Early Warning Mechanism – Principle of Subsidiarity – Lisbon Treaty – Protocol No. 2 on Proportionality and Subsidiarity – A theoretical definition of the Principle of Subsidiarity – The scope of the Principle of Subsidiarity – Scrutiny of the respect for the principle of subsidiarity – The role of national parliaments in the EU legislative procedure – The Swedish Riksdag – national constitutional law – decentralised scrutiny – no selection mechanism – sectoral committees – reasoned opinions – the role of the Plenary – the Committee on the Constitution – method for scrutiny – the principle of proportionality – principle of conferral – legality – European Public Prosecutor’s Office – broad or narrow scrutiny – impact of the Early Warning Mechanism

Challenges posed to European integration by exercises of direct democracy at the national or sub-state level – EU response to referendums on internal constitutional matters – Greek, Scottish and Catalan referendum processes – Resilience of state nationalism and the complex pluralisation of identities below the level of the state

United Kingdom – UK Supreme Court – European Union – The orthodox view of the British constitution: lack of hierarchy of laws – Britain's ‘unwritten’ constitution and the role of ‘constitutional statues’ in Factortame – HS2 judgment makes up for House of Lords' omission in Factortame – Relationship between parliamentary sovereignty and EU law more clearly articulated – A normative-hierarchical constitutional order

Selection and nomination of constitutional justices – American model of judicial review in post-communist countries – Tensions between parliamentary supremacy and excessive activism of Constitutional Courts – Possibility of reappointment and the independence of justices – Lack of cooperation between President and Senate in the Czech Republic – Politicization of judicial nomination and democracy.

Modern age technology spurs legal development – Temporal coincidence of conflicting national and Union legislative processes triggers interdependence between EU and member states – French Loi Hadopi cuts Internet without recourse to a court – Conseil constitutionnel enshrines Internet as fundamental freedom – EU telecoms reform incorporates several French fundamental rights safeguards

Foreign surveillance as a means of circumventing existing legal safeguards – Different perspectives on the problem of the extraterritorial application of fundamental rights in US and EU legal models – The limited usefulness of effective control tests for establishing the responsibility of states for action taken in cyberspace – Judgment of Bundesverfassungsgericht in the BND Act case as an interpretative guideline for the regulation of foreign surveillance in EU member states – Electronic surveillance as a threat to European integration process.

Relation between national constitutions and EU law – Constitutional conflict – Role of national institutions in avoiding constitutional conflict – A need for a holistic approach in European constitutionalism – Constitutional courts put forward constitutional requirements next to constitutional reservations – The need to bring constitutions in line with EU law before accession – The role of parliaments and governments in avoiding conflict when implementing EU law – Role of national institutions in decision-making at EU level

European Commission – Size of the Commission – Presidentialisation – President’s power of organisation – Principle of collegiality – Responsibility of the College at large – Reorganisation of the Commission – Balance between efficiency and member state representation – Legality of project teams – Rotation of voting rights in EU law – System of rotation for the European Commission

Mutual trust is at the heart of the European Union. Although the Union lacks a general mechanism to enforce its rules and decisions, member states usually comply with them. This remarkable fact can in part be explained by self interest: although individual rules and decisions may be found harmful and are ducked from time to time, all member states know they win by sticking to the rules of the game. The member state that grudgingly applies a rule or a decision, trusts all the others to do the same most of the time. If this were not so, the system would break down, in spite of the European Court of Justice denying the rule of reciprocity legal status in the Union.

While the Union's powers and responsibilities are ever on the increase and co-operation deepens as the Union begins to take positions more easily in the areas of freedom, security, justice and defense, it is seeking to keep the Member States and the Union together via the duties of loyalty. These are spelled out in general terms in Article I-5, and in more specific terms in specific contexts, such as those of the Common Foreign and Security Policy [Article I-15(2)]. Article I-5 is entitled ‘Relations between the Union and the Member States’, but it is also central to the relations between the Member States themselves in terms, for example, of the exercise of their voting rights in the Council of Ministers. The Article consolidates provisions that are currently scattered over various Treaties but not without adding some novelties.

Divergent regulatory practices in WTO compliance and external trade effects – The regulatory policy of EU ‘legislative’ institutions – The (de)regulatory policy of the ECJ – Explaining diverging regulatory practices – Policies behind diverging regulatory practices – Different institutional interaction in diverging regulatory practices – Should all EU institutions care what the world thinks?

The unsuccessful petition to ban Slovakia’s extreme right parliamentary party – the value of focusing on judicial craft for studies of militant democracy and courts – statutory frameworks as intervening variables and their overview in Czechia, Hungary and Slovakia – key components of judicial craft endogenous to courts: consistency, legal reasoning skills, problem-solving abilities, creativity – the cases of Workers’ Party (Czechia), Slovak Togetherness–National Party (Slovakia), People’s Party Our Slovakia (Slovakia) and Hungarian Guard (Hungary) – the decisions of the Czech Supreme Administrative Court (2009) and the Slovak Supreme Court (2019) – re-evaluating what counts as ‘success’ with party bans: judicial craft affects the effectiveness of the statutory framework for party bans – a court-centric perspective on militant democracy when courts face illiberal assaults

One of the central issues arising during each of the Intergovernmental Conferences which has taken place since that of Maastricht, which inscribed the notion of limited conferred competences for the first time in the EC Treaty, has been the attempt to establish clear limits to the powers of the European Community and Union. The ‘delimitation of competences’ was placed on the initial post-Nice agenda of 2000 alongside only three other issues, and the ‘division and definition of competence’ was listed as the first of the pressing ‘challenges and reforms’ of the Laeken Declaration of 2001. No surprise, then, that this question was once again amongst the key questions for debate during the Convention on the Future of Europe, occupying the attention of at least two working groups (those on complementary competences and subsidiarity), and surfacing in many other political and academic debates on the proposed Constitution.

European Court of Justice – General Court – EU procedural law and practice – Procedural rights of the parties to judicial proceedings before the EU Courts – Participation of the parties to judicial proceedings and the legitimacy of judicial decisions – Accuracy of decision-making, the right to a hearing and procedural economy as guiding values of EU procedural law and practice – Different procedural practices of the General Court and the Court of Justice – The filtering of appeals by the Court of Justice – The accountability of the EU Courts for their procedural law and standards

Following the dramatic No votes in the French and Dutch referendums on 29 May and 1 June 2005, a need was felt in the European constitutional law profession to react to the shock.

EuConst invited members of its Board and members of the European Constitutional Law Network to write a short comment about possible and possibly salutary effects of the events on the ways of European scholarship and teaching. Below are the reactions received. Authors are all members of ECLN and/or the Board of EuConst.

The contributions to this issue of EuConst by Jacques Ziller, Sacha Prechal and Herman van Gunsteren carry their comments on the events incorporated.