Thierry Labro: To achieve the true interdisciplinarity you want to achieve, you will likely have to work hard to break some psychological barriers.
Takis Tridimas: Yes, I think that’s right. And it’s not an easy task because it requires bringing together people trained in different disciplines. One project we are considering, for example, is studying the effectiveness of laws. Governments and the European Union pass new laws constantly, making the legal framework increasingly technical, detailed and complex. But the real question is: are these laws effective? Do they achieve what they intend to? Or, to put it differently: why do some laws fail? This is a critical issue--not just for politicians, who want their legislation to have an impact, but also for citizens, businesses, courts and governments. Assessing the effectiveness of laws requires clear criteria, and this is not just a task for lawyers. Economists, political scientists and other experts can play a key role in defining these criteria.
Our goal is to conduct both theoretical and applied research. On the one hand, we aim to produce high-level scholarship, as universities are fundamentally built on this mission. Without sounding overly ambitious, we aspire to transform the study of European law by introducing innovative approaches. On the other hand, our work must also be practical, meaningful and impactful for governments and citizens.
In the example you mentioned, there is a shared ambition to make legislation more efficient and relevant in real-world applications. However, this challenge involves two distinct dimensions: anticipation--what should be done before drafting a law to ensure its effectiveness?--and assessment--how do we measure the effectiveness of existing laws, some of which have been in place for decades or even centuries?
Effectiveness can be analysed at different stages of the legislative process. For instance, the European Commission conducts impact assessments before introducing new legislation. These assessments aim to predict the implications of a law and gauge its effects on different stakeholders through consultation processes. But this approach raises important questions: is there a legal obligation to conduct impact assessments? How many people or groups should be consulted before passing a law? What should be the consequence of an impact assessment? If it predicts significant financial costs, should there be an obligation to abandon or modify the proposal?
Beyond the drafting phase, law enforcement is another crucial issue. Even the best-written law is ineffective if it is not properly applied. We want to examine all these aspects because, surprisingly, little research has been done on them before.
Would we ever reach a point where there is a single, harmonised European legal system?
I believe we need to find the right balance. In some areas, harmonisation is crucial, but in others national governments must retain their autonomy. The European Union cannot and should not regulate everything--there must be room for national legislative frameworks to coexist with European law. We don’t want a super-state where the EU decides everything. Ideally, the EU should legislate at the optimal level.
The reality with organisations like the EU is that they can never remain static.
And what is the optimal level?
That’s the challenge. It does create uncertainty. But sometimes, seeking absolute legal certainty is like chasing the Holy Grail--it’s impossible to fully achieve. That said, the EU has done an enormous amount to improve the laws that apply within member states.
If you think about the major cases or topics you’ve been involved in, which one stands out as your favourite and why? Bank resolution, financial crisis management, accession treaties for new EU members…
What I enjoy most in academia is studying individual rights and how courts balance conflicting rights and interests. I believe this is a fundamental issue for our society.
And one that is often misunderstood. Victims may feel that the legal system doesn’t do enough, while the other side believes the consequences are too severe.
It’s a difficult issue. The challenge with rights is that they are highly abstract. And because of this abstraction, they often facilitate agreement--at least in principle. Everyone supports freedom of speech, judicial protection or privacy rights. Who would disagree with these fundamental principles? But in practice, not everyone interprets these rights in the same way. That’s where courts come in--to balance them. This balancing process has developed significantly in Europe and the United States, especially since World War II. I find it fascinating to analyse and understand how this process works and how it can be improved. As an academic, I’m particularly interested in constitutional law issues and the role of courts in society. The cases I found most interesting were those I argued during the eurozone crisis. One of the ways the crisis was managed was through bail-ins and bailouts, particularly in Cyprus, where depositors lost money.
The key question was: how can you argue, from a legal perspective, that what the European Union did was incorrect? There were two major challenges in this case. The first was a fundamental legal issue: can someone simply take money from your bank account? In this instance, the process was that indiscriminate funds were taken from large corporations based in offshore jurisdictions but also from pensioners. It was a very difficult situation. The second issue was that it wasn’t clear who had taken the money. Was it the European Union? Was it Cyprus? Was it the European Stability Mechanism? There was no clear entity to hold accountable, which is extremely problematic for citizens.
These cases were especially interesting because they brought these questions to the forefront and required constructing legal arguments that could persuade a judge.
In a well-governed society, people must know who is responsible when money is taken from them. This is an issue of imputability--to whom can the action be attributed? If it was the government, then the government should be sued. If it was the EU, then the EU should be sued. These questions made the case particularly interesting.
Another fascinating set of cases I argued came after Brexit. Many British citizens felt strongly that their rights had been taken away. This raised fundamental questions about citizenship: what does it mean to belong? Can you be French and European? British and European? Is that just a slogan, or does it confer rights? These cases were especially interesting because they brought these questions to the forefront and required constructing legal arguments that could persuade a judge.
I find it interesting that you mention these cases because, if we look at where we are today, Brexit (for example) created a precedent. Looking back at the decisions you influenced at the time: do you still feel proud of them? Or do you sometimes think, “We should have done things differently”?
On a personal level, I don’t think we could have done anything significantly better in these cases. It’s not clear to me that choosing a different path would have led to a better outcome. More broadly, my view is that Brexit was not a good decision--not for the EU, and not for the UK. But in terms of how it was managed, I think it was handled reasonably well. The reality with organisations like the EU is that they can never remain static. Either you move forward, or you fall back. There is no inertia. Take migration policy in the UK, for example. One argument made during Brexit was that the UK had been too liberal in accepting people from Central and Eastern Europe. Some say that if the process had been more gradual, things might have played out differently. But hindsight is always easy.
A lot of people often say, “This was a mistake.” But we tend to forget the context in which decisions were made. In the moment, you have two, three, maybe four options, and you must choose the best one based on what you know at the time. Today, especially with digitalisation, we often erase these alternative options from the debate. That’s a problem.
Digitalisation has completely changed how we receive and process information, and how we assess decisions. The sheer volume of information we receive today is overwhelming, and it has encouraged a more short-term mindset, one that is not always conducive to good decision-making.
This is one of the priority areas of our research centre. The intersection of EU law and digital transformation is crucial because, while the European Union is not a global superpower in military or defence terms, it is a regulatory superpower. The EU’s legal system is highly developed, and its regulations have export value, meaning that many non-EU countries follow European law as a model. This gives the EU a form of soft power, which is often underestimated but incredibly significant.
Why would non-EU countries follow EU law?
Because of trade. The EU is the largest trading partner in the world in relative terms. It surpasses any other economic bloc, including the United States. Since more countries trade with the EU than with the US, it makes sense for businesses to produce goods that comply with EU law. This gives us an export value, reinforcing its global influence.
Yes, and today we live in a world of constant emergencies, whether it’s the climate crisis, digital transformation or the need to find urgent solutions to pressing issues. But the legal system doesn’t like emergencies. Lawyers prefer to take their time, analyse issues thoroughly and then decide. Do you feel this pressure yourself?
First, the European Union was not built to handle emergencies. It is not designed for crisis management, which creates challenges when urgent action is required. But the EU is good at law reform. And the reason for that is that crisis management requires a different kind of expertise. The EU does have expertise, but managing a crisis also requires a clear legal basis.
If you need to act immediately--to counter covid-19, for example, or respond to a security threat--you need a high degree of discretion. When time is short, you cannot afford long deliberations; you must have the authority to make quick decisions. But the EU was not designed for discretion. It was built as a delegate of the member states and has limited powers.
When you combine German legal experience with French, Italian, Eastern European, Spanish and Nordic traditions, you get a comprehensive and well-informed approach to lawmaking.
It has an exceptional civil service, made up of highly skilled professionals from diverse legal traditions. When you combine German legal experience with French, Italian, Eastern European, Spanish and Nordic traditions, you get a comprehensive and well-informed approach to lawmaking. This broad perspective allows the EU to experiment and refine legal frameworks effectively.
So, I would say that the EU excels at law reform, even though it was not originally designed to handle crisis management. But over time, it had no choice--it had to step in to manage crises in areas like migration and monetary policy. And that pressure has only increased.
The same happens in academia, in a way. In the past, scholars could take the time to write comprehensive legal treatises, but today the law changes so quickly that there is constant pressure to provide immediate commentary.
Our societies are under increasing pressure. For many parents working 40-hour weeks and commuting long distances, thinking about democracy might not be a priority.
That is true, but democracy exists because of our collective efforts--it is not an innate or self-sustaining system. We shape the future, and progress does not happen without effort. I understand that not everyone has the time or capacity to be actively engaged all the time, and that is completely valid. However, that does not diminish democracy’s value as a public good. Preserving history is not useless--it ensures that knowledge is not lost. The freedoms and privileges we enjoy today are the result of specific governance structures. If we take them for granted, we risk losing them.
“Assessing the effectiveness of laws requires clear criteria, and this is not just a task for lawyers,” says Takis Tridimas. “Economists, political scientists and other experts can play a key role in defining these criteria.” Photo: Eva Krins/Maison Moderne
Who is Takis Tridimas?
Tridimas’s expertise covers a wide spectrum of EU law, including public law and judicial review, competition law, company law, banking and financial services, commercial law, and conflict of laws. Since 2008, he has advised both the banking sector and state organisations on matters related to the financial and eurozone crisis. Tridimas has handled cases before the Supreme Court of the UK, the European Court of Justice, the EU General Court and the European Court of Human Rights. His case includes areas such as economic sanctions, competition law, mergers, asylum, free movement, EU constitutional law and employment law. He has acted for individuals, corporations and governmental bodies and has been retained as counsel or consultant by all EU institutions and has served as a legal secretary for Advocate General Sir Francis Jacobs at the European Court of Justice.
His academic work is frequently cited by advocates general of the European Court of Justice and by English courts. In 2003, he was a senior legal advisor to the EU presidency and chaired the EU Council group that drafted the accession treaty for the 2004 EU enlargement. He holds several prestigious academic appointments: chair of European Law at Kings College London; Sir John Lubbock Professor of Banking Law at Queen Mary College, University of London; and professor of European Law at the College of Europe, Bruges.
The three objectives of the LCEL
—Produce outstanding scholarship in the broader field of European law
—Actively contribute to European law reform
—Establish a hub for bringing together academics, judges, policymakers, business leaders and civil society for objective discussions on key European law issues
Tips for aspiring lawyers
“Work hard, be resilient and develop endurance because success rarely comes on the first attempt. You must keep trying, again and again. So don’t give up. Question everything and don’t take things for granted. Critical thinking is essential. At the same time, I would emphasise the importance of safeguarding democratic values. This is something every citizen should keep in mind because, once progress is made, undoing it can be very difficult.”
This article was written for the of Paperjam magazine, published on 26 March. The content is produced exclusively for the magazine. It is published on the site to contribute to the full Paperjam archive. .
Is your company a member of Paperjam Club? You can request a subscription in your name. Let us know via