‘The functioning of the Union shall be founded on representative democracy.’ This the new Union Treaty echoes from the Constitutional Treaty. ‘Citizens are directly represented at Union level in the European Parliament.’ It means that the Union pretends to be a democracy and challenges the thesis, held by some, that democracy cannot be applied to an international organization. The mere ambition does not, however, answer the Union's shortcomings in terms of democracy.

Citizenship is an eminent example of the dynamic development of European constitutional concepts. From a status to which the member states wished not to attach any significant directly effective new rights, the Court of Justice has declared European citizenship to be ‘the fundamental status of nationals of the member states’ (Grzelczyck) and has given one of the prime citizenship rights, the freedom to reside in member states, direct effect. This development and in particular the interplay between constitutional developments at European Union and at national level regarding citizenship deserve reflection. We focus on the extent to which citizenship constitutes an exclusive bond with a political community which distinguishes those who are its members from those who are not.

The Conseil constitutionnel has spoken again. In a decision of 27 July 2006, no. 2006-540 DC, the French constitutional court has further and significantly elaborated on earlier rulings on the status of Community directives in the French legal order. In the summer of 2004, it had ruled, in cases in which it was asked to declare unconstitutional an act of parliament implementing Community directives, that ‘the transposing of a Community directive results from a constitutional requirement with which non-compliance is only possible by reason of an express contrary provision of the Constitution’ (decisions of, inter alia, 10 June 2004, no. 2004-496 DC and 29 July 2004, no. 2004-498 DC). Very recently, the Conseil d'Etat, France's highest administrative court, took a similar stance in a case in which the constitutionality of a government decree implementing a directive was at stake (Decision of 8 February 2007, Société Arcelor Atlantique et Lorraine et autres).

Powers of High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina ‘reminiscent of a totalitarian regime’ – February 2007: Constitutional Court challenges decisions of the High Representative for being contrary to Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights – Order of the High Representative: execution of the Court's decision contrary to Article 25 UN Charter – Ruling by command may lastingly hinder democratic development

Constitutional issues arising from the ruling in the Pupino case – Court of Justice holds that the duty of consistent interpretation applies also in relation to framework decisions – Analysis of the extent to which the doctrine of consistent interpretation can (and should) be transposed to the area of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Consequences for possible extension of other constitutional doctrines elaborated in the context of the first pillar to the third pillar – Extent to which third pillar acts can become a vehicle for the enforceability of fundamental rights as general principles of Union law – The possibility of invoking Francovich damages for breaches of Union law – To what extent can the Pupino reasoning be extended to the second pillar?

No competence to review EC regulations implementing Security Council resolutions, according to the Court of First Instance – Worst of both worlds: critique from the perspectives of international law and Community law – Alternative approach on the basis of the firmly established European solange tradition.

Minimal constitutional amendment at accession forced constitutional courts in new member states to make great efforts to avoid conflicts with EC and EU law – The importance of expanding the equation of ‘co-operative constitutionalism’ beyond judicial actors, by involving political institutions – The case of constitutional amendment in Estonia and Latvia – The concern over fundamental rights protection versus EC market regulation in Hungary, Estonia and the Czech Republic – Co-operative constitutionalism beyond judicial dialogues.

At the time this issue of EuConst goes to the press, May 2007, the German presidency is nearing the climax of its efforts to solve the conundrum of the future EU treaty or constitution. There is no way of even guessing what the outcome will be, as every day brings a new set of circumstances and proposals.

Meanings of pluralism in different disciplines – Meaning in jurisprudence, esp. ECtHR – Feature of society and idea of society – Individual freedom v. group existence – Politics, religion, education – Pluralism as expression of rights and as guarantee of rights – Rejection of legal pluralism – Contradiction of elitist theory – State protection of pluralism and its limits

Forms of res judicata – Unwritten principle of EU law – National procedural autonomy v. EC supremacy – Revision of decisions v. state liability – Finality of administrative decisions v. judicial decisions – Higher respect for judicial decisions than for administrative decisions – Res judicata not absolute – ECJ itself under demands of legal certainty – Analogy between res judicata rules and rules of direct and indirect effect.

History and background of the comitology system in the European Union – The continuing problem of the involvement of the European Parliament – The new comitology decision of the Council of Ministers: introduction of a comitology procedure concerning ‘quasi-legislative measures’ – Genesis of the 2006 reform: negotiations within the Council and with the Parliament – Accompanying political declarations – Evaluation: a substantial shift in the relations between the institutions in relation to law-making.

Without doubt, the European Union has come to a crossroads. Following the failure of the proposed Constitution in the referendums in France and The Netherlands, it is now vital to take stock of the situation in order to develop an overall concept for how European integration can and should progress from this point. Germany's EU Council Presidency provides an opportunity to hold this discussion. However, the fair-weather talk about Europe, currently being heard from all political sides, is no help at all. People are ill-at-ease and increasingly reserved and sceptical about the European Union, because they can no longer make sense of the integration process, because they can't shake off the feeling of an ever stronger, increasingly inappropriate centralisation of competencies, and because they cannot see who is responsible for which policies. These concerns must be taken very seriously, particularly because they are not simply imaginary.

History of the Czech presidency – Constitutional status of the President – Personal powers and powers subject to countersignature by the Premier – Presidency of V. Havel and V. Klaus – Emerging constitutional conventions – Appointment of judges – Resignation of Ministers and Appointment of Premier – Legislative veto – Moderation of the constitutional system rather than implementation of a political programme – Importance of the political context – Parliamentarianism with a relatively influential President.

Integration in the European Union jeopardizes our democracy; the European Constitution will not stop the substantial erosion of the constitutional institutions of the member states, in particular the parliaments. It will not put an end to the lack of democracy and of separation of powers, nor to inappropriate centralization. Its rejection in France and the Netherlands creates the opportunity to assign to the Union appropriate and transparent structures close to the citizens.

This is heavy stuff. It is presented to us by authors who are not known to be Euro-phobes or populists. They don't lose themselves in well-meaning clouds of criticism concerning the length of the Constitution, or in putting the blame on ‘the people in Brussels’. Their concerns have to be taken seriously. That is why their suggestions need to be addressed, both as to principle and detail.

Influence of the Czech accession to the European Union on the judicial ideology of Czech courts – Questions regarding the constitutional status of European Union law in the Czech Republic – Czech Constitutional Court: no testing of so-called necessitated implementing provisions, except when core constitutional values and principles are at stake – Extension of this doctrine to non-Community Union law – An act contrary to Union law is not as such also contrary to the Czech Constitution

Conseil constitutionnel and Conseil d'Etat now both hold that Article 88-1 of the French Constitution contains the duty to implement Community law – The Conseil constitutionnel tests whether acts of parliament manifestly contravene unconditional and precisely phrased provisions of Community law – Duty to implement Community law limited by France's constitutional identity for the Conseil constitutionnel, by the absence of equivalent protection on the Community level for the Conseil d'Etat – Supremacy of the Constitution not affected

Access to state-held information essential in a democratic society – Traditional reluctance of the European Court of Human Rights to apply Article 10 European Convention on Human Rights in access to information cases – Positive obligations and new perspectives: initiatives within the Council of Europe – Parallel with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights – Sdruženi Jihočeské Matky decision of the European Court: the beginning of a new era?

Constitutional reform in Germany – Modernization of the German federal system is only a first step – Why reforming German Federalism was necessary – Steps and factors in the constitutional reform process – Substance – Issues and agenda for future reform on financial relations.

What governs the first entrance to the territory of a member state by a third country national who is a family-member of a European citizen who has migrated to that member state: (secondary) Community law or national law? This question, of the utmost constitutional importance as it regards the power to decide on the entrance of foreigners on national territory, one of the pearls in the crown of traditional national sovereignty, was facing the Court of Justice of the European Communities in the case of Yunying Jia v. Migrationsverket. Earlier the Court had sent out different signals. Now, in the long-awaited and remarkably short full Court decision of 9 January 2007, the Court carefully manoeuvred between Scylla (the member states are in full control) and Charybdis (Community law decides all): a member state is not required to make the grant of a residence permit to a third country national subject to the condition of lawful residence in a member state – but it apparently may do so. It is quite unlikely that this judgment once and for all settles the question.