From the point of view of an individual, rights conferred by a legal system are only effective and substantive if there are effective remedies available if those rights are infringed. In some instances, those remedies may be pre-emptive; but in most instances, they seek to deal with infringements of rights, or damage to interests, which have taken place.

Even though the decision to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) is a fait accompli, the terms under which the accession should take place are still very much open to debate. The present chapter focuses specifically on the possible tensions which may arise in the aftermath of the EU’s accession to the ECHR in four of the core elements of the EU area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ): recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, wrongful removal or retention of a child, the Common European Asylum System and the European Arrest Warrant. It then puts forward a number of solutions which could be included either in the accession agreement itself or in the post-accession case law of the ECtHR and which allow not only for the preservation of the coherence and integrity of the AFSJ but also for external judicial control on human rights matters in the AFSJ.

Scientists are quick to admonish lawyers that anecdotal evidence may suggest avenues for investigation, but that it is little more. Conscious of this admonition, I suggest that (1) the American cartel enforcement experience is successful, and (2) its success is attributable to the criminalisation of the offence. This view is shared by others and was important in the decisions by both Ireland and the United Kingdom to criminalise competition offences. Moreover, the American experience underlay proposals elsewhere to adopt similar legislation. After briefly reviewing deterrence generally and the current American model, this article discusses the implementation of a criminal enforcement regime in Ireland.

The process of European legal integration has long been understood to engage the workings of domestic legal orders, EC law and, to a lesser extent, the law of the ECHR. In general terms, the relationship between these bodies of law has been characterised as involving the direct and indirect interchange of principle and practice across jurisdictions. An example of direct interchange is found in the EC law requirement that national courts give effect to rules emanating from the EC legal order in all cases raising EC law issues. The indirect form occurs in disputes which do not raise EC law issues but which see national courts voluntarily borrow from their experience within the EC legal order by way of developing the domestic legal system. Likewise, national courts and the European Court of Justice have relied upon the law of the ECHR, a “foreign” body of rules, in developing their respective legal orders.

The European Convention on State Immunity provides for the immunity of states and their organs from the domestic courts of the respective Contracting States. In doing so, it makes no apparent distinction between those courts’ civil and criminal jurisdictions. Yet the vexed question of the immunity of state officials from the latter, especially in respect of crimes established under international law, has been spectacularly brought to the fore by the Pinochet case. It is on this question—the immunity of individual state officials from the criminal jurisdiction of foreign states specifically in respect of international crimes—that this article focuses.

This chapter examines the recent controversial decisions of the ECJ in Viking and Laval, focusing on how they are likely to be applied in practice. Firstly, it considers the rules regarding the applicable forum and the procedures for going to court in the UK, then it looks at when it can be said that an employer’s economic rights under EU law have been engaged and when there has been a ‘restriction’ on those rights. It goes on to address the core issue of the circumstances in which a ‘restriction’ on the relevant EU economic right pursues a ‘legitimate aim’ and then considers the key battleground in future cases falling under Viking and Laval, namely whether the industrial action is ‘proportionate’. Finally, it addresses an important, but unresolved, issue: the extent to which industrial action in breach of Articles 43 or 49 EC could give rise to liability in damages.

Is the general structure of EU law a matter determined by its own constitutional principles? Many assume that this must be the case, because this is what we regularly expect from any national order of constitutional law. A more careful look shows that the analogy does not work. There is no single set of constitutional principles that determines the application of EU law by the Member States. Each State has its own principles. This clear division of labour between EU and national law poses a serious theoretical problem to those presenting EU law as a legal system directly analogous to that of a constitutional order. This chapter argues that a more careful study shows that the structure of EU law is very much like the structure of international law: dualist, not monist. Nevertheless, the dualist structure of EU law does not in any sense reduce its authority or legitimacy.

Although the european Community Treaty does not contain a specific chapter or article dedicated to the audiovisual sector, European Community law has had a significant impact on the way in which Member States regulate their film and television industries. Given the commercial nature and international reach of many media goods and services this should not be surprising, but Community oversight has here been particularly controversial because of the importance ascribed to cultural and political considerations. This article examines how such considerations have been accommodated within the European Community legal system and the impact that Community law has had on domestic audiovisual policies in practice. It focuses on those measures introduced by states to support their domestic film and television industries and to ensure that domestic audiences have access to films and television programmes that are culturally relevant and meaningful.

The Lisbon Treaty has fundamentally revised the external relations of the EU in pursuit of more visibility, coherence and consistency. The EU is, for instance, given a single legal personality, the pillar structure is (formally) abolished, new functions are created to reinforce its external representation and external policies appear to be streamlined. But is there more to it than meets the eye? A critical legal assessment is given of the major Treaty modifications relating to the EU external relations whilst addressing two underlying issues. First it is questioned whether the Member States have really given up their traditional reluctance to share fully the international scene with the EU. It is argued that the Lisbon Treaty in fact means to redress the balance in favour of intergovernmentalism under CFSP. A second crucial and related issue links to the silent dialogue with the CJEU to be discerned in the Lisbon Treaty. It wavers between the codification of important case law, such as Kadi, and attempts at containing or even reversing case law which was more prejudicial to the Member States’ interests, such as the Ecowas judgment. In so doing the Lisbon Treaty again raises interesting yet complex legal questions which will most likely necessitate further clarification through case law.

The constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina (henceforth ‘BiH’) was born out of conflict. The country, like much of the Balkan region, had been subject to waves of invasion, nationalist tension and foreign domination for many centuries. The Ottoman Empire, with a complex system of public and private law influenced by Islamic law, had been followed by the Austro-Hungarian Empire, overlaying the legal system with the tradition of the Code Civil. Before the Ottoman period the Slav population had divided between adherents to the Church of Rome and followers of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Under the Ottomans a group of Slavs had converted to Islam, further fracturing the religious coherence of the region. During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the pan-Slavist movement had sought to establish a Serb national homeland for its people. When Princip assassinated the Archduke Ferdinand of Austria in Sarajevo in 1914, the aim was to establish a Serb state free of imperial domination.

In 2000 the European Community adopted the General Framework Directive aimed at combating discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation as regards employment and occupation. This important measure followed closely on the heels of the Race Discrimination Directive adopted earlier in the year. The adoption of these measures was made possible after the Treaty of Amsterdam inserted a new Article 13 into the EC Treaty which empowered the Community to adopt measures to combat discrimination on the above grounds, as well as in the fields of sex, race and ethnicity. While Article 13 was greeted with much acclaim, doubts were expressed as to whether or not binding measures would be forthcoming. As it has turned out, such pessimism was unwarranted and the Community has now adopted measures aimed at eliminating discrimination on all the grounds specified in Article 13. The adoption of these directives is, therefore, a highly significant expansion of the Community’s competence and ensures the continued development of the Community beyond its original purely economic focus.

Communications are being transformed by the combination of digital technology and a global media economy. There is increased convergence between traditional broadcasting, cable distribution, satellite broadcasting, telecommunications and the Internet, which has boosted the sheer volume of programming and information that can be conveyed, and extended its reach at both domestic and international levels. Many will see these developments as an opportunity to promote new media products and to rationalise their operations in a global market place. Others may be concerned that the need to compete successfully in that market place will threaten the survival of local and national cultural identity. In terms of policy and regulation, states may be tempted to emphasise trade and industrial policy, intended to improve transnational competitiveness, at the expense of media and cultural policy, aimed at protecting pluralism and diversity.

One of the significant changes in the landscape of international law in recent decades has been the increase in the number of international courts and other forms of international dispute settlement. The EU has pushed for the inclusion of dispute settlement chapters in its trade and investment agreements, it has joined multilateral treaties that include dispute settlement mechanisms, and it has proposed the establishment of multilateral investment court. The Court of Justice of the European Union has shown a more guarded approach in recent years towards international dispute settlement. This article explores the potential ways to address these sources of conflict and allow the CJEU to coexist with other international courts.

EU management of its international responsibility for wrongful acts varies between a pragmatic approach and the proceduralisation of its responsibility. The EU either lays down complex procedures in order to manage the allocation of responsibility in order to (allegedly) preserve the internal division of competences or takes a pragmatic approach which disregards any internal division of competences. This chapter critically analyses these two trends in EU practice. More precisely, it identifies from the ongoing development in the incipient foreign direct investment policy of the EU and in its accession to the European Convention on Human Rights the problems linked to this way of managing the EU’s international responsibility. Overall, it argues that instead of complex and slow procedures or ad hoc pragmatic solutions, the EU should adhere to a rule-based approach which is at the same time pragmatic and respects the principles underpinning the proceduralisation of responsibility.

The EU’s current renewable energy legislation sets a binding EU target for renewables as a share of overall energy consumption, allied with binding national targets for renewables as well. Yet the precise implications of having imposed such ‘mandatory’ binding targets have received little attention to date. This contribution examines the history and evolution of such targets, the context within which they must be pursued and applied, and some of the problems in and prospects for their enforcement and effectiveness. Comparisons are drawn with other areas of EU law where appropriate and some tentative lessons learned, as well as challenges still to be faced, are offered by way of conclusion.

The entry into force on 1st March 2001 of Regulation 1347/2000 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters and in Matters of Parental Responsibility for Children of Both Spouses (‘the Matrimonial Regulation’) amounts to a landmark in the harmonisation of private international law at European Community level. It deals with direct judicial jurisdiction, and the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments, but not choice of law, in respect of divorce, separation and annulment of marriage, and of custody (in a broad sense) of children of both spouses when determined on the occasion of matrimonial proceedings. It is the first EC measure to enter into force dealing with private international law in family matters, and is likely to be followed up by further such measures, especially in relation to child custody when dealt with independently of any matrimonial proceedings.

Fiscal state aid is an important aspect of state aid law. Aid granted though fiscal measures accounted for more than 40 per cent of aid granted in 2003–5. According to a recent study, allegations that fiscal measures constitute illegal aid account for more than 50 per cent of state aid cases before national courts. The European Commission and European as well as national courts are thus increasingly being called upon to consider the extent to which state aid rules apply to fiscal measures.

A new legal order has arisen in the United Kingdom (‘UK’) following that country's withdrawal from the European Union (‘EU’). Nowhere are these changes more evident than in the complex rules that have emerged in the fields of freedom of movement and the right to work. In evaluating the new legal landscape, this Article has two overarching aims. The first is to assess the level of protection granted to the right to work and associated free movement rights within EU and UK law, including the terms of the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement. The second aim is to examine the extent to which those right to work rules are reflective of the status of the right to work as a fundamental social right. It is argued that Brexit unmoors the right to work from EU free movement rules, thereby undermining the normative value of that right, while exacerbating flaws in domestic rules governing access to employment for both national and migrant workers.