The Framework Decision to establish the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) entered into force on 1 January 2004. Since the adoption of the Italian law on 22 April 2005 transposing the Decision, it has been operational throughout the European Union. In its evaluation report of January 2006, the European Commission welcomes the arrest warrant as an ‘overall success’, as it provides for an effective and swift surrender procedure whilst guaranteeing judicial control and the observation of fundamental rights. National evaluation reports, such as the 30th report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, show that the arrest warrant is widely used to secure the arrest and surrender across the Union. The European Arrest Warrant seems to have largely taken over traditional extradition procedures.

On 29 May 2005 the French said no to the draft of a European Constitution. And frankly, the French should know about constitutions! One can differ whether the history of France should be considered a fruitful garden of constitutional thought, a graveyard of constitutional experiments, a ‘musée des constitutions’, or a minefield; in any case it is beyond doubt that the French are rather experienced in constitutions and constitutional changes. Since the French Revolution in 1789, France has been a monarchy, a republic more than once, an empire twice and a constitutional monarchy in between; the nineteenth century shows the pattern monarchy, republic, empire; since 1958 the French live in their Fifth Republic.

There is a lot to learn from the constitutional history (perhaps struggle is a better word in this context) of this important European country for any political entity in search of a proper constitution. Which constitutional institutions were a success, which were not; why did it or did it not work out the way it was planned?

Review of the implementation of the European Arrest Warrant in England and Wales – Introduction to the Extradition Act 2003 – The European Arrest Warrant in practice – Assessing the Extradition Act 2003.

Limits to member states' discretion in European Union enlargement negotiations – Changing the fundamentals of the EU constitutional order through the conclusion of accession treaties – The case of Turkey – Caveats, precautions and fallback strategies in the ‘Negotiating Framework for Turkey’ – Enforcing the limits to member states' discretion in European Union enlargement negotiations – The jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice before ratification and after entry into force.

Historical development of the Finnish system of government – A semi-presidential system necessary in the oppressive post-Civil War atmosphere – Reinforcement of the Presidency during World War II and the Cold War – 1982-1995: A reform process of partial revisions – ‘The Constitution of the year 2000’: a considerable step towards a genuine parliamentary form of government – The challenges of European integration for the dual executive.

On March 16, 2006, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered its final judgment in the case of Tatjana Ždanoka against the Republic of Latvia. Although not the first decision under Article 3 of the first Protocol, the Ždanoka v. Latvia case was important, because it allowed the Court to come to a decision on an aspect of Article 3, first Protocol, which in earlier case law had not extensively been dealt with by the ECtHR: the right to be elected. Moreover, the case allowed the Court to make some statements of principle on another question with which numerous member states of the Council have been dealing throughout the 20th century: how far may a democracy go in protecting itself from (allegedly) undemocratic parties, groups or individuals?

You may not have noticed, but 2006 was the European Year of Workers' Mobility. The symbolism was prompted by concerns that a genuine European ‘mobility culture’ still does not exist. As the Commission has observed, rates of mobility remain extremely low despite initiatives to promote the free movement of workers: ‘Many obstacles of a legal or administrative nature, but also of a linguistic or socio-cultural nature, continue to hamper workers’ freedom of movement and to discourage them from taking advantage of the opportunities for mobility.