Third pillar – European Arrest Warrant – Nature of third pillar – Litigation before national constitutional courts – Primacy of EU law over national law – Differing national attitudes with regard to the status of third pillar law – Process of approximation: first pillar and third pillar – Achieving consistency through primacy of third pillar – Judicial protection of position of individual – Lisbon Treaty and the unification of EU law

Italian veto in the EU Council reversed by Berlusconi – Italian Parliament: lack of trust in other European Union member states – Italian implementing Act: in between the Framework Decision and the Italian legal order – Case-law of the Corte di Cassazione: interpretations in conformity with the Framework Decision and with the Italian constitutional order – Some reflections on consistent interpretation, the relationship between the legislature and the judiciary, and two very recent decisions of the Corte Costituzionale

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?

Features European Arrest Warrant – Article 16(2) German Basic Law, which allows exceptionally for the extradition of German nationals, not read in the light of the European Union integration clause in Article 23(1) Basic Law – Complaint of violation of the democratic principle put in perspective – Preservation of the statehood of Germany – Lack of proportionality in and procedural defects of the implementing Act

The judgment of the European Court of Justice of 13 September 2005 decided an important institutional conflict in the Union. At the request of the Commission, the Court annulled the Council’s Framework Decision 2003/80/JHA on the protection of the environment through criminal law. In so doing, the Court acknowledged that the member states can be obliged under Community law and its system of conditions to impose criminal sanctions if this is necessary to protect Community law. It is beyond doubt that they thus can be obliged under Union law and its conditions. The underlying questions are about the relationship between the first and third pillars and the logic of each.