contexte particulier, marqué par le déplacement prolongé, et où les droits de propriété sont principalement régis par des pratiques communautaires.

Pour cause de conflits armés et de catastrophes, le déplacement interne de populations touche de plus en plus de personnes dans de nombreux pays. En dépit de l’adoption en Afrique des protocoles de la CIRGL, puis de la Convention de Kampala, dont la mise en application reste par ailleurs mitigée, des instruments de soft law constituent le principal foncement de l’action des agences onusiennes et des Ongs humanitaires en faveur des déplacés internes. Tous ces instruments ont comme épine dorsale la responsabilité première de l’État concerné dans la prévention (du) et la réponse au déplacement forcé, y compris dans la mise en oeuvre des solutions durables.

À propos justement des solutions durables, il se trouve que le cadre normatif n’offre pas nécessairement les meilleures réponses. A certains égards, comme par exemple s’agissant de la primauté de la restitution des biens quittés aux PDI, il pourrait même générer ou exacerber des conflits. La question est tellement sensible et complexe qu’elle est intimément liée au processus de recherche de la paix en RDC. La réponse à y apporter devrait prendre en compte les causes profondes des conflits armés, dont la question ethnique, la réforme agraire, la gouvernance des ressources minières, voire la gouvernance tout court, la cohabitation entre éleveurs et agriculteurs, la question du Parc national des Virunga, etc. Et si les autorités congolaises ont un rôle prépondérant à jouer dans ce processus, l’appui de la Communauté internationale s’avère cruciale.

PhD defence Débora Ottoni Uébe Mansur

• Thursday 29 January 2026 - 5 p.m.
• Supervisors: prof. dr. Tarcisio Diniz Magalhaes (University of Antwerp, Faculty of Law) & prof. dr. Ann Jorissen (University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business Economics)
• If you would like  to attend the defence, please register via this link.​

Abstract

This thesis examines whether international profit allocation rules, as reflected in the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, can be better aligned with sustainability-related societal concerns as defined by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and whether alternative frameworks can operationalize such an alignment.

The analysis considers that taxation is an important tool to foster sustainability, also in the international scene. It demonstrates that while sustainability is not an objective of transfer pricing rules, both normative and positive grounds exist for incorporating sustainability-related considerations into international profit allocation. Although the SDGs are not binding on the international tax system as a whole, they exert significant normative and interpretive influence. Moreover, foundational principles of international tax allocation—such as economic allegiance and the benefits principle—are sufficiently broad to accommodate sustainability-related factors when these materially affect income generation. From a practical perspective, the thesis finds that the current profit allocation framework, grounded in the arm’s length principle and operationalized through the analysis of functions, assets, and risks (FAR), systematically allocates a disproportionate share of taxable profits to high-income jurisdictions and does not account for the social and environmental burdens associated with global production, leaving some jurisdictions fiscally undercompensated. As a result, the existing framework exacerbates global inequality, weakens the fiscal capacity of resource- and labor-providing jurisdictions, and undermines progress toward several SDGs, most notably SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). The introduction of the value creation standard did not materially address these shortcomings, but rather reinforced established distributive patterns.

To address these limitations, the thesis develops three alternative frameworks that integrate sustainability-related factors into profit allocation while remaining anchored in existing transfer pricing concepts. These include: (i) an expanded recognition of location-specific advantages, including natural resource-based advantages; (ii) an adjustment of risk allocation to reflect jurisdictions’ exposure to sustainability-related internal risks; and (iii) the incorporation of negative externalities as hidden profit drivers. While these proposals cannot transform underlying market structures or fully internalize social and environmental harms, they demonstrate that profit allocation rules can be reoriented to produce more sustainability-aligned outcomes.

The thesis concludes that aligning international profit allocation with sustainability is legally permissible and practically justified, albeit inherently limited by the allocative nature of transfer pricing. Meaningful progress therefore depends on integrating transfer pricing reform within broader fiscal, regulatory, and cooperative frameworks.

Doctoraatsverdediging Charlotte Termonia De Mulder

• Donderdag 22 januari 2026 - 17 uur
• Promotoren: prof. dr. Frederik Swennen (Universiteit Antwerpen) & prof. dr. Thierry Vansweevelt (Universiteit Antwerpen)
• Indien u de verdediging wenst bij te wonen, kan u zich aanmelden via deze link.

Abstract

Ongeboren menselijk leven was de afgelopen jaren het onderwerp van publieke en parlementaire debatten; was te zien op spandoeken en verkiezingsaffiches; en werd meermaals vermeld in regeerakkoorden. De status van ongeboren leven is echter onduidelijk en de bescherming hiervan sterk gefragmenteerd. Dit blijkt uit vier toepassingen van de bescherming van ongeboren leven die in dit proefschrift worden geanalyseerd: (1) zwangerschapsafbreking, (2) totstandkoming en bestemming van embryo’s in vitro (in het kader van medisch begeleide voortplanting en embryo-onderzoek) (3) preventief en repressief ingrijpen bij prenatale schade (bv. door de uitbreiding van jeugdhulp naar ongeboren leven) en (4) doodgeboorte. De strikte dichotomie die in het Belgische recht wordt gehanteerd tussen personen en voorwerpen volstaat hierbij niet als leidraad voor een consistente en coherente benadering van de status en bescherming van ongeboren menselijk leven. In dit proefschrift worden daarom vier benaderingen beschreven en geëvalueerd die beogen een oplossing te bieden voor de, naar huidig recht, problematische, of minstens oncomfortabele, kwalificatie van ongeboren leven als voorwerp: (1) progressieve beschermwaardigheid, (2) relatieve bescherming, (3) bescherming als(of) persoon en (4) bescherming op grond van menselijke waardigheid. Deze benaderingen doorstaan de toets van consistentie en coherentie echter niet. Ieder van de vier benaderingen draagt, afzonderlijk bekeken, bij tot een conflictmodel, waarbij het eenzijdige perspectief van de benadering ertoe leidt dat de nadruk ligt ofwel op de bescherming van het ongeboren leven, ofwel op de bescherming van de ‘ouders’, in het bijzonder de zwangere persoon.

In dit proefschrift wordt een alternatieve benadering voorgesteld die dit conflictmodel overstijgt: de vermenselijking van ongeboren menselijk leven. Deze benadering is opgebouwd uit drie elementen: (1) de objectieve bescherming als stadium in de ontwikkeling van een mens op grond van de objectieve, collectieve dimensie van menselijke waardigheid (2) de (groeiende) symbolische waarde als bijna-mens in het licht van de (toenemende) associatie met de geboren mens en (3) de bescherming van ongeboren leven als onderdeel van menselijke relaties: ongeboren leven is op unieke wijze verbonden met het lichaam van de zwangere persoon en kan deel uitmaken van een beschermwaardige (familie)relatie met de ‘ouders’. De vermenselijking van ongeboren leven leidt tot een fluïde juridische status die niet eenvormig is, maar relationeel en contextgericht. Dit staat de consistentie en coherentie van deze benadering niet in de weg. De benadering biedt immers duidelijke handvatten die binnen ieder van de vier toepassingen leiden tot een consistente en coherente bescherming van ongeboren menselijk leven.

Joint PhD defence Liesa Keunen

• Thursday 8 January 2026 - 5:30 p.m.. at Hof van Beroep Gent (Koophandelsplein 23, 9000 Gent)
• Supervisors: prof. dr. Bruno Peeters (University of Antwerp), prof. dr. Sylvie De Raedt (University of Antwerp) & prof. dr. Eva Lievens (Ghent University)
• Joint PhD Ghent University and University of Antwerp
  
• Please confirm your attendance via this form.

Abstract

This dissertation analyses the legitimacy of tax administrations’ information-gathering methods in light of the prohibition of fishing expeditions. In carrying out their control activities, tax administrations have traditionally relied on non-digital methods of information gathering. The arrival of digital technologies and the ongoing digitalisation, however, has increased data availability, strengthening tax control but raising concerns about data collection and taxpayer rights. The research finds that the aforementioned prohibition is interpreted as a “speculative and/or excessive expedition.” It rests on three clusters of legal grounds: fundamental rights, principles of good administration and the tax relevance criterion. Traditional information-gathering methods are legitimate only when not speculative, nor excessive. Other methods like database consultation or web scraping can be assessed by analogy. The prohibition of fishing expeditions is not applicable on methods such as reporting obligations and data mining. The dissertation recommends legislative reform, specific legal frameworks and more transparency by tax administrations.