Five decades of interaction between the Bundesverfassungsgericht and the Court of Justice – Reversal of the Solange decisions – Jurisdictional upgrade of the Charter under domestic constitutional law – Continuity of the ultra vires and constitutional identity caveats – Differences between the First and Second Senate in the approach towards EU law – Preliminary references as a new normality – Projection of the experience and doctrinal rigour of the German fundamental rights case law on the European level – ‘Primary’ application of the Grundgesetz as pragmatic guidance – Gradual evolution of overarching standards – Ordinary courts as an institutional counterbalance to the Bundesverfassungsgericht – Insistence on leeway for relative national autonomy in the interpretation and application of the Charter.

Relations between the judiciary and the elected authorities (i.e. the legislative and the executive) in each country and at all times are among the most sensitive from the point of view of statehood. There is an obvious truth expressed in the famous saying of Lord Acton: ‘Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely’2. The universal calling of judges is to restrain executive and legislative branches of government in their efforts to increase their power, especially at the expense of individuals. A state where there is no sufficiently strong counterweight to the natural omnipotence of the people’s representatives is not in line with the principle of the rule of law, because there is no one to remind the elected powers that their mandate has its limits – contemporarily established in particular by constitutional norms and the international regime for the protection of human rights.3 Naturally, courts do not directly take part in a political discourse, even though some kind of judicial review of the acts of public authorities exists virtually everywhere; these should not be characterised as an interference in political matters.4 The mutual respect of the judiciary and elected authorities proves the maturity of the state constitutional system, regardless of how far-reaching the powers are of judges to examine the constitutionality of legislation.

The long history of liberal multiculturalist theories grappling with the challenge posed by illiberal minorities – Parallel with the illiberal challenge in the European Union – Differences between the state/minority focus, the cultural/political considerations, the individual/systemic violations – Why these do not undermine the parallel – Propositions from multiculturalist theories to draw the line between toleration and legitimate interference – Severity, internal consensus, the exit option, and historical agreements – Forms of engagement to strengthen coherence, fairness, and solidarity

Homelessness as a violation of human rights – Criminalisation of homelessness – Insufficient international and European protection of the rights of homeless persons – American charters of the rights of homeless persons as a source of inspiration – Model European Homeless Bill of Rights – FEANTSA – Human rights instrument – Positive and negative rights of the homeless person – Right to exit homelessness – Right to carry out practices necessary to survival within the law – Adoption and implementation of the Charter by Human Rights Cities in Spain, Slovenia and Poland – Soft law – Perspectives for the protection of the rights of homeless persons

The rule of law as one of the core constitutional values of the EU legal order – The rule of law in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union – Jurisdiction of the Court on the basis of a combined reading of Articles 2 and 19 TEU – Protecting the rule of law in the Common Foreign and Security Policy – Protecting the rule of law in the member states in order to safeguard the structure and functioning of the EU legal order – Limits to the scope of application of EU law

Brexit – Withdrawal Agreement – Article 50 TEU – Negotiations – Legal character of agreement – Transition period – ‘New legal order’ – ‘Due regard’ – ECJ jurisdiction – Governance – Enforcement and supervision – Dispute settlement – Future relations

UK constitution after Brexit – Status of referendums – Use and reception of referendums in the UK – Absence of definitive constitutional framework – Complex legal nature of ‘advisory’ and ‘binding’ referendums – Deeper constitutional impact on concepts in the political constitution – Regular and irregular authority – Parliamentary and popular sovereignty – Representative and direct democracy – Possibility of reform – A potential UK Referendums Act – Difficulties with an overarching statutory framework – Limitations of continued constitutional accommodation of referendums

EU law – Mutual recognition as a justification for EU competence – EU competence in domestic criminal procedure – Test and intensity of judicial review of EU criminal law legislation – Relationship between mutual trust and mutual recognition – Federalism and division of powers between the member states and the EU – Mutual recognition as a constraint to EU action – Presumption of Innocence Directive – Victims’ Rights Directive – Exercise of EU competence in domestic criminal procedure – Justifications for EU action in criminal procedure – Evidence-based legislation in the field of criminal procedure – Mutual trust as a legal and sociological concept – National courts’ compliance with EU law – European arrest warrant

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

For a number of years there has been nothing at all unusual about the United Kingdom finding itself in a state of constitutional upheaval; indeed, for some time, this has been the UK constitution’s default setting. This has sometimes been as a result of long-anticipated and carefully planned reforms, such as the enactment, in the late 1990s, of legislation to give domestic effect to the European Convention on Human Rights and to introduce devolved systems of government in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In contrast, more recent upheaval is attributable to often unexpected reactions to often unexpected events. For example, legislation making substantial changes to the devolution scheme in Scotland – providing, among other things, for the constitutional permanence of the Scottish Parliament and Government – was enacted to implement panicked promises made by UK politicians in the dying days of the Scottish independence referendum campaign, at which point a vote in favour of independence seemed a distinct possibility. And then, needless to say, there is Brexit – about which it is almost impossible to be guilty of hyperbole when describing its constitutional implications, so numerous and potentially far-reaching are they.

Constitution making – Disagreement – Principled constitutionalism versus unprincipled bargaining – Pragmatism – Church and state – Separation of religion and law – Maintaining religious peace – Drafting of the Irish Constitution of 1937 – Placating Irish Catholicism – Accommodation of protestant religious minority – Balancing religious freedom and religiosity – Balancing fundamental rights and religious influence – Flexibility and adaptability – Pragmatic assessment of constitutions and constitution making

Deliberative democracy innovations in constitutional amendment processes – Ireland’s experimentation with deliberative mini-publics on constitutional issues – Factors influencing the political take-up of recommendations – The significance of the support of the legislative majority –Deliberative mini-publics as an accountability mechanism.

Composite administrative procedures – Exclusive jurisdiction of Union courts to review non-binding national preparatory acts – No jurisdiction of Union courts to enforce national law – Autonomy and uniformity of EU law – No judicial control possible of violation of domestic law by national authorities – National rule of law gap – Judicial review, effective judicial protection, and principle of administrative legality

Court of Justice – Discrimination on the basis of disability – Article 21 and 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – Employment Equality Directive – Relationship between different sources of law protecting the right of persons with disabilities – Charter as interpretative aid – Charter as a parameter of validity – Scope of application of the Charter – Constitutionalisation of the UN Convention

Essence of fundamental rights – Article 52(1) of the Charter – Court of Justice of the EU – Methodology for determination of interference with essence – EU values – Proportionality – Balancing – Absolute and relative theory – Absolute rights – Interest theory of rights – Choice theory of rights – Hohfeld’s theory of rights – ‘Newtonian’ conception of rights – Case law on Article 52(1) of the Charter.

Principle of subsidiarity – Early Warning Mechanism – Protocol No. 2 on Proportionality and Subsidiarity – The scope of the principle of subsidiarity – The role of national parliaments in the EU – National parliaments’ reasoned opinions – Principle of proportionality – Principle of conferral – National sovereignty in the EU – National identity in the EU – Justification of draft legislation acts

Judicial review of EU soft law – Liberal-constitutionalism – Principle of effective judicial protection – The liberal-constitutional jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice – Action for annulment – Formalistic understanding of the concept of ‘legally binding effects’ – Preliminary ruling procedure – Limitations of the preliminary ruling procedure in granting effective judicial protection in relation to EU soft law – A plea for a liberal-constitutional reading of Articles 263 and 288 TFEU in relation to direct review of EU soft law

The judicial dialogue between national courts and the European Court of Justice as a cornerstone of European constitutionalism – The importance of understanding how place-based identities shape national judges’ willingness to apply EU law and enter into dialogue with the European Court of Justice through the preliminary reference procedure – An interdisciplinary approach for studying lawyers and judges’ legal consciousness and sense of place-attachment – Geospatial and interview evidence of how national lawyers and judges’ participation in the preliminary reference procedure is influenced by their attachment to particular court settings and cities – Consequences for European constitutionalism and future research on the uneven judicial protection of EU rights.