Top Legal Scholars Meet in Prague

Eight hundred visitors and speakers came to our Faculty in late September for the very first edition of the ELU-S international conference entitled European Law Unbound: What Kind of Europe Can We Reach For? “It’s not much of an overstatement to say that anyone who’s anyone in law in Europe was in Prague at that time,” says Michal Říha, head of the local ELU-S organising committee. Who was behind the idea of organising the event? What did the University say and what’s next?

What are your first feelings after the conference?

I was definitely surprised by what a huge success it was, including at the organisational level. We received nothing but enthusiastic feedback from our participants. Of course, my sceptical self keeps wondering how come nothing went wrong, nothing broke down. Even though not everything went off without a hitch, it was really great to see all these superstars in the world of law who were thrilled with our organisers and the Faculty premises, despite the reconstruction. They also really liked all the presentations and the accompanying programme. The prevailing feeling for me is probably pride that our institution managed to achieve something like this.

So, whose idea was it to organise the conference here?

We were approached by Professor Jan Komárek, who said he had spoken with Joseph Weiler, a New York Professor who founded a similar organisation – ICON.S – ten years ago. Joseph came to the conclusion that legal science in Europe needed a kick-start and he came to us with the idea of creating this organisation. After he left, we had four months to think it over and of course we considered the fact that the Faculty had never organised such a huge event. It was a real challenge considering the international element as well as the number of participants, because the initial estimate was between 500 and 1,500 people. And we decided to accept the challenge. One of the key figures in the process was Aleš Hájek (Secretary to the Faculty – author’s note), who told me: “You know what, I’m 50 and I want to achieve something, we can do this.” So, it was not just the Dean’s decision, there were a lot of people involved.

Given the construction work, which had already been scheduled, did you plan right from the start to hold the conference at the Faculty?

We used those four months to do some research on possible venues. At first, we were considering the Congress Centre, but then we thought that anyone could organise a conference there, but we represent the law school, so the venue should somehow be linked to the Faculty. I’ll be honest – it was nerve-racking when we weren’t sure in June whether the toilets would stay open on all floors, whether we would have enough rooms. Just as an example – we needed 30 rooms for the individual panels which wouldn’t be easy at any time, let alone with the reconstruction. But we decided that we could make it work. Holding the event was one of the conditions that we brought to the table right at the beginning of the discussion about the reconstruction, so everyone knew about it in advance. We also asked the Faculty of Arts for help. They were very willing and offered us to use their premises, so some parts of the conference took place in their building. Our participants told us that they wouldn’t have noticed any construction work at all if it hadn’t been for the scaffolding. Luckily, it rained throughout most of the conference, so they didn't even go outside and notice the scaffolding.

The Conference was organised by the European Law Unbound Society (ELU-S). Can you tell us more about it?

ELU-S is a newly founded organisation managed by an interim committee and three interim presidents. Permanent governing bodies should be elected at next year’s conference. It is completely new, which has some important consequences. First, there is no budget yet. Most international organisations or associations can build on a budget which the organisers can use. Second, you have no idea whether the event will be a success or a failure, whether there will be a hundred people coming or a thousand. For example, last year’s ICON.S conference in Madrid was attended by two and a half thousand people, which is then a different problem. It was a leap into the unknown. ELU-S is a sister organisation of ICON.S, which was founded by Joseph Weiler ten years ago. The primary focus of ICON.S is public law, while ELU-S is more localised in Europe, specifically continental Europe. It is open to specialists in public law – just like ICON.S – but also in private law. Several societies bring together academics studying private law, but there was no large-scale platform in this area, which was a shame. This means that ELU-S is more inclusive with respect to all legal disciplines.

I assume that you yourself have participated in large conferences, so you’ve had some experience, right?

Yes, I attended two ICON.S conferences, for the first time in person last year in Madrid, where I travelled with the intention of learning how to manage such events. That is where I was offered help by one of the organisers of the ICON.S conference in Madrid. I then called him on multiple occasions and I was also able to take a look at the budgets for the previous editions of the conference. I also attended another ICON.S conference before that, but that was during Covid, so I was sitting home on my couch.

Why was the topic of the conference so broad? Was it because it was the first year?

The aim of the organisation is to be as open as possible and as inclusive as possible. Of course, that word has certain connotations. Joseph uses the term “Catholic”, but that carries a different meaning in our country. The point is that it should really be open to everyone. This means that you will have the CJEU Advocate General Szpuznar sitting next to a Ph.D. student, the Algerian head of department, and a student of the master’s programme at our Faculty. Some of them will be presenting their own paper, others will listen in the audience. It is a slightly different format than other conferences, where you find a place to sit and listen to what the big shots have to say. At our conference, some of the big shots came and listened to what you, as a Ph.D. student or a master’s student, had to say, and then they told you what they thought. The aim of this approach is to create a horizontal environment which enables the exchange of ideas regardless of seniority or the position held.

You’ve mentioned the guests of your conference. Would you like to highlight any of the big names in the world of law who came?

Me personally, I really enjoyed the interview and the follow-up panel with Anu Bradford, which I hosted. She is one of the leading authors in digital regulation. I was also thrilled to get the chance to speak with Maciej Spuznar, First Advocate General of the Court of Justice, and Tamara Ćapeta, Advocate General. I’m, of course, familiar with her opinions and to talk with her face-to-face was an unforgettable experience for me. And obviously Joseph Weiler who, I believe, attracted dozens or even hundreds of people to the conference. It was great that Jiří Zemánek, a former Justice of the Constitutional Court, arrived on the last day after he found out that the conference was taking place. Another “unregistered” attendant was Jiří Přibáň.

How would you describe European law today? Can you comment on the relationship between the law of the individual members states of the European Union, EU law, and the law of non-EU European countries? How do they overlap?

These questions were, indeed, also reflected in the conference. Consider what first comes to mind when you say European law at our Faculty. The conference was called European Law Unbound, so the first thing that everyone thinks of is the law of the European Union. If we are talking about European law, that obviously also includes the law of the member states. For instance, my paper dealt with the Czech legislative process. Nevertheless, most presentations had an international or supranational character.

EU law is, of course, important to us. It removes various obstacles by bringing the legal orders of the 27 member states closer together. One might say that it also creates some new obstacles, but at least those are usually the same for all member states. This element affects the countries which are a part of the European free trade area, but not the EU, such as Norway or Lichtenstein. Switzerland is a special case, as the country adopted Union law without having had a say in its making. And then there’s this aspect that Anu Bradford talks about – the European Union or the European continent as a regulatory leader. Take, for instance, GDPR: regardless of what you think about it, if you run a business in Argentina and you want to sell your products in the EU, let’s say you have an e-shop, you still have to comply with the regulation. Once you follow these rules in the European market, it is easier for you to apply these stricter rules to other situations. So, basically, we are exporting regulation. This is sometimes referred to as the Brussels effect. The European Union is one of the largest markets in the world, combining significant wealth and a population of half a billion people, which makes a large market interesting enough to comply with the regulations. It means that the legislation spreads outside the EU member states without any formal framework. This development is visible, for instance, in relation to the US. If you look at Donald Trump’s comments on protecting the freedom of speech or taxing big tech, which he calls a tax on success, he is obviously very interested in the Digital Services Act. What would you say about the current state of European law?

European law – meaning EU law and the law of the member states – faces the same challenges as the legal orders of other countries. One of them is AI, which is mostly about competitiveness, and then security because the geopolitical order has changed quite significantly, and the law must somehow respond. If we take the example of the Green Deal, 150 countries around the world have their own alternative to it. China has committed to reach climate neutrality by 2060. In Europe, we pledged to do the same by 2050. So, it doesn’t mean that we are digging our own grave. It’s a trend and the real question is how we want to achieve these goals. In EU law, the decisions are made by the member states, by the prime ministers at the level of the European Council, which directs the European Commission in proposing new legislation. And the Czech Republic already agreed to climate neutrality. The decision was unanimous, meaning that we had the right of veto, but we voted in favour of the proposal, so the European Commission then drafted the legislation, which is then again discussed by the member states. The European Parliament is a directly elected body. You also have the ministers who vote according to their government and they are accountable to their parliaments. This means that the Czech vote is discussed in the national parliament. It is up to the member states what they vote for. One example is the Savings and Investments Union. In general, many Europeans save their money by depositing it in their accounts. In contrast, Americans tend much more to invest their money, by which they provide capital for the business sector. We have 27 individual capital markets. We are simply not able to accumulate sufficient means to create something like European Google because the 27 stock markets will never generate as much as in the US, where you have only two stock exchanges and a third one is about to be open. Money is therefore aggregated there much more quickly. It is the decision of the member states to create or not create something like that here, and the Czech Republic is generally opposed to this idea.

Do you mean the federalisation of the EU?

I mean the creation of a single capital market. This is closely linked to what Anu Bradford talked about, that the Czech Republic has one of the strictest insolvency systems. The purpose is to protect the creditor but at the same time, it also means that businessmen won't take as much risk. If you don’t take your chances, you won’t have the return. Let’s be honest, nine out of ten will fail, but one will become the future Mark Zuckerberg. So, it doesn’t make sense to do business in such an environment. It makes more sense to take it to the US, which is actually often the case. Many American start-ups are built on ideas and education that people got in Europe, in Germany, or in the Netherlands, and they left exactly because it’s simpler to secure the capital in the US. It is up to the member states to decide whether we want to go this way or not. There are good reasons on both sides. But we shouldn’t complain then that we’re not competitive.

Could we say that European law is, in a certain sense, inspiring for the rest of the world? That the world is learning from us, or is that an exaggeration?

It is definitely true in some areas, such as food safety. The European Union has very stringent standards in this area. That is why there is so much discussion over agricultural products and the import thereof from the US. There is a lot of debate on hormone-treated meat. If you have an animal which has been given hormones, there is a certain time period within which they disappear from the body before the animal can be slaughtered. However, you can get hormone-treated meat in the US. It is simply not possible in Europe or it would be against the regulation. The US allows it, but the fact that we have this regulatory trade hold also makes it more expensive for us.

How long did it take you to prepare the conference? Who was in the team?

A little over a year and a half. Joseph Weiler first came with the offer in December 2023, we said yes in March 2024, and then we spent another year preparing everything. There were three of us representing the Faculty in the international organising committee: Associate Professor Pfeifer, Professor Komárek, and me. We also got help from about fifty students who were absolutely amazing. People stopped me in the hallway, telling me how great the students were, that their English was perfect and that they were very helpful and assertive. Half of Europe envies us our students and I definitely understand why.

Will you publish any materials from the conference? Did you do any interviews? After all, there were some real hotshots at the conference.

Unlike other Czech conferences, there are no conference proceedings in this case. Most people present their research, which they then publish in foreign journals. As for some other materials, I’m really glad that we did about nine interviews for podcasts, which will be published in the coming weeks and months. The interviews were really nice, we talked to some really interesting personalities, so that’s something to follow and listen to (the first interview with Professor Bogdandy is already available on Spotify – author’s note). The question is what the Faculty is going to do next because a lot of people came to attend the conference and they discovered that we have really capable and smart people here in Prague and I’m sure there will be many new collaborative projects, but that’s going to be unveiled in the coming weeks.

What might be the practical impact of the conference this year or in the future? Were there any people there who actually draft European legislation?

There were representatives of the Court of Justice and the European Commission. We also waived the conference fee for people working in the Czech public administration, so that a discussion with the specialists who actually work in the area could take place – so that we don’t just talk over coffee, there is a real actual impact. We want the people who represent the Czech Republic at the relevant meetings to get inspired and get a chance to network.

As for the impact in the academic environment, the main message is that we are able to pull off something like this. That was also one of our goals, to see if we can organise an event of this scale. It was the largest conference in the history of the Faculty, at least in the last 30 years.

In fact, it was a congress rather than a conference. If we learn how to organise them and if they are held more often, it is also a big benefit for Prague as such. These events bring some complications, there are some logistics involved, it is a lot of work, but once people start coming to us, from a purely utilitarian perspective, it is cheaper and, at the same time, you start to be seen differently. You are no longer than one person that you met at this conference, but you meet 40 different people in their home institution and all of them have something interesting to say. And maybe, you think about sending an email when applying for a project or writing a paper, and offer them to be involved. This is really important not only for the “adult” experienced academics but in particular for young Ph.D. students who are just starting their careers because these inclusive conferences may be their first opportunity to appear in an international environment. It is a whole different experience if you present your research in front of people coming from all around Europe, not just 30 Czech scholars at a local conference.

How did the Faculty management approach the conference?

I would say they were very positive about it. This is what we have on the table, so what are we going to do with it? The management probably realised that it was a huge challenge. It was a big commitment, something that we’ve never done before. And considering the reconstruction... I said in my opening remarks that the Dean was crazy because it really takes a lot of courage to agree to something like that in these circumstances. But he did, and we did it, we pulled it off. We proved that we are able to organise such events. I’m really grateful to him because at the beginning, there was quite a lot of unease and concerns that we might have bitten off more than we can chew.

How much does a conference like this actually cost and how did you secure the funding?

Everyone knows that the financial situation of Czech universities is not great, so that was another challenge we faced. We are still finishing our accounts but it looks like we have not exceeded the conference budget. The people who were involved got paid. I believe that you should get paid for your work. At the same time, there weren’t any expenses for the Faculty. Of course, the premises used for the conference have to be put back in order and the construction work was interrupted, but the direct costs incurred by the Faculty corresponded roughly to what you would pay for four academics going to a conference in western Europe. My estimate is that the rest of the conference cost a little over three million crowns. These costs were covered primarily by conference fees, donations, and subsidies that we managed to secure through the Strategic Development Department, and through fund-raising managed by the Communications Office. If everything goes well and I believe it will, we will be in the black at the end, and there is some reserve for remunerating the work.

Are you planning anything similar in the near future?

Well, I’ve heard some “threats”. But no, there is no specific plan at the moment to put together a new organising committee in six months and make any other steps towards organising a similar event. But if it’s not to be just about a man’s ego, proving that we’ve made it, that we are capable of something like that, if we want to institutionalise the event, which is our goal, I think we should organise something similar, let’s say, within the next two years. It will then become more of a standard thing, we will get used to all the processes involved. We will learn what to do, which will, of course, save us money, but also human resources. We only used our own sources for the conference, including people as well as services, there was minimal outsourcing such as the security company. But if we hired an agency which would charge, let’s say, half a million or a million crowns for the event, we wouldn’t have learned anything. So that’s why we need to keep up with this trend and try to attract other academics to Prague, attract them to top-quality, well-organised conferences, and network. I really liked the fact that Prague became the capital of European law for three days and I hope it will happen more often in the future.

Next year’s ELU-S conference will take place in Portugal. Do you already know who will represent our Faculty there?

Those who will write a paper, those who will present their ideas there. It’s not about taking a trip. It’s about presenting your research, and first you need to research something.

I’m sure there are people who have something to present. Have you already talked with anyone to offer them the opportunity?

I hope that the entire Faculty saw how successful the event was. There were quite a few speakers from our Faculty, about 40 people, which is great, and if there are 40 people going to Portugal next year, those are not insignificant costs. But of course, the main point is the output and what will follow, so those are the key factors in the decision-making. One of the purposes of academic activities is to break through at the international level. This can be seen in all those rankings and methodologies, which make university funding dependent on those activities. We should work to the best of our abilities, so that we bring high-quality results and establish new partnerships. It’s not about presenting at a panel with four other colleagues from the Faculty, having the same discussion that you could have here over coffee and then going sightseeing. That’s definitely not the point.

Who were some other speakers from our Faculty at the conference besides you and Professor Bílková?

We obviously wanted Czech scholars to be heard, so we approached the academic community with a request to propose some topics for the plenary discussion. In the end, Professor Bílková was chosen in relation to the role of the Czech Republic in the Ukrainian conflict. And I was really glad when they asked me if I knew a David Elischer, who is apparently doing some really interesting research and I said, yes, I do, and it’d be great if he presented it in a plenary session. This is such great advertising for our Faculty because then you have Czech academics listed alongside these top names and not because we would be trying to push them forward, but because we were approached by others saying that they would appreciate their panels. And there were many other people involved, too. The Department of Business Law, the Department of Constitutional Law, the Department of European Law, the Department of Civil Law, the Department of Legal Theory – they all participated in the event, and I’m pretty sure I forgot at least two other departments which will be angry with that I didn’t mention them. There were 40 participants from our Faculty, including Professor Hoffmanová, Associate Professor Ondřejková, Associate Professor Ondřej, and Professor Beran. And that’s a really great count, I’m really proud and I appreciate that my colleagues agreed to present their papers because for them, ELU-S was a no-name organisation that they had never heard of before.

Did you invite representatives from other Czech and Slovak law schools and did they accept the invitation?

There were colleagues from Brno and Olomouc, I’m not sure whether there was anyone from Pilsen, but Vice-Dean Blažo from Comenius University was definitely here. I have to admit I didn’t really pay much attention to where the participants were from – I was more focused on what they were saying.

So how many people were there in the end?

There were a little over 900 registered participants, 750 of which actually came.

Interview by Markéta Černá