The challenges for the system of judicial protection of the EU spring from two main developments: first, the enlargement of the EU, which inevitably affects all institutions of the Union, most notably their organisational structure and modus operandi, second, the deepening and widening of the areas falling within the scope of competences of the EU. Article I-28 Draft Constitution states that the Court of Justice of the EU shall include the ECJ, the High Court and specialised courts. These courts, together with the national courts of all levels, constitute the intricate nexus offering judicial protection in the EU. The issues that dominated debates on the reform of the system of judicial protection varied from the amendment of Article 230.4 EC on the locus standi of applicants, to the impact of the incorporation of the Charter of Human Rights and to the competences of the ECJ in the areas of the second and third pillar. They all relate to the deepening and widening of the Union through this Draft Constitution.

Admissibility of questions for preliminary ruling – Independence of courts and tribunals in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union as Dorsch Consult criterion under Article 267 TFEU – Independence of courts and tribunals in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union as element of the Rule of Law value under Article 19 TEU – Structural inadmissibility of questions for preliminary ruling as perverse consequence of the attempts to safeguard independence of the EU judiciary

Case C-355/10 deals with institutional questions and with the delicate issue of intercepting migrants at sea, and thus with fundamental rights. The European Parliament had sought the annulment of a decision of the Council, adopted under the regulatory procedure with scrutiny (PRAC), on the grounds that it exceeded the scope of the implementing power in Article 12(5) of the Schengen Borders Code. The decision laid down rules and guidelines for Frontex maritime operations.

The Court annulled the contested decision because it considered that the provisions on interception measures and search and rescue involved important political choices, and that these provisions contain elements that call for the use of legislation instead of an implementing act. However, the Court maintained the effects of the decision until it is replaced by new rules within a reasonable time. In response to the judgment, the Commission presented a fresh proposal for a regulation on 12 April 2013.

Granting fundamental rights to companies – nature of freedom as a fundamental value in EU law – intrinsic value of protecting freedom of individuals and instrumental value of protecting freedom of companies – Dan Cohen and rationale for protecting rights of organisations – transformation of the right to conduct business in EU law in Alemo Herron and subsequent case law – from right to do that which the law allows to right to be free from constraints – whose freedom is at stake when a company’s right to conduct business is protected – theories of the firm – company as a nexus of contracts or as a subject of rights on its own behalf – company as a locus of authority and as a jurisdiction – protecting freedom of company to restrict freedom of human beings – ideological underpinnings of extensive protection of freedom of companies – dehumanisation of fundamental rights.

Monitoring the constitutionality of laws in Finland – Political control rather than judicial control – Understanding why requires a study of historical layers – Evidence that at several historical points certain elemental choices were locked in – Resulting difficulties in later abolishing or changing patterns – Interactive relationship between the political and the legal – Finland’s constitutional past still circumscribes the role of the judiciary in constitutionality control

Arcelor ruling – Legal pluralism in European integration – Judicial law-making transcending hierarchy – Role of courts for legal unity – Autonomy of courts under different mandates – Joint responsibility for legal coherence – Councils of State Report 2008 – Reversal of method of reference – Cilfit and Köbler prevent headway – Horizontal cooperation between national judges

Belgian Constitutional Court beats all in referrals to EU Court – How come? – Origin and evolution of Belgian federalism – Permanent reform – Modest origins of present constitutional court – Use of Belgian and EC law to widen its channels – Identification of Belgian constitutional rules with EC rules – Statutory extension of Court's powers – Use of techniques in referral of Advocaten voor de Wereld – Translation of national constitutional issue into a European one – EC law-driven constitutional evolution in Belgium – Eventual undermining of Belgian constitutional principles

Provisional or interim measures before the European Court of Human Rights – Historic judgment in the case of Olaechea Cahuas v. Spain – The non-compliance by a State with an interim measure leads to a violation of Article 34 ECHR, irrespective of the subsequent finding of a violation of other material provisions of the ECHR by the Court – Remaining (loopholes for) recalcitrant states – Lack of reasoning of interim measures – Lack of clarity as to applicants' unwillingness to abide by an interim measure and currently untenable, extremely narrow scope ratione materiae of situations in which interim measures are indicated by the Court – Codification of the institute of provisional measures by including it as a separate provision into the European Convention through an additional protocol.

Differentiated integration – Internal and external differentiation – Duty of loyalty – Loyalty as a constraint on differentiation – Agreements between member states – Unity of Union action – Relationship between enhanced cooperation and inter se agreements

European Court of Justice – European Parliament – Accountability through the budgetary process – Fostering the European Court of Justice’s democratic legitimacy through financial accountability – Accountability for how the European Court of Justice organises the institution and conducts its procedures – Efficiency versus quality as yardsticks to assess the Court’s performance – The European Parliament’s ambivalent practice of focusing solely on judicial efficiency – Proposals how the Parliament could take the quality of the European Court of Justice’s judicial process into account when assessing the Court – A different use of judicial statistics – Inciting quality-oriented reforms such as the introduction of amicus curiae participation and bilingual (French/English) deliberations