1.
Craig PP, De Búrca G. EU law: text, cases, and materials. Sixth. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2015.
2.
Foster N, editor. Blackstone’s EU treaties & legislation 2017-2018. Twenty eighth edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press;
3.
Quénivet NNR, Dadomo C. European Union law. Third edition. Saltford: Hall & Stott Publishing; 2020.
4.
Chalmers D, Davies G, Monti G. European Union law: text and materials. Third edition. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 2014.
5.
Barnard C, Peers S, editors. European Union law. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017.
6.
Schütze R. European Union law. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 2015.
7.
Schütze R. European constitutional law. Second edition. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 2016.
8.
Barnard C. The substantive law of the EU: the four freedoms. Fifth edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2016.
9.
Woods L, Watson P, Costa M, Steiner J. Steiner & Woods EU law. Thirteenth edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017.
10.
Fairhurst J. Law of the European Union [Internet]. Eleventh edition. New York: Pearson; 2016. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/suss/detail.action?docID=5175070
11.
Fairhurst J. Law of the European Union. Eleventh. New York, N.Y.: Pearson; 2016.
12.
Dashwood A, Wyatt D. Wyatt and Dashwood’s European Union law. 6th ed. Hart; 2011.
13.
Dashwood A, Arnull A. A constitutional order of states?: essays in EU law in honour of Alan Dashwood [Internet]. Hart Publishing; 2011. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/suss/detail.action?docID=752471
14.
Dashwood A, Arnull A. A constitutional order of states?: essays in EU law in honour of Alan Dashwood. Hart; 2011.
15.
Jacobs FG, Arnull A, Eeckhout P, Tridimas T. Continuity and change in EU law: essays in honour of Sir Francis Jacobs [Internet]. Oxford University Press; 2008. Available from: http://eu01.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/view/action/uresolver.do?operation=resolveService&package_service_id=10395381120002461&institutionId=2461&customerId=2460
16.
de Búrca G, Weiler JHH, editors. The European Court of Justice. Oxford University Press; 2001.
17.
Craig PP, De Búrca G, editors. The evolution of EU law [Internet]. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011. Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=694179&site=ehost-live
18.
Craig PP, De Búrca G, editors. The evolution of EU law. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.
19.
Hartley TC. The foundations of European Union law: an introduction to the constitutional and administrative law of the European Union. Eighth. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014.
20.
Hartley TC. Constitutional problems of the European Union. Hart; 1999.
21.
Tridimas T. The general principles of EU law. 3rd ed. Oxford University Press; 2015.
22.
Tridimas T. The general principles of EU law [Internet]. Second. Oxford University Press; 2006. Available from: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip068/2006005363.html
23.
Ward I. A critical introduction to European law. 3rd ed. Cambridge University Press; 2009.
24.
Weatherill S. Cases and materials on EU law. Twelfth edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2016.
25.
Craig PP, De Búrca G. EU law: text, cases, and materials. Sixth. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2015.
26.
Harpaz G. European Integration in the Aftermath of the Ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon: Quo Vadis? European Public Law [Internet]. 2011;17(1):73–89. Available from: http://www.kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=EURO2011007
27.
Klamert M. Conflicts of legal basis: No legality and no basis but a bright future under the lisbon treaty? European Law Review [Internet]. 35(4):497–515. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
28.
Hinarejos A. Integration in criminal matters and the role of the Court of Justice. European Law Review [Internet]. 2011;36(3):420–430. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
29.
Baker E, Harding C. From past imperfect to future perfect? A longitudinal study of the third pillar. European Law Review [Internet]. 34(1):25–54. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
30.
Mitsilegas V. The third wave of third pillar law. Which direction for EU criminal justice? European Law Review [Internet]. 2009;34(4):523–560. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
31.
Craig P. The Treaty of Lisbon, process, architecture and substance. European Law Review [Internet]. 2008;33(2):137–166. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
32.
Peers S. The European Community’s criminal law competence: the plot thickens. European Law Review [Internet]. 2008;33(3):399–410. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
33.
Herlin-Karnell E. The Ship–Source Pollution Case C–440/05, Commission v. Council , Judgment of 23 October 2007 (Grand Chamber). European Public Law. 2008 Nov 1;14(Issue 4):533–544.
34.
Dinan D. Institutions and Governance: A New Treaty, a Newly Elected Parliament and a New Commission. Journal of Common Market Studies. 48(Suppl 1):95–118.
35.
Conway G. Recovering a Separation of Powers in the European Union. European Law Journal. 17(3):304–322.
36.
Mikko M. Unveiling the Council of the European Union | Ch 2: ‘Voting and coalitions in the Council after Enlargement’. In: Naurin D, Wallace H, editors. Unveiling the Council of the European Union: games governments play in Brussels [Internet]. Palgrave Macmillan; 2008. p. 23–35. Available from: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=ab345e06-b313-e711-80c9-005056af4099
37.
Konig T, Junge D. Why Don’t Veto Players Use Their Power? European Union Politics. 10(4):507–534.
38.
de Waele H, Broeksteeg H. The semi-permanent European Council Presidency: Some reflections on the law and early practice. Common Market Law Review. 2012 Jun 1;49(Issue 3):1039–1074.
39.
Dinan D. Governance and Institutions: Implementing the Lisbon Treaty in the Shadow of the Euro Crisis. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 49(S1: Special Issue):103–121.
40.
BARBER T. The Appointments of Herman van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 2010 Sep;48:55–67.
41.
Editorial Comments: The post-Lisbon institutional package: Do old habits die hard? Common Market Law Review. 2010 Jun 1;47(Issue 3):597–604.
42.
Dinan D. Institutions and Governance: A New Treaty, a Newly Elected Parliament and a New Commission. Journal of Common Market Studies. 48(Suppl 1):95–118.
43.
Bale T, Hanley S, Szczerbiak A. ‘May Contain Nuts’? The Reality behind the Rhetoric Surrounding the British Conservatives’ New Group in the European Parliament. Political Quarterly. 81(1):85–98.
44.
Hagemann S, Høyland B. Bicameral Politics in the European Union. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 48(4):811–833.
45.
Neyer J. Justice, Not Democracy: Legitimacy in the European Union. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 48(4):903–921.
46.
Crespy A, Gajewska K. New Parliament, New Cleavages after the Eastern Enlargement? The Conflict over the Services Directive as an Opposition between the Liberals and the Regulators. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 48(5):1185–1208.
47.
Buzek J. State of the Union: Three Cheers for the Lisbon Treaty and Two Warnings for Political Parties. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 49:7–18.
48.
Rittberger B. Institutionalizing Representative Democracy in the European Union: The Case of the European Parliament. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 50:18–37.
49.
Barents R. The Court of Justice after the Treaty of Lisbon. Common Market Law Review. 2010 Jun 1;47(Issue 3):709–728.
50.
Editorial Comments: Delivering justice: Small and bigger steps at the ECJ. Common Market Law Review. 2011 Aug 1;48(Issue 4):987–993.
51.
Craig PP, De Búrca G. EU law: text, cases, and materials. Sixth. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2015.
52.
Hagemann S, Høyland B. Bicameral Politics in the European Union. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 48(4):811–833.
53.
Héritier A. Institutional Change in Europe: Co-decision and Comitology Transformed. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 50:38–54.
54.
de Ruiter R, Neuhold C. Why Is Fast Track the Way to Go? Justifications for Early Agreement in the Co-Decision Procedure and Their Effects. European Law Journal. 18(4):536–554.
55.
Klamert M. Conflicts of legal basis: No legality and no basis but a bright future under the lisbon treaty? European Law Review [Internet]. 35(4):497–515. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
56.
Craig P. The ECJ and ultra vires action: A conceptual analysis. Common Market Law Review [Internet]. 2011;48(2):395–437. Available from: http://www.kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=COLA2011018
57.
Trubek DM, Trubek LG. Hard and Soft Law in the Construction of Social Europe: the Role of the Open Method of Co-ordination. European Law Journal. 11(3):343–364.
58.
Szyszczak E. Experimental Governance: The Open Method of Coordination. European Law Journal. 12(4):486–502.
59.
Hatzopoulos V. Why the Open Method of Coordination Is Bad For You: A Letter to the EU. European Law Journal. 13(3):309–342.
60.
Sabel CF, Zeitlin J. Learning from Difference: The New Architecture of Experimentalist Governance in the EU. European Law Journal. 14(3):271–327.
61.
Büchs M. How Legitimate is the Open Method of Co-ordination? JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 46(4):765–786.
62.
Dawson M. The ambiguity of social Europe in the open method of coordination. European Law Review [Internet]. 2009;34(1):55–79. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
63.
Shore C. ‘European Governance’ or Governmentality? The European Commission and the Future of Democratic Government. European Law Journal. 17(3):287–303.
64.
Dawson M. Three waves of new governance in the European Union. European Law Review [Internet]. 2011;36(2):208–225. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
65.
Cass DZ. The Word that Saves Maastricht? The Principle of Subsidiarity and the Division of Powers within the European Community. Common Market Law Review [Internet]. 29(6):1107–1136. Available from: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=2fd1d460-0bd1-e711-80cd-005056af4099
66.
Toth AG. Is subsidiarity justiciable? European Law Review [Internet]. 1994;19(3). Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
67.
Emiliou N. Subsidiarity: Panacea or fig leaf? 📖 Legal issues of the Maastricht treaty. Legal issues of the Maastricht treaty [Internet]. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd; 1994. p. 65–83. Available from: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=c313c39c-ca3b-e711-80cb-005056af4099
68.
Estella de Noriega A. The EU principle of subsidiarity and its critique. Oxford University Press; 2002.
69.
Barber NW. The Limited Modesty of Subsidiarity. European Law Journal. 11(3):308–325.
70.
Davies G. Subsidiarity: The wrong idea, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Common Market Law Review. 2006 Feb 1;43(Issue 1):63–84.
71.
Cooper I. The Watchdogs of Subsidiarity: National Parliaments and the Logic of Arguing in the EU. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 44(2):281–304.
72.
Barrett G. The king is dead, long live the king": the recasting by the Treaty of Lisbon of the provisions of the Constitutional Treaty concerning national parliaments. European Law Review [Internet]. 2008;33(1):66–84. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
73.
Kiiver P. The Treaty of Lisbon, The National Parliaments and the Principle of Subsidiarity. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law [Internet]. 2008;15(1):77–84. Available from: http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Page?page=77&handle=hein.journals%2Fmaastje15&collection=journals
74.
Schütze R. Subsidiarity after Lisbon: Reinforcing the Safeguards of Federalism? The Cambridge Law Journal. 2009;68(3):525–536.
75.
Kiiver P. The early-warning system for the principle of subsidiarity: the national parliament as a Conseil d’Etat for Europe. European Law Review [Internet]. 2011;36(1):98–108. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
76.
Cygan A. The parliamentarisation of EU decision-making? The impact of the Treaty of Lisbon on national parliaments. European Law Review [Internet]. 2011;36(4):480–499. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
77.
de León SA. Regions and Subsidiarity in the European Union: A Look at the Role of the Spanish and other Regional Parliaments in the Monitoring of Compliance with the Principle of Subsidiarity. European Public Law. 2012 Jun 1;18(Issue 2):305–321.
78.
Craig P. Subsidiarity: A Political and Legal Analysis. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 50:72–87.
79.
Horsley T. Subsidiarity and the European Court of Justice: Missing Pieces in the Subsidiarity Jigsaw? JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 50(2):267–282.
80.
Beck G. The Lisbon Judgment of the German Constitutional Court, the Primacy of EU Law and the Problem of Kompetenz-Kompetenz: A Conflict between Right and Right in Which There is No Praetor. European Law Journal. 17(4):470–494.
81.
MacCormick N. Beyond the Sovereign State. The Modern Law Review [Internet]. Wiley; 56(1):1–18. Available from: https://sussex.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1096572
82.
Walker N. The Idea of Constitutional Pluralism. Modern Law Review. 65(3):317–359.
83.
Kumm M. The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Conflict: Constitutional Supremacy in Europe before and after the Constitutional Treaty. European Law Journal. 11(3):262–307.
84.
Lenaerts K, Corthaut T. Of birds and hedges: the role of primacy in invoking norms of EU law. European Law Review [Internet]. 2006;31(3):287–315. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
85.
Schutze R. Dual federalism constitutionalised: the emergence of exclusive competences in the EC legal order. European Law Review [Internet]. 2007;32(1). Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
86.
Dougan M. When worlds collide! Competing visions of the relationship between direct effect and supremacy. Common Market Law Review [Internet]. 2007;44(4):931–963. Available from: https://kluwerlawonline-com.sussex.idm.oclc.org/JournalArticle/Common+Market+Law+Review/44.4/COLA2007095
87.
Dickson J. Directives in EU Legal Systems: Whose Norms Are They Anyway? European Law Journal. 17(2):190–212.
88.
Sabel CF, Gerstenberg O. Constitutionalising an Overlapping Consensus: The ECJ and the Emergence of a Coordinate Constitutional Order. European Law Journal. 16(5):511–550.
89.
von Bogdandy A, Schill SW. Overcoming absolute primacy: Respect for national identity under the Lisbon Treaty. Common Market Law Review. 2011 Oct 1;48(Issue 5):1417–1453.
90.
Avbelj M. Theory of European Union. European Law Review [Internet]. 2011;36(6):818–836. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
91.
Avbelj M. Supremacy or Primacy of EU Law-(Why) Does it Matter? European Law Journal. 17(6):744–763.
92.
Isiksel NT. Fundamental rights in the EU after Kadi and Al Barakaat. European Law Journal. 16(5):551–577.
93.
Griller S. International Law, Human Rights and the Community’s Autonomous Legal Order. European Constitutional Law Review. 4(3):528–553.
94.
Kunoy B, Dawes A. Plate tectonics in Luxembourg: The ménage à trois between EC law, international law and the European Convention on Human Rights following the UN sanctions cases. Common Market Law Review. 2009 Feb 1;46(Issue 1):73–104.
95.
Koutrakos P. The Court of Justice as the guardian of national courts - or not? European Law Review [Internet]. 2011;36(3):319–320. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
96.
Lock T. Taking national courts more seriously? Comment on Opinion 1/09. European Law Review [Internet]. 2011;36(4):576–588. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
97.
Craig P. The European Union Act 2011: Locks, limits and legality. Common Market Law Review. 2011 Dec 1;48(Issue 6):1915–1944.
98.
Gordon M, Dougan M. The United Kingdom’s European Union Act 2011: ‘who won the bloody war anyway?’ European Law Review [Internet]. 2012;37(1):3–30. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
99.
Rawlings R. Legal politics: the United Kingdom and ratification of the Treaty on European Union: Part 1. Public Law [Internet]. :254–278. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
100.
Rawlings R. Legal politics: the United Kingdom and ratification of the Treaty on European Union: Part 2. Public Law [Internet]. :367–391. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
101.
Herdegen M. Maastricht and the German Constitutional Court: Constitutional Restraints for an "Ever Closer Union” and Document "Extracts from: Brunner v. The European Union Treaty (Bundesverfassungsgericht). Common Market Law Review [Internet]. 1994;31(2):235–262. Available from: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=4e45a038-b213-e711-80c9-005056af4099
102.
Weiler JHH. Does Europe Need a Constitution? Demos, Telos and the German Maastricht Decision. European Law Journal. 1(3):219–258.
103.
Castillo de la Torre F. Tribunal Constitucional (Spanish Constitutional Court), Opinion 1/2004 of 13 December 2004, on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. Common Market Law Review. 2005 Aug 1;42(Issue 4):1169–1202.
104.
Chalmers D. Editorial: Constitutional modesty. European Law Review [Internet]. 2005;30(4). Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
105.
Thym D. In the Name of Sovereign Statehood: A Critical Introduction to the Lisbon judgment of the German Constitutional Court. Common Market Law Review. 2009 Dec 1;46(Issue 6):1795–1822.
106.
Kiiver P. The Lisbon Judgment of the German Constitutional Court: A Court-Ordered Strengthening of the National Legislature in the EU. European Law Journal. 16(5):578–588.
107.
Ziller J. The German Constitutional Court’s Friendliness towards European Law: On the Judgment of Bundesverfassungsgericht over the Ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon. European Public Law. 2010 Mar 1;16(Issue 1):53–73.
108.
Payandeh M. Constitutional review of EU law after Honeywell : Contextualizing the relationship between the German Constitutional Court and the EU Court of Justice. Common Market Law Review. 2011 Feb 1;48(Issue 1):9–38.
109.
Pliakos A, Anagnostaras G. Who is the ultimate arbiter? The battle over judicial supremacy in EU law. European Law Review [Internet]. 2011;36(1):109–123. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
110.
Zbíral R. Czech Constitutional Court, judgment of 31 January 2012, Pl. ÚS 5/12. A Legal revolution or negligible episode? Court of Justice decision proclaimed ultra vires. Common Market Law Review. 2012 Aug 1;49(Issue 4):1475–1491.
111.
von der Groeben C. Aida Torres Perez. Conflicts of Rights in the European Union. A Theory of Supranational Adjudication. European Journal of International Law. 22(1):296–300.
112.
Eckes C. Protecting Supremacy from External Influences: A Precondition for a European Constitutional Legal Order? European Law Journal. 18(2):230–250.
113.
Itzcovich G. Legal Order, Legal Pluralism, Fundamental Principles. Europe and Its Law in Three Concepts. European Law Journal. 18(3):358–384.
114.
Scicluna N. When Failure isn’t Failure: European Union Constitutionalism after the Lisbon Treaty. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 50(3):441–456.
115.
Hilson C, Downes TA. Making sense of rights: Community rights in E.C. law. European Law Review [Internet]. 1999;24(2). Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
116.
Tridimas T. Black, White, and Shades of Grey: Horizontality of Directives Revisited. Yearbook of European Law [Internet]. 2001;21(1):327–354. Available from: http://search.proquest.com/docview/1564197523?OpenUrlRefId=info:xri/sid:primo&accountid=14182
117.
Barnard C, editor. The Cambridge yearbook of European legal studies: Vol. 9: 2006-2007 [Internet]. Oxford: Hart Pub; 2007. Available from: http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/suss/reader.action?docID=1772426&ppg=143
118.
Barnard C, editor. The Cambridge yearbook of European legal studies: Volume 9: 2006-2007. Oxford: Hart; 2007.
119.
Dougan M. When worlds collide! Competing visions of the relationship between direct effect and supremacy. Common Market Law Review [Internet]. 2007;44(4):931–963. Available from: https://kluwerlawonline-com.sussex.idm.oclc.org/JournalArticle/Common+Market+Law+Review/44.4/COLA2007095
120.
Barnard C, Academy of European Law. The fundamentals of EU law revisited: assessing the impact of the constitutional debate [Internet]. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. Available from: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226221.001.0001/acprof-9780199226221
121.
Academy of European Law (Florence, Italy). The fundamentals of EU law revisited: assessing the impact of the constitutional debate [Internet]. Barnard C, editor. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/book/2907
122.
Craig P. The legal effect of Directives: policy, rules and exceptions. European Law Review [Internet]. 2009;34(3). Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
123.
Leczykiewicz D. ‘Effective judicial protection’ of human rights after Lisbon: should national courts be empowered to review EU secondary law? European Law Review [Internet]. 2010;35(3):326–348. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
124.
Niglia L. Form and Substance in European Constitutional Law: The ‘Social’ Character of Indirect Effect. European Law Journal. 16(4):439–457.
125.
Papadopoulos T. Criticising the horizontal direct effect of the EU general principle of equality. European Law Review [Internet]. 2011;(4). Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
126.
Craig PP, De Búrca G, editors. The evolution of EU law [Internet]. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011. Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=694179&site=ehost-live
127.
Craig PP, De Búrca G, editors. The evolution of EU law. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.
128.
Editorial Comments: Horizontal direct effect – A law of diminishing coherence? Common Market Law Review. 2006 Feb 1;43(Issue 1):1–8.
129.
Arnull A. Out with the old... European Law Review [Internet]. 2006;31(1):1–2. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
130.
Jans JH. The Effect in National Legal Systems of the Prohibition of Discrimination on Grounds of Age as a General Principle of Community Law. Legal Issues of Economic Integration [Internet]. 2007;34(1):53–66. Available from: http://www.kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=LEIE2007004
131.
Masson A, Micheau C. The Werner Mangold Case: An Example of Legal Militancy. European Public Law. 2007 Dec 1;13(Issue 4):587–593.
132.
Craig P. The legal effect of Directives: policy, rules and exceptions. European Law Review [Internet]. 2009;34(3). Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
133.
Thüsing G, Horler S. Case C-555/07, Seda Kücükdeveci v. Swedex, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 January 2010. Common Market Law Review [Internet]. 2010;47(4):1161–1172. Available from: https://kluwerlawonline-com.ezproxy.sussex.ac.uk/JournalArticle/Common+Market+Law+Review/47.4/COLA2010049
134.
Peers S. Supremacy, equality and human rights: comment on Kucukdeveci (C-555/07). European Law Review [Internet]. 2010;35(6):849–856. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
135.
The scope of application of the general principles of Union law: An ever expanding Union? Common Market Law Review [Internet]. 2010;47(6):1589–1596. Available from: https://kluwerlawonline-com.ezproxy.sussex.ac.uk/JournalArticle/Common+Market+Law+Review/47.6/COLA2010067
136.
Muir E. Of ages in – and edges of – EU law. Common Market Law Review [Internet]. 2011;48(1):39–62. Available from: https://kluwerlawonline-com.ezproxy.sussex.ac.uk/JournalArticle/Common+Market+Law+Review/48.1/COLA2011003
137.
Arnull A, Barnard C, Dougan M. Constitutional Order of States?: essays in EU law in honour of Alan Dashwood [Internet]. Bloomsbury Publishing; 2011. Available from: http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/suss/reader.action?docID=752471&ppg=274
138.
Dashwood A, Arnull A. A constitutional order of states?: essays in EU law in honour of Alan Dashwood. Oxford: Hart; 2011.
139.
Drake S. Twenty years after Von Colson: the impact of ‘indirect effect’ on the protection of the individual’s community rights. European Law Review [Internet]. 2005;30(3):329–348. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
140.
Betlem G. The Doctrine of Consistent Interpretation: Managing Legal Uncertainty. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies [Internet]. Oxford University Press; 22(3):397–418. Available from: https://ezproxy.sussex.ac.uk/login?url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3600652
141.
Craig PP. Directives: direct effect, indirect effect and the construction of national legislation. European Law Review [Internet]. 1997;22(6). Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
142.
Figueroa Regueiro PV. Invocability of Substitution and Invocability of Exclusion: Bringing Legal Realism to the Current Developments of the Case-Law of ‘Horizontal’ Direct Effect of Directives. The Jean Monnet Working Papers [Internet]. 2002;7(2). Available from: http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/archive/papers/02/020701.html
143.
Niglia L. Form and Substance in European Constitutional Law: The ‘Social’ Character of Indirect Effect. European Law Journal. 16(4):439–457.
144.
Ross M. Beyond Francovich. The Modern Law Review [Internet]. 1993;56(1):55–73. Available from: https://sussex.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1096574
145.
Harlow C. Francovich and the Problem of the Disobedient State. European Law Journal. 2(3):199–225.
146.
Georgios Anagnostaras. Not as unproblematic as you might think: the establishment of causation in governmental liability actions. European Law Review [Internet]. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
147.
Anagnostaras, Georgios. State Liability and Alternative Courses of Action: How Independent Can an Autonomous Remedy Be? Yearbook of European Law [Internet]. 2001;21(1). Available from: http://search.proquest.com/docview/1564197331?OpenUrlRefId=info:xri/sid:primo&accountid=14182
148.
Breuer M. State liability for judicial wrongs and Community law: the case of Gerhard Kobler v Austria. European Law Review [Internet]. 2004;29(2):243–254. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
149.
Tison M. Do not attack the watchdog! Banking supervisor’s liability after Peter Paul. Common Market Law Review. 2005 Jun 1;42(Issue 3):639–675.
150.
Roy W. Davis. Liability in damages for a breach of Community law: some reflections on the question of who to sue and the concept of ‘the State’. European Law Review [Internet]. 2006;31(1). Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
151.
Cabral P, Chaves MC. Member State Liability for Decisions of National Courts Adjudicating at Last Instance. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law [Internet]. 2006;(13):109–126. Available from: http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/maastje13&id=109
152.
Dimitra Nassimpian. ...And we keep on meeting: (de)fragmenting state liability. European Law Review [Internet]. 2007;32(6). Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
153.
Havu K. Horizontal Liability for Damages in EU Law-the Changing Relationship of EU and National Law. European Law Journal. 18(3):407–426.
154.
Beutler, Björn. State liability for breaches of Community law by national courts: Is the requirement of a manifest infringement of the applicable law an insurmountable obstacle? Common Market Law Review [Internet]. Kluwer Law International; 46(3):773–804. Available from: https://kluwerlawonline-com.sussex.idm.oclc.org/JournalArticle/Common+Market+Law+Review/46.3/COLA2009033
155.
Eilmansberger T. The relationship between rights and remedies in EC law: In search of the missing link. Common Market Law Review [Internet]. 41(5):1199–1246. Available from: http://www.kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=COLA2004049
156.
Kilpatrick C, Novitz T, Skidmore P, editors. The future of remedies in Europe [Internet]. Oxford: Hart Publishing; 2000. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/suss/detail.action?docID=1750717
157.
Kilpatrick C, Novitz T, Skidmore P. The future of remedies in Europe. Hart; 2000.
158.
Craig PP, De Búrca G, editors. The evolution of EU law [Internet]. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011. Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=694179&site=ehost-live
159.
Craig PP, De Búrca G, editors. The evolution of EU law. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.
160.
Ross M. Effectiveness in the European legal order(s): beyond supremacy to constitutional proportionality? European Law Review [Internet]. 2006;31(4). Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
161.
Accetto M, Zleptnig S. The Principle of Effectiveness: Rethinking Its Role in Community Law. European Public Law [Internet]. 2005;11(3):375–403. Available from: https://kluwerlawonline-com.ezproxy.sussex.ac.uk/JournalArticle/European+Public+Law/11.3/EURO2005030
162.
Wattel PJ. National Procedural Autonomy and Effectiveness of EC Law: Challenge the Charge, File for Restitution, Sue for Damages? Legal Issues of Economic Integration. 2008;35(2):109–132.
163.
Beatson J, Tridimas T, editors. New directions in European public law [Internet]. Oxford: Hart Pub; 1998. Available from: http://suss.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1772332
164.
Beatson J, Tridimas T, editors. New directions in European public law. Oxford: Hart Pub; 1998.
165.
Van Gerven W. Bridging the Unbridgeable: Community and National Tort Laws after Francovich and Brasserie. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly [Internet]. 45(3):507–544. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/760680
166.
Caranta R. Judicial protection against Member States: a new jus commune takes shape. Common Market law review [Internet]. 32(3):703–706. Available from: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=6feecc05-2646-e711-80cb-005056af4099
167.
Legrand P. European Legal Systems Are Not Converging. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly [Internet]. 1996;45(1):52–81. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/761068
168.
Granger MPF. National applications of Francovich and the construction of a European administrative ius commune. European Law Review [Internet]. 2007;32(2):157–192. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
169.
Reich, Norbert. Horizontal liability in EC law: Hybridization of remedies for compensation in case of breaches of EC rights. Common Market Law Review [Internet]. Kluwer Law International; 44(3):705–742. Available from: https://www.kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=COLA2007066
170.
Lenaerts, Koen. The Rule of Law and the Coherence of the Judicial System of the European Union. Common Market Law Review [Internet]. Kluwer Law International; 2007;44(6):1625–1659. Available from: https://www.kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=COLA2007138
171.
Craig PP, De Búrca G, editors. The evolution of EU law [Internet]. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011. Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=694179&site=ehost-live
172.
Craig PP, De Búrca G, editors. The evolution of EU law. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.
173.
Knocking on Heaven’s Door: Fragmentation, Efficiency and Defiance in the Preliminary Reference Procedure. Common Market Law Review. 2010 Jun 1;40(Issue 1):9–50.
174.
Wattel PJ. Köbler , CILFIT and Welthgrove : We can’t go on meeting like this. Common Market Law Review. 2004 Feb 1;41(Issue 1):177–190.
175.
Allott P. Preliminary rulings - another infant disease. European Law Review [Internet]. 2000;25(5):538–547. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
176.
Barents R. Court of Justice in the Draft Constitution, The. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law [Internet]. 2004;11(2). Available from: http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Page?page=121&handle=hein.journals%2Fmaastje11&collection=journals
177.
Komarek J. In the court(s) we trust? On the need for hierarchy and differentiation in the preliminary ruling procedure. European Law Review [Internet]. 2007;32(4):467–491. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
178.
Giorgi F, Triart N. National Judges, Community Judges: Invitation to a Journey through the Looking-glass-On the Need for Jurisdictions to Rethink the Inter-systemic Relations beyond the Hierarchical Principle. European Law Journal. 14(6):693–717.
179.
European Law Journal. John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 14(6: Special Issue). Available from: https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.sussex.idm.oclc.org/toc/14680386/2008/14/6
180.
Rasmussen H. The European Court’s acte clair strategy in CILFIT. European Law Review [Internet]. Sweet & Maxwell; 1984;9:242–259. Available from: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=1086f1b4-f699-e711-80cb-005056af4099
181.
Mancini GF, Keeling DT. From CILFIT to ERT: The Constitutional Challenge facing the European Court. Yearbook of European law [Internet]. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1991;11:1–13. Available from: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=d5a4f9a0-dfed-e611-80c9-005056af4099
182.
Broberg M. Acte clair revisited: Adapting the acte clair criteria to the demands of the times. Common Market Law Review [Internet]. 2008;45(5):1383–1397. Available from: https://kluwerlawonline-com.sussex.idm.oclc.org/JournalArticle/Common+Market+Law+Review/45.5/COLA2008095
183.
Komarek J. In the court(s) we trust? On the need for hierarchy and differentiation in the preliminary ruling procedure. European Law Review [Internet]. 2007;32(4):467–491. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
184.
Arnull A. The Law Lords and the European Union: swimming with the incoming tide. European Law Review [Internet]. 2010;35(1):57–87. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
185.
Craig PP, De Búrca G, editors. The evolution of EU law [Internet]. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011. Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=694179&site=ehost-live
186.
Craig PP, De Búrca G, editors. The evolution of EU law. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.
187.
Dashwood A, Arnull A. A constitutional order of states?: essays in EU law in honour of Alan Dashwood [Internet]. Oxford [UK]: Hart Pub; 2011. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/suss/detail.action?docID=752471
188.
Dashwood A, Arnull A. A constitutional order of states?: essays in EU law in honour of Alan Dashwood. Hart; 2011.
189.
Greer S, Williams A. Human Rights in the Council of Europe and the EU: Towards ‘Individual’, ‘Constitutional’ or ‘Institutional’ Justice? European Law Journal. 15(4):462–481.
190.
Morano-Foadi S, Andreadakis S. Reflections on the Architecture of the EU after the Treaty of Lisbon: The European Judicial Approach to Fundamental Rights. European Law Journal. 17(5):595–610.
191.
De Witte B. Ch. 27: ‘The past and future role of the European Court of Justice in the protection of Human Rights’ 📖 The EU and human rights. In: Alston P, Bustelo MR, Heenan J, editors. The EU and human rights [Internet]. Oxford University Press; 1999. p. 859–897. Available from: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=c5450f90-c93b-e711-80cb-005056af4099
192.
Alston P, Weiler JHH. An ‘Ever Closer Union’ in Need of a Human Rights Policy. European Journal of International Law. 1998;9:658–723.
193.
Coppel J, O’Neill A. The European Court of Justice: taking rights seriously? Legal Studies. 12(2):227–239.
194.
Weiler JHH, Lockhart NJS. "Taking rights seriously” seriously: The European Court and its fundamental rights jurisprudence – part I. Common Market Law Review [Internet]. 1995;32(1):51–94. Available from: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=6d040b1d-2546-e711-80cb-005056af4099
195.
Jacobs FG. Human rights in the European Union: the role of the Court of Justice. European Law Review [Internet]. 2001;26(4). Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
196.
Israel De Jesus Butler. Ensuring compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights in legislative drafting: the practice of the European Commission. European Law Review [Internet]. 2012;37(4). Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
197.
Belling V. Supranational Fundamental Rights or Primacy of Sovereignty? European Law Journal. 18(2):251–268.
198.
Hepple B. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Industrial Law Journal. 2001;30(2):225–231.
199.
Jacobs FG. Human rights in the European Union: the role of the Court of Justice. European Law Review [Internet]. 2001;26(4). Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
200.
La Torre M. The Law beneath Rights’ Feet. Preliminary Investigation for a Study of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. European Law Journal. 8(4):515–535.
201.
Liisberg JB. Does the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Threaten the Supremacy of Community Law? Common Market Law Review [Internet]. 2001;38(5):1171–1199. Available from: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=87cfa6a7-68d3-e711-80cd-005056af4099
202.
Shuibhne NN. Margins of appreciation: national values, fundamental rights and EC free movement law. European Law Review [Internet]. 2009;34(2):230–256. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
203.
Shuibhne NN. The reality of rights: from rhetoric to opt-out. European Law Review [Internet]. 2009;34(6):815–816. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
204.
Ortega L. Fundamental Rights in the European Constitution. European Public Law [Internet]. 2005 Sep 1;11(Issue 3):363–373. Available from: https://kluwerlawonline-com.sussex.idm.oclc.org/journalarticle/European+Public+Law/11.3/EURO2005029
205.
Peers S, Ward A, editors. The European Union charter of fundamental rights: politics, law and policy. Hart Publishing; 2004.
206.
Triantafyllou D. The European Charter of Fundamental Rights and the "Rule of Law’’: Restricting Fundamental Rights by Reference. Common Market Law Review [Internet]. 2002;39(1):53–64. Available from: https://kluwerlawonline-com.sussex.idm.oclc.org/JournalArticle/Common+Market+Law+Review/39.1/402757
207.
Barnard C, Academy of European Law. The fundamentals of EU law revisited: assessing the impact of the constitutional debate [Internet]. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. Available from: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226221.001.0001/acprof-9780199226221
208.
Academy of European Law (Florence, Italy). The fundamentals of EU law revisited: assessing the impact of the constitutional debate [Internet]. Barnard C, editor. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/book/2907
209.
Young AL. The Charter, Constitution and Human Rights: is this the Beginning or the End for Human Rights Protections by Community Law? European Public Law [Internet]. 2005;11(2):219–240. Available from: https://kluwerlawonline-com.sussex.idm.oclc.org/JournalArticle/European+Public+Law/11.2/EURO2005020
210.
Jacqué JP. The accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Common Market Law Review [Internet]. 2011;48(4):995–1023. Available from: https://kluwerlawonline-com.sussex.idm.oclc.org/JournalArticle/Common+Market+Law+Review/48.4/COLA2011041
211.
Lock T. Walking on a tightrope: The draft ECHR accession agreement and the autonomy of the EU legal order. Common Market Law Review [Internet]. 2011;48(4):1025–1054. Available from: https://kluwerlawonline-com.sussex.idm.oclc.org/JournalArticle/Common+Market+Law+Review/48.4/COLA2011042
212.
Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH). Report to the Committee of Ministers on the elaboration of legal instruments for the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights [Internet]. statewatch: monitoring the state and civil liberties in Europe. Council of Europe; 14AD. Available from: https://www.statewatch.org/media/documents/news/2011/oct/coe-eu-accession-echr-14-10.11.pdf
213.
Editorial Comments: Fundamental rights and EU membership: Do as I say, not as I do! Common Market Law Review. 2012 Apr 1;49(Issue 2):481–488.
214.
Von Bogdandy A, Kottmann M, Antpöhler C, Dickschen J, Hentrei S, Smrkolj M. Reverse Solange–Protecting the essence of fundamental rights against EU Member States. Common Market Law Review [Internet]. 2012;49(2):489–519. Available from: https://kluwerlawonline-com.sussex.idm.oclc.org/journalarticle/Common+Market+Law+Review/49.2/COLA2012018
215.
Grimmel A. Judicial Interpretation or Judicial Activism? The Legacy of Rationalism in the Studies of the European Court of Justice. European Law Journal. 18(4):518–535.
216.
Solanke I. ‘Stop the ECJ’?: An Empirical Analysis of Activism at the Court. European Law Journal. 17(6):764–784.
217.
Itzcovich G. Legal Order, Legal Pluralism, Fundamental Principles. Europe and Its Law in Three Concepts. European Law Journal. 18(3):358–384.
218.
Communication department of the European Commission, editor. History of the EU [Internet]. EUROPA. Available from: https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/history-eu_en
219.
Craig PP, De Búrca G. EU law: text, cases, and materials. Sixth edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2015.
220.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), European Parliament v Council of the European Union. Immigration policy - Right to family reunification of minor children of third country nationals - Directive 2003/86/EC - Protection of fundamental rights - Right to respect for family life - Obligation to have regard to the interests of minor children [Internet]. CURIA - Home - Court of Justice of the European Union. 27AD. Available from: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?pro=&lgrec=en&nat=or&oqp=&dates=&lg=&language=en&jur=C%2CT%2CF&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&num=C-540%252F03&td=%3BALL&pcs=Oor&avg=&page=1&mat=or&jge=&for=&cid=571183
221.
Eleanor Drywood. Giving with one hand, taking with the other: fundamental rights, children and the family reunification decision. European Law Review [Internet]. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
222.
Craig PP, De Búrca G. EU law: text, cases, and materials. Sixth edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2015.
223.
Craig PP, De Búrca G. EU law: text, cases, and materials. Sixth edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2015.
224.
Craig P. Subsidiarity: A Political and Legal Analysis. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 50:72–87.
225.
Kiiver P. The early-warning system for the principle of subsidiarity: the national parliament as a Conseil d’Etat for Europe. European Law Review [Internet]. 2011;36(1):98–108. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
226.
Conway G. Recovering a Separation of Powers in the European Union. European Law Journal. 17(3):304–322.
227.
Dinan D. Institutions and Governance: A New Treaty, a Newly Elected Parliament and a New Commission. Journal of Common Market Studies. 48(Suppl 1):95–118.
228.
Hagemann S, Høyland B. Bicameral Politics in the European Union. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 48(4):811–833.
229.
Craig P. The ECJ and ultra vires action: A conceptual analysis. Common Market Law Review. 2011 Apr 1;48(Issue 2):395–437.
230.
Schütze R. Subsidiarity after Lisbon: Reinforcing the Safeguards of Federalism? The Cambridge Law Journal. 2009;68(3):525–536.
231.
Cygan A. The parliamentarisation of EU decision-making? The impact of the Treaty of Lisbon on national parliaments. European Law Review [Internet]. 2011;36(4):480–499. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
232.
Horsley T. Subsidiarity and the European Court of Justice: Missing Pieces in the Subsidiarity Jigsaw? JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 50(2):267–282.
233.
Craig PP, De Búrca G. EU law: text, cases, and materials. Sixth edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2015.
234.
Muir E. Of ages in – and edges of – EU law. Common Market Law Review [Internet]. 2011;48(1):39–62. Available from: https://kluwerlawonline-com.ezproxy.sussex.ac.uk/JournalArticle/Common+Market+Law+Review/48.1/COLA2011003
235.
Anthony Arnull. The principle of effective judicial protection in EU law: an unruly horse? European Law Review [Internet]. 2011;36(1). Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
236.
Craig PP, De Búrca G, editors. The evolution of EU law [Internet]. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011. Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=694179&site=ehost-live
237.
Craig PP, De Búrca G, editors. The evolution of EU law. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.
238.
Thüsing G, Horler S. Case C-555/07, Seda Kücükdeveci v. Swedex, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 January 2010. Common Market Law Review [Internet]. 2010;10(4):1161–1172. Available from: https://kluwerlawonline-com.ezproxy.sussex.ac.uk/JournalArticle/Common+Market+Law+Review/47.4/COLA2010049
239.
Craig P. The legal effect of Directives: policy, rules and exceptions. European Law Review [Internet]. 2009;34(3). Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
240.
Dougan M. When worlds collide! Competing visions of the relationship between direct effect and supremacy. Common Market Law Review [Internet]. 2007;44(4):931–963. Available from: https://kluwerlawonline-com.sussex.idm.oclc.org/JournalArticle/Common+Market+Law+Review/44.4/COLA2007095
241.
Dashwood A, Arnull A. A constitutional order of states?: essays in EU law in honour of Alan Dashwood [Internet]. Oxford [UK]: Hart Pub; 2011. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/suss/detail.action?docID=752471
242.
Dashwood A, Arnull A. A constitutional order of states?: essays in EU law in honour of Alan Dashwood. Hart; 2011.
243.
Papadopoulos T. Criticising the horizontal direct effect of the EU general principle of equality. European Law Review [Internet]. 2011;(4). Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
244.
Peers S. Supremacy, equality and human rights: comment on Kucukdeveci (C-555/07). European Law Review [Internet]. 2010;35(6):849–856. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
245.
The scope of application of the general principles of Union law: An ever expanding Union? Common Market Law Review [Internet]. 2010;47(6):1589–1596. Available from: https://kluwerlawonline-com.ezproxy.sussex.ac.uk/JournalArticle/Common+Market+Law+Review/47.6/COLA2010067
246.
Beutler B. State liability for breaches of Community law by national courts: Is the requirement of a manifest infringement of the applicable law an insurmountable obstacle? Common Market Law Review [Internet]. 2009;46(3):773–804. Available from: https://kluwerlawonline-com.ezproxy.sussex.ac.uk/JournalArticle/Common+Market+Law+Review/46.3/COLA2009033
247.
Adam Cygan. Defining a sufficiently serious breach of Community law: the House of Lords casts its net into the waters. European Law Review [Internet]. 2000;25(4). Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
248.
Craig PP, De Búrca G, editors. The evolution of EU law [Internet]. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011. Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=694179&site=ehost-live
249.
Craig PP, De Búrca G, editors. The evolution of EU law. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.
250.
Tridimas T. Liability for Breach of Community Law: Growing Up and Mellowing Down? Common Market Law Review. 2001 Apr 1;38(Issue 2):301–332.
251.
Anagnostaras G. Not as unproblematic as you might think: the establishment of causation in governmental liability actions. European Law Review (EL Rev) [Internet]. 2002;27(6):663–676. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
252.
Davis RW. Liability in damages for a breach of Community law: some reflections on the question of who to sue and the concept of ‘the State’. European Law Review [Internet]. 2006;31(1):69–80. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
253.
van Gerven W. Of rights, remedies and procedures. Common Market Law Review [Internet]. Stevens; 2000;37(3):501–536. Available from: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=f6213619-f699-e711-80cb-005056af4099
254.
Accetto M, Zleptnig S. The Principle of Effectiveness: Rethinking Its Role in Community Law. European Public Law [Internet]. 2005;11(3):375–403. Available from: https://kluwerlawonline-com.ezproxy.sussex.ac.uk/JournalArticle/European+Public+Law/11.3/EURO2005030
255.
British Institute of International and Comparative Law, Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden. Europa Instituut. Common Market Law Review. Stevens; Available from: http://www.kluwerlawonline.com/toc.php?area=Journals&mode=bypub&level=4&values=Journals~~Common+Market+Law+Review
256.
Ross M. Effectiveness in the European legal order(s): beyond supremacy to constitutional proportionality? European Law Review [Internet]. 2006;31(4). Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
257.
Craig PP, De Búrca G. EU law: text, cases, and materials. Sixth edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2015.
258.
Komarek J. In the court(s) we trust? On the need for hierarchy and differentiation in the preliminary ruling procedure. European Law Review [Internet]. 2007;32(4):467–491. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
259.
Wattel PJ. Köbler , CILFIT and Welthgrove : We can’t go on meeting like this. Common Market Law Review. 2004 Feb 1;41(Issue 1):177–190.
260.
Broberg M. Acte clair revisited: Adapting the acte clair criteria to the demands of the times. Common Market Law Review [Internet]. 2008;45(5):1383–1397. Available from: https://kluwerlawonline-com.sussex.idm.oclc.org/JournalArticle/Common+Market+Law+Review/45.5/COLA2008095
261.
Craig PP, De Búrca G, editors. The evolution of EU law [Internet]. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011. Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=694179&site=ehost-live
262.
Craig PP, De Búrca G, editors. The evolution of EU law. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.
263.
Craig PP, De Búrca G. EU law: text, cases, and materials. Sixth edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2015.
264.
Greer S, Williams A. Human Rights in the Council of Europe and the EU: Towards ‘Individual’, ‘Constitutional’ or ‘Institutional’ Justice? European Law Journal. 15(4):462–481.
265.
Lock T. Walking on a tightrope: The draft ECHR accession agreement and the autonomy of the EU legal order. Common Market Law Review [Internet]. 2011;48(4):1025–1054. Available from: https://kluwerlawonline-com.sussex.idm.oclc.org/JournalArticle/Common+Market+Law+Review/48.4/COLA2011042
266.
Dashwood A, Arnull A. A constitutional order of states?: essays in EU law in honour of Alan Dashwood [Internet]. Hart Publishing; 2011. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/suss/detail.action?docID=752471
267.
Dashwood A, Arnull A. A constitutional order of states?: essays in EU law in honour of Alan Dashwood. Hart; 2011.
268.
Shuibhne NN. Margins of appreciation: national values, fundamental rights and EC free movement law. European Law Review [Internet]. 2009;34(2):230–256. Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
269.
Jacobs FG. Human rights in the European Union: the role of the Court of Justice. European Law Review [Internet]. 2001;26(4). Available from: http://guides.lib.sussex.ac.uk/Law
270.
Itzcovich G. Legal Order, Legal Pluralism, Fundamental Principles. Europe and Its Law in Three Concepts. European Law Journal. 18(3):358–384.
271.
Jacqué JP. The accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Common Market Law Review [Internet]. 2011;48(4):995–1023. Available from: https://kluwerlawonline-com.sussex.idm.oclc.org/JournalArticle/Common+Market+Law+Review/48.4/COLA2011041
272.
Vossestein, Gert-Jan. Cross-Border Transfer of Seat and Conversion of Companies under the EC Treaty Provisions on Freedom of Establishment. European Company Law [Internet]. Kluwer Law International; 6(3):115–123. Available from: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=5d2bc332-54f4-e711-80cd-005056af4099
273.
Berki G. Free movement of patients in the E.U.: a patient’s perspective. [S.l.]: Intersentia; 2018.
274.
Neve G de, Prentice R, editors. Unmaking the global sweatshop: health and safety of the world’s garment workers [Internet]. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press; 2017. Available from: http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/suss/detail.action?docID=5106180
275.
Prentice R, Neve G de, editors. Unmaking the global sweatshop: health and safety of the world’s garment workers. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press; 2017.
