1.
Craig, P.P., De Búrca, G.: EU law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom (2015).
2.
Foster, N. ed: Blackstone’s EU treaties & legislation 2017-2018. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
3.
Quénivet, N.N.R., Dadomo, C.: European Union law. Hall & Stott Publishing, Saltford (2020).
4.
Chalmers, D., Davies, G., Monti, G.: European Union law: text and materials. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom (2014).
5.
Barnard, C., Peers, S. eds: European Union law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2017).
6.
Schütze, R.: European Union law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom (2015).
7.
Schütze, R.: European constitutional law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom (2016).
8.
Barnard, C.: The substantive law of the EU: the four freedoms. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom (2016).
9.
Woods, L., Watson, P., Costa, M., Steiner, J.: Steiner & Woods EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2017).
10.
Fairhurst, J.: Law of the European Union. Pearson, New York (2016).
11.
Fairhurst, J.: Law of the European Union. Pearson, New York, N.Y. (2016).
12.
Dashwood, A., Wyatt, D.: Wyatt and Dashwood’s European Union law. Hart (2011).
13.
Dashwood, A., Arnull, A.: A constitutional order of states?: essays in EU law in honour of Alan Dashwood. Hart Publishing (2011).
14.
Dashwood, A., Arnull, A.: A constitutional order of states?: essays in EU law in honour of Alan Dashwood. Hart (2011).
15.
Jacobs, F.G., Arnull, A., Eeckhout, P., Tridimas, T.: Continuity and change in EU law: essays in honour of Sir Francis Jacobs. Oxford University Press (2008).
16.
de Búrca, G., Weiler, J.H.H. eds: The European Court of Justice. Oxford University Press (2001).
17.
Craig, P.P., De Búrca, G. eds: The evolution of EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011).
18.
Craig, P.P., De Búrca, G. eds: The evolution of EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011).
19.
Hartley, T.C.: The foundations of European Union law: an introduction to the constitutional and administrative law of the European Union. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2014).
20.
Hartley, T.C.: Constitutional problems of the European Union. Hart (1999).
21.
Tridimas, T.: The general principles of EU law. Oxford University Press (2015).
22.
Tridimas, T.: The general principles of EU law. Oxford University Press (2006).
23.
Ward, I.: A critical introduction to European law. Cambridge University Press (2009).
24.
Weatherill, S.: Cases and materials on EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom (2016).
25.
Craig, P.P., De Búrca, G.: EU law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom (2015).
26.
Harpaz, G.: European Integration in the Aftermath of the Ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon: Quo Vadis? European Public Law. 17, 73–89 (2011).
27.
Klamert, M.: Conflicts of legal basis: No legality and no basis but a bright future under the lisbon treaty? European Law Review. 35, 497–515.
28.
Hinarejos, A.: Integration in criminal matters and the role of the Court of Justice. European Law Review. 36, 420–430 (2011).
29.
Baker, E., Harding, C.: From past imperfect to future perfect? A longitudinal study of the third pillar. European Law Review. 34, 25–54.
30.
Mitsilegas, V.: The third wave of third pillar law. Which direction for EU criminal justice? European Law Review. 34, 523–560 (2009).
31.
Craig, P.: The Treaty of Lisbon, process, architecture and substance. European Law Review. 33, 137–166 (2008).
32.
Peers, S.: The European Community’s criminal law competence: the plot thickens. European Law Review. 33, 399–410 (2008).
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. 14, 533–544 (2008). https://doi.org/10.54648/EURO2008036.
34.
Dinan, D.: Institutions and Governance: A New Treaty, a Newly Elected Parliament and a New Commission. Journal of Common Market Studies. 48, 95–118.
35.
Conway, G.: Recovering a Separation of Powers in the European Union. European Law Journal. 17, 304–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2011.00552.x.
36.
Mikko, M.: Unveiling the Council of the European Union | Ch 2: ‘Voting and coalitions in the Council after Enlargement’. In: Naurin, D. and Wallace, H. (eds.) Unveiling the Council of the European Union: games governments play in Brussels. pp. 23–35. Palgrave Macmillan (2008).
37.
Konig, T., Junge, D.: Why Don’t Veto Players Use Their Power? European Union Politics. 10, 507–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116509346780.
38.
de Waele, H., Broeksteeg, H.: The semi-permanent European Council Presidency: Some reflections on the law and early practice. Common Market Law Review. 49, 1039–1074 (2012). https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2012038.
39.
Dinan, D.: Governance and Institutions: Implementing the Lisbon Treaty in the Shadow of the Euro Crisis. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 49, 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2011.02183.x.
40.
BARBER, T.: The Appointments of Herman van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 48, 55–67 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2010.02093.x.
41.
Editorial Comments: The post-Lisbon institutional package: Do old habits die hard? Common Market Law Review. 47, 597–604 (2010). https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2010027.
42.
Dinan, D.: Institutions and Governance: A New Treaty, a Newly Elected Parliament and a New Commission. Journal of Common Market Studies. 48, 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, 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923X.2009.02067.x.
44.
Hagemann, S., Høyland, B.: Bicameral Politics in the European Union. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 48, 811–833. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2010.02075.x.
45.
Neyer, J.: Justice, Not Democracy: Legitimacy in the European Union. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 48, 903–921. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2010.02079.x.
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, 1185–1208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2010.02109.x.
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2011.02190.x.
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2011.02225.x.
49.
Barents, R.: The Court of Justice after the Treaty of Lisbon. Common Market Law Review. 47, 709–728 (2010). https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2010031.
50.
Editorial Comments: Delivering justice: Small and bigger steps at the ECJ. Common Market Law Review. 48, 987–993 (2011). https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2011040.
51.
Craig, P.P., De Búrca, G.: EU law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom (2015).
52.
Hagemann, S., Høyland, B.: Bicameral Politics in the European Union. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 48, 811–833. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2010.02075.x.
53.
Héritier, A.: Institutional Change in Europe: Co-decision and Comitology Transformed. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 50, 38–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2011.02226.x.
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, 536–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2012.00617.x.
55.
Klamert, M.: Conflicts of legal basis: No legality and no basis but a bright future under the lisbon treaty? European Law Review. 35, 497–515.
56.
Craig, P.: The ECJ and ultra vires action: A conceptual analysis. Common Market Law Review. 48, 395–437 (2011).
57.
Trubek, D.M., Trubek, L.G.: Hard and Soft Law in the Construction of Social Europe: the Role of the Open Method of Co-ordination. European Law Journal. 11, 343–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2005.00263.x.
58.
Szyszczak, E.: Experimental Governance: The Open Method of Coordination. European Law Journal. 12, 486–502. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2006.00329.x.
59.
Hatzopoulos, V.: Why the Open Method of Coordination Is Bad For You: A Letter to the EU. European Law Journal. 13, 309–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00368.x.
60.
Sabel, C.F., Zeitlin, J.: Learning from Difference: The New Architecture of Experimentalist Governance in the EU. European Law Journal. 14, 271–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2008.00415.x.
61.
Büchs, M.: How Legitimate is the Open Method of Co-ordination? JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 46, 765–786. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2008.00804.x.
62.
Dawson, M.: The ambiguity of social Europe in the open method of coordination. European Law Review. 34, 55–79 (2009).
63.
Shore, C.: ‘European Governance’ or Governmentality? The European Commission and the Future of Democratic Government. European Law Journal. 17, 287–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2011.00551.x.
64.
Dawson, M.: Three waves of new governance in the European Union. European Law Review. 36, 208–225 (2011).
65.
Cass, D.Z.: The Word that Saves Maastricht? The Principle of Subsidiarity and the Division of Powers within the European Community. Common Market Law Review. 29, 1107–1136.
66.
Toth, A.G.: Is subsidiarity justiciable? European Law Review. 19, (1994).
67.
Emiliou, N.: Subsidiarity: Panacea or fig leaf? 📖 Legal issues of the Maastricht treaty. In: Legal issues of the Maastricht treaty. pp. 65–83. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Chichester (1994).
68.
Estella de Noriega, A.: The EU principle of subsidiarity and its critique. Oxford University Press (2002).
69.
Barber, N.W.: The Limited Modesty of Subsidiarity. European Law Journal. 11, 308–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2005.00261.x.
70.
Davies, G.: Subsidiarity: The wrong idea, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Common Market Law Review. 43, 63–84 (2006). https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2005083.
71.
Cooper, I.: The Watchdogs of Subsidiarity: National Parliaments and the Logic of Arguing in the EU. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 44, 281–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2006.00623.x.
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. 33, 66–84 (2008).
73.
Kiiver, P.: The Treaty of Lisbon, The National Parliaments and the Principle of Subsidiarity. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law. 15, 77–84 (2008).
74.
Schütze, R.: Subsidiarity after Lisbon: Reinforcing the Safeguards of Federalism? The Cambridge Law Journal. 68, 525–536 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197309990183.
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. 36, 98–108 (2011).
76.
Cygan, A.: The parliamentarisation of EU decision-making? The impact of the Treaty of Lisbon on national parliaments. European Law Review. 36, 480–499 (2011).
77.
de León, S.A.: 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. 18, 305–321 (2012). https://doi.org/10.54648/EURO2012017.
78.
Craig, P.: Subsidiarity: A Political and Legal Analysis. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 50, 72–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2011.02228.x.
79.
Horsley, T.: Subsidiarity and the European Court of Justice: Missing Pieces in the Subsidiarity Jigsaw? JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 50, 267–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2011.02221.x.
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, 470–494. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2011.00559.x.
81.
MacCormick, N.: Beyond the Sovereign State. The Modern Law Review. 56, 1–18.
82.
Walker, N.: The Idea of Constitutional Pluralism. Modern Law Review. 65, 317–359. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.00383.
83.
Kumm, M.: The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Conflict: Constitutional Supremacy in Europe before and after the Constitutional Treaty. European Law Journal. 11, 262–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2005.00260.x.
84.
Lenaerts, K., Corthaut, T.: Of birds and hedges: the role of primacy in invoking norms of EU law. European Law Review. 31, 287–315 (2006).
85.
Schutze, R.: Dual federalism constitutionalised: the emergence of exclusive competences in the EC legal order. European Law Review. 32, (2007).
86.
Dougan, M.: When worlds collide! Competing visions of the relationship between direct effect and supremacy. Common Market Law Review. 44, 931–963 (2007).
87.
Dickson, J.: Directives in EU Legal Systems: Whose Norms Are They Anyway? European Law Journal. 17, 190–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2010.00544.x.
88.
Sabel, C.F., Gerstenberg, O.: Constitutionalising an Overlapping Consensus: The ECJ and the Emergence of a Coordinate Constitutional Order. European Law Journal. 16, 511–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2009.00521.x.
89.
von Bogdandy, A., Schill, S.W.: Overcoming absolute primacy: Respect for national identity under the Lisbon Treaty. Common Market Law Review. 48, 1417–1453 (2011). https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2011057.
90.
Avbelj, M.: Theory of European Union. European Law Review. 36, 818–836 (2011).
91.
Avbelj, M.: Supremacy or Primacy of EU Law-(Why) Does it Matter? European Law Journal. 17, 744–763. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2011.00560.x.
92.
Isiksel, N.T.: Fundamental rights in the EU after Kadi and Al Barakaat. European Law Journal. 16, 551–577. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2010.00522.x.
93.
Griller, S.: International Law, Human Rights and the Community’s Autonomous Legal Order. European Constitutional Law Review. 4, 528–553. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019608005282.
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. 46, 73–104 (2009). https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2009003.
95.
Koutrakos, P.: The Court of Justice as the guardian of national courts - or not? European Law Review. 36, 319–320 (2011).
96.
Lock, T.: Taking national courts more seriously? Comment on Opinion 1/09. European Law Review. 36, 576–588 (2011).
97.
Craig, P.: The European Union Act 2011: Locks, limits and legality. Common Market Law Review. 48, 1915–1944 (2011). https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2011074.
98.
Gordon, M., Dougan, M.: The United Kingdom’s European Union Act 2011: ‘who won the bloody war anyway?’ European Law Review. 37, 3–30 (2012).
99.
Rawlings, R.: Legal politics: the United Kingdom and ratification of the Treaty on European Union: Part 1. Public Law. 254–278.
100.
Rawlings, R.: Legal politics: the United Kingdom and ratification of the Treaty on European Union: Part 2. Public Law. 367–391.
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. 31, 235–262 (1994).
102.
Weiler, J.H.H.: Does Europe Need a Constitution? Demos, Telos and the German Maastricht Decision. European Law Journal. 1, 219–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.1995.tb00030.x.
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. 42, 1169–1202 (2005). https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2005033.
104.
Chalmers, D.: Editorial: Constitutional modesty. European Law Review. 30, (2005).
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. 46, 1795–1822 (2009). https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2009074.
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, 578–588. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2010.00523.x.
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. 16, 53–73 (2010). https://doi.org/10.54648/EURO2010004.
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. 48, 9–38 (2011). https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2011002.
109.
Pliakos, A., Anagnostaras, G.: Who is the ultimate arbiter? The battle over judicial supremacy in EU law. European Law Review. 36, 109–123 (2011).
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. 49, 1475–1491 (2012). https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2012072.
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, 296–300. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chr017.
112.
Eckes, C.: Protecting Supremacy from External Influences: A Precondition for a European Constitutional Legal Order? European Law Journal. 18, 230–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2011.00595.x.
113.
Itzcovich, G.: Legal Order, Legal Pluralism, Fundamental Principles. Europe and Its Law in Three Concepts. European Law Journal. 18, 358–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2012.00604.x.
114.
Scicluna, N.: When Failure isn’t Failure: European Union Constitutionalism after the Lisbon Treaty. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 50, 441–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2011.02239.x.
115.
Hilson, C., Downes, T.A.: Making sense of rights: Community rights in E.C. law. European Law Review. 24, (1999).
116.
Tridimas, T.: Black, White, and Shades of Grey: Horizontality of Directives Revisited. Yearbook of European Law. 21, 327–354 (2001).
117.
Barnard, C. ed: The Cambridge yearbook of European legal studies: Vol. 9: 2006-2007. Hart Pub, Oxford (2007).
118.
Barnard, C. ed: The Cambridge yearbook of European legal studies: Volume 9: 2006-2007. Hart, Oxford (2007).
119.
Dougan, M.: When worlds collide! Competing visions of the relationship between direct effect and supremacy. Common Market Law Review. 44, 931–963 (2007).
120.
Barnard, C., Academy of European Law: The fundamentals of EU law revisited: assessing the impact of the constitutional debate. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2007).
121.
Academy of European Law (Florence, Italy): The fundamentals of EU law revisited: assessing the impact of the constitutional debate. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2007).
122.
Craig, P.: The legal effect of Directives: policy, rules and exceptions. European Law Review. 34, (2009).
123.
Leczykiewicz, D.: ‘Effective judicial protection’ of human rights after Lisbon: should national courts be empowered to review EU secondary law? European Law Review. 35, 326–348 (2010).
124.
Niglia, L.: Form and Substance in European Constitutional Law: The ‘Social’ Character of Indirect Effect. European Law Journal. 16, 439–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2010.00517.x.
125.
Papadopoulos, T.: Criticising the horizontal direct effect of the EU general principle of equality. European Law Review. (2011).
126.
Craig, P.P., De Búrca, G. eds: The evolution of EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011).
127.
Craig, P.P., De Búrca, G. eds: The evolution of EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011).
128.
Editorial Comments: Horizontal direct effect – A law of diminishing coherence? Common Market Law Review. 43, 1–8 (2006). https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2006001.
129.
Arnull, A.: Out with the old... European Law Review. 31, 1–2 (2006).
130.
Jans, J.H.: 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. 34, 53–66 (2007).
131.
Masson, A., Micheau, C.: The Werner Mangold Case: An Example of Legal Militancy. European Public Law. 13, 587–593 (2007). https://doi.org/10.54648/EURO2007034.
132.
Craig, P.: The legal effect of Directives: policy, rules and exceptions. European Law Review. 34, (2009).
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. 47, 1161–1172 (2010).
134.
Peers, S.: Supremacy, equality and human rights: comment on Kucukdeveci (C-555/07). European Law Review. 35, 849–856 (2010).
135.
The scope of application of the general principles of Union law: An ever expanding Union? Common Market Law Review. 47, 1589–1596 (2010).
136.
Muir, E.: Of ages in – and edges of – EU law. Common Market Law Review. 48, 39–62 (2011).
137.
Arnull, A., Barnard, C., Dougan, M.: Constitutional Order of States?: essays in EU law in honour of Alan Dashwood. Bloomsbury Publishing (2011).
138.
Dashwood, A., Arnull, A.: A constitutional order of states?: essays in EU law in honour of Alan Dashwood. Hart, Oxford (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. 30, 329–348 (2005).
140.
Betlem, G.: The Doctrine of Consistent Interpretation: Managing Legal Uncertainty. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 22, 397–418.
141.
Craig, P.P.: Directives: direct effect, indirect effect and the construction of national legislation. European Law Review. 22, (1997).
142.
Figueroa Regueiro, P.V.: 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. 7, (2002).
143.
Niglia, L.: Form and Substance in European Constitutional Law: The ‘Social’ Character of Indirect Effect. European Law Journal. 16, 439–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2010.00517.x.
144.
Ross, M.: Beyond Francovich. The Modern Law Review. 56, 55–73 (1993).
145.
Harlow, C.: Francovich and the Problem of the Disobedient State. European Law Journal. 2, 199–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.1996.tb00026.x.
146.
Georgios Anagnostaras: Not as unproblematic as you might think: the establishment of causation in governmental liability actions. European Law Review.
147.
Anagnostaras, Georgios: State Liability and Alternative Courses of Action: How Independent Can an Autonomous Remedy Be? Yearbook of European Law. 21, (2001).
148.
Breuer, M.: State liability for judicial wrongs and Community law: the case of Gerhard Kobler v Austria. European Law Review. 29, 243–254 (2004).
149.
Tison, M.: Do not attack the watchdog! Banking supervisor’s liability after Peter Paul. Common Market Law Review. 42, 639–675 (2005). https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2005024.
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. 31, (2006).
151.
Cabral, P., Chaves, M.C.: Member State Liability for Decisions of National Courts Adjudicating at Last Instance. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law. 109–126 (2006).
152.
Dimitra Nassimpian: ...And we keep on meeting: (de)fragmenting state liability. European Law Review. 32, (2007).
153.
Havu, K.: Horizontal Liability for Damages in EU Law-the Changing Relationship of EU and National Law. European Law Journal. 18, 407–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2012.00606.x.
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. 46, 773–804.
155.
Eilmansberger, T.: The relationship between rights and remedies in EC law: In search of the missing link. Common Market Law Review. 41, 1199–1246.
156.
Kilpatrick, C., Novitz, T., Skidmore, P. eds: The future of remedies in Europe. Hart Publishing, Oxford (2000).
157.
Kilpatrick, C., Novitz, T., Skidmore, P.: The future of remedies in Europe. Hart (2000).
158.
Craig, P.P., De Búrca, G. eds: The evolution of EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011).
159.
Craig, P.P., De Búrca, G. eds: The evolution of EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011).
160.
Ross, M.: Effectiveness in the European legal order(s): beyond supremacy to constitutional proportionality? European Law Review. 31, (2006).
161.
Accetto, M., Zleptnig, S.: The Principle of Effectiveness: Rethinking Its Role in Community Law. European Public Law. 11, 375–403 (2005).
162.
Wattel, P.J.: National Procedural Autonomy and Effectiveness of EC Law: Challenge the Charge, File for Restitution, Sue for Damages? Legal Issues of Economic Integration. 35, 109–132 (2008).
163.
Beatson, J., Tridimas, T. eds: New directions in European public law. Hart Pub, Oxford (1998).
164.
Beatson, J., Tridimas, T. eds: New directions in European public law. Hart Pub, Oxford (1998).
165.
Van Gerven, W.: Bridging the Unbridgeable: Community and National Tort Laws after Francovich and Brasserie. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 45, 507–544.
166.
Caranta, R.: Judicial protection against Member States: a new jus commune takes shape. Common Market law review. 32, 703–706.
167.
Legrand, P.: European Legal Systems Are Not Converging. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 45, 52–81 (1996).
168.
Granger, M.-P.F.: National applications of Francovich and the construction of a European administrative ius commune. European Law Review. 32, 157–192 (2007).
169.
Reich, Norbert: Horizontal liability in EC law: Hybridization of remedies for compensation in case of breaches of EC rights. Common Market Law Review. 44, 705–742.
170.
Lenaerts, Koen: The Rule of Law and the Coherence of the Judicial System of the European Union. Common Market Law Review. 44, 1625–1659 (2007).
171.
Craig, P.P., De Búrca, G. eds: The evolution of EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011).
172.
Craig, P.P., De Búrca, G. eds: The evolution of EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011).
173.
Knocking on Heaven’s Door: Fragmentation, Efficiency and Defiance in the Preliminary Reference Procedure. Common Market Law Review. 40, 9–50 (2010). https://doi.org/10.54648/5115417.
174.
Wattel, P.J.: Köbler , CILFIT and Welthgrove : We can’t go on meeting like this. Common Market Law Review. 41, 177–190 (2004). https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2003075.
175.
Allott, P.: Preliminary rulings - another infant disease. European Law Review. 25, 538–547 (2000).
176.
Barents, R.: Court of Justice in the Draft Constitution, The. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law. 11, (2004).
177.
Komarek, J.: In the court(s) we trust? On the need for hierarchy and differentiation in the preliminary ruling procedure. European Law Review. 32, 467–491 (2007).
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, 693–717. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2008.00441.x.
179.
European Law Journal. 14,.
180.
Rasmussen, H.: The European Court’s acte clair strategy in CILFIT. European Law Review. 9, 242–259 (1984).
181.
Mancini, G.F., Keeling, D.T.: From CILFIT to ERT: The Constitutional Challenge facing the European Court. Yearbook of European law. 11, 1–13 (1991).
182.
Broberg, M.: Acte clair revisited: Adapting the acte clair criteria to the demands of the times. Common Market Law Review. 45, 1383–1397 (2008).
183.
Komarek, J.: In the court(s) we trust? On the need for hierarchy and differentiation in the preliminary ruling procedure. European Law Review. 32, 467–491 (2007).
184.
Arnull, A.: The Law Lords and the European Union: swimming with the incoming tide. European Law Review. 35, 57–87 (2010).
185.
Craig, P.P., De Búrca, G. eds: The evolution of EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011).
186.
Craig, P.P., De Búrca, G. eds: The evolution of EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011).
187.
Dashwood, A., Arnull, A.: A constitutional order of states?: essays in EU law in honour of Alan Dashwood. Hart Pub, Oxford [UK] (2011).
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, 462–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2009.00473.x.
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, 595–610. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2011.00568.x.
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, M.R., and Heenan, J. (eds.) The EU and human rights. pp. 859–897. Oxford University Press (1999).
192.
Alston, P., Weiler, J.H.H.: An ‘Ever Closer Union’ in Need of a Human Rights Policy. European Journal of International Law. 9, 658–723 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/9.4.658.
193.
Coppel, J., O’Neill, A.: The European Court of Justice: taking rights seriously? Legal Studies. 12, 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121X.1992.tb00467.x.
194.
Weiler, J.H.H., Lockhart, N.J.S.: "Taking rights seriously” seriously: The European Court and its fundamental rights jurisprudence – part I. Common Market Law Review. 32, 51–94 (1995).
195.
Jacobs, F.G.: Human rights in the European Union: the role of the Court of Justice. European Law Review. 26, (2001).
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. 37, (2012).
197.
Belling, V.: Supranational Fundamental Rights or Primacy of Sovereignty? European Law Journal. 18, 251–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2011.00596.x.
198.
Hepple, B.: The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Industrial Law Journal. 30, 225–231 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1093/ilj/30.2.225.
199.
Jacobs, F.G.: Human rights in the European Union: the role of the Court of Justice. European Law Review. 26, (2001).
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, 515–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0386.00163.
201.
Liisberg, J.B.: Does the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Threaten the Supremacy of Community Law? Common Market Law Review. 38, 1171–1199 (2001).
202.
Shuibhne, N.N.: Margins of appreciation: national values, fundamental rights and EC free movement law. European Law Review. 34, 230–256 (2009).
203.
Shuibhne, N.N.: The reality of rights: from rhetoric to opt-out. European Law Review. 34, 815–816 (2009).
204.
Ortega, L.: Fundamental Rights in the European Constitution. European Public Law. 11, 363–373 (2005).
205.
Peers, S., Ward, A. eds: 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. 39, 53–64 (2002).
207.
Barnard, C., Academy of European Law: The fundamentals of EU law revisited: assessing the impact of the constitutional debate. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2007).
208.
Academy of European Law (Florence, Italy): The fundamentals of EU law revisited: assessing the impact of the constitutional debate. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2007).
209.
Young, A.L.: The Charter, Constitution and Human Rights: is this the Beginning or the End for Human Rights Protections by Community Law? European Public Law. 11, 219–240 (2005).
210.
Jacqué, J.P.: The accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Common Market Law Review. 48, 995–1023 (2011).
211.
Lock, T.: Walking on a tightrope: The draft ECHR accession agreement and the autonomy of the EU legal order. Common Market Law Review. 48, 1025–1054 (2011).
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, https://www.statewatch.org/media/documents/news/2011/oct/coe-eu-accession-echr-14-10.11.pdf, (14)AD.
213.
Editorial Comments: Fundamental rights and EU membership: Do as I say, not as I do! Common Market Law Review. 49, 481–488 (2012). https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2012017.
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. 49, 489–519 (2012).
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, 518–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2012.00615.x.
216.
Solanke, I.: ‘Stop the ECJ’?: An Empirical Analysis of Activism at the Court. European Law Journal. 17, 764–784. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2011.00561.x.
217.
Itzcovich, G.: Legal Order, Legal Pluralism, Fundamental Principles. Europe and Its Law in Three Concepts. European Law Journal. 18, 358–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2012.00604.x.
218.
Communication department of the European Commission ed: History of the EU, https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/history-eu_en.
219.
Craig, P.P., De Búrca, G.: EU law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom (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. (27)AD.
221.
Eleanor Drywood: Giving with one hand, taking with the other: fundamental rights, children and the family reunification decision. European Law Review.
222.
Craig, P.P., De Búrca, G.: EU law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom (2015).
223.
Craig, P.P., De Búrca, G.: EU law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom (2015).
224.
Craig, P.: Subsidiarity: A Political and Legal Analysis. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 50, 72–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2011.02228.x.
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. 36, 98–108 (2011).
226.
Conway, G.: Recovering a Separation of Powers in the European Union. European Law Journal. 17, 304–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2011.00552.x.
227.
Dinan, D.: Institutions and Governance: A New Treaty, a Newly Elected Parliament and a New Commission. Journal of Common Market Studies. 48, 95–118.
228.
Hagemann, S., Høyland, B.: Bicameral Politics in the European Union. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 48, 811–833. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2010.02075.x.
229.
Craig, P.: The ECJ and ultra vires action: A conceptual analysis. Common Market Law Review. 48, 395–437 (2011). https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2011018.
230.
Schütze, R.: Subsidiarity after Lisbon: Reinforcing the Safeguards of Federalism? The Cambridge Law Journal. 68, 525–536 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197309990183.
231.
Cygan, A.: The parliamentarisation of EU decision-making? The impact of the Treaty of Lisbon on national parliaments. European Law Review. 36, 480–499 (2011).
232.
Horsley, T.: Subsidiarity and the European Court of Justice: Missing Pieces in the Subsidiarity Jigsaw? JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 50, 267–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2011.02221.x.
233.
Craig, P.P., De Búrca, G.: EU law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom (2015).
234.
Muir, E.: Of ages in – and edges of – EU law. Common Market Law Review. 48, 39–62 (2011).
235.
Anthony Arnull: The principle of effective judicial protection in EU law: an unruly horse? European Law Review. 36, (2011).
236.
Craig, P.P., De Búrca, G. eds: The evolution of EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011).
237.
Craig, P.P., De Búrca, G. eds: The evolution of EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (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. 10, 1161–1172 (2010).
239.
Craig, P.: The legal effect of Directives: policy, rules and exceptions. European Law Review. 34, (2009).
240.
Dougan, M.: When worlds collide! Competing visions of the relationship between direct effect and supremacy. Common Market Law Review. 44, 931–963 (2007).
241.
Dashwood, A., Arnull, A.: A constitutional order of states?: essays in EU law in honour of Alan Dashwood. Hart Pub, Oxford [UK] (2011).
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. (2011).
244.
Peers, S.: Supremacy, equality and human rights: comment on Kucukdeveci (C-555/07). European Law Review. 35, 849–856 (2010).
245.
The scope of application of the general principles of Union law: An ever expanding Union? Common Market Law Review. 47, 1589–1596 (2010).
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. 46, 773–804 (2009).
247.
Adam Cygan: Defining a sufficiently serious breach of Community law: the House of Lords casts its net into the waters. European Law Review. 25, (2000).
248.
Craig, P.P., De Búrca, G. eds: The evolution of EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011).
249.
Craig, P.P., De Búrca, G. eds: The evolution of EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011).
250.
Tridimas, T.: Liability for Breach of Community Law: Growing Up and Mellowing Down? Common Market Law Review. 38, 301–332 (2001). https://doi.org/10.54648/334301.
251.
Anagnostaras, G.: Not as unproblematic as you might think: the establishment of causation in governmental liability actions. European Law Review (E.L. Rev.). 27, 663–676 (2002).
252.
Davis, R.W.: 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. 31, 69–80 (2006).
253.
van Gerven, W.: Of rights, remedies and procedures. Common Market Law Review. 37, 501–536 (2000).
254.
Accetto, M., Zleptnig, S.: The Principle of Effectiveness: Rethinking Its Role in Community Law. European Public Law. 11, 375–403 (2005).
255.
British Institute of International and Comparative Law, Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden. Europa Instituut: Common Market Law Review.
256.
Ross, M.: Effectiveness in the European legal order(s): beyond supremacy to constitutional proportionality? European Law Review. 31, (2006).
257.
Craig, P.P., De Búrca, G.: EU law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom (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. 32, 467–491 (2007).
259.
Wattel, P.J.: Köbler , CILFIT and Welthgrove : We can’t go on meeting like this. Common Market Law Review. 41, 177–190 (2004). https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2003075.
260.
Broberg, M.: Acte clair revisited: Adapting the acte clair criteria to the demands of the times. Common Market Law Review. 45, 1383–1397 (2008).
261.
Craig, P.P., De Búrca, G. eds: The evolution of EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011).
262.
Craig, P.P., De Búrca, G. eds: The evolution of EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011).
263.
Craig, P.P., De Búrca, G.: EU law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom (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, 462–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2009.00473.x.
265.
Lock, T.: Walking on a tightrope: The draft ECHR accession agreement and the autonomy of the EU legal order. Common Market Law Review. 48, 1025–1054 (2011).
266.
Dashwood, A., Arnull, A.: A constitutional order of states?: essays in EU law in honour of Alan Dashwood. Hart Publishing (2011).
267.
Dashwood, A., Arnull, A.: A constitutional order of states?: essays in EU law in honour of Alan Dashwood. Hart (2011).
268.
Shuibhne, N.N.: Margins of appreciation: national values, fundamental rights and EC free movement law. European Law Review. 34, 230–256 (2009).
269.
Jacobs, F.G.: Human rights in the European Union: the role of the Court of Justice. European Law Review. 26, (2001).
270.
Itzcovich, G.: Legal Order, Legal Pluralism, Fundamental Principles. Europe and Its Law in Three Concepts. European Law Journal. 18, 358–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2012.00604.x.
271.
Jacqué, J.P.: The accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Common Market Law Review. 48, 995–1023 (2011).
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. 6, 115–123.
273.
Berki, G.: Free movement of patients in the E.U.: a patient’s perspective. Intersentia, [S.l.] (2018).
274.
Neve, G. de, Prentice, R. eds: Unmaking the global sweatshop: health and safety of the world’s garment workers. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (2017).
275.
Prentice, R., Neve, G. de eds: Unmaking the global sweatshop: health and safety of the world’s garment workers. University of Pennsylvania Press, Pennsylvania (2017).
