Just before Christmas 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or the Court) gave its long-awaited ruling on the European Union's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This ruling, Opinion 2/13, is a complex judgment that raises many legal questions. This case comment sets out: A summary of the ruling; an assessment of the consequences of the ruling; and an initial critique of the Court's reasoning. On the latter point, the Court's ruling is fundamentally flawed. In short, the Court is seeking to protect the basic elements of EU law by disregarding the fundamental values upon which the Union was founded.

It was born, with much rejoicing, at a party near a quiet Luxembourg village; it died, alone and unlamented, on a desk in a non-descript Brussels office. On May 1, 1999, the fourteen-year old Schengen legal order finally breathed its last; but nothing quite became its life as the ending of it. For it was immediately reincarnated, with much confusion, into a legal system born in Rome over forty years ago. Long a byword for obsessive secrecy, unaccountability and complexity, the Schengen legal system has with one stroke moved from the “black market” of European integration into the mainstream.

After Each New Treaty amendment, it comes time to hand out the ‘Major Awards’ for the worst-drafted new Treaty provisions. For the Treaty of Lisbon, there is a clear winner: the provisions concerning the opt-outs of the UK, Ireland and Denmark from the EU’s Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) policies. These already-complex provisions have been made further complex in order to address, on the one hand, the demands of these Member States for further flexibility as regards JHA policies, and on the other hand, to clarify the position if these Member States wish to opt out of further developments regarding rules into which they have already opted.

Since the conferral of binding legal effect on the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Court of Justice has taken an active role in developing the Charter as the leading source of human rights rules in the EU legal order. While the Court has begun to clarify some important points relating to the Charter, a number of significant issues still need to be addressed.

THE recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case of Dano (ECLI:EU:C:2014:2358) clarified some important points as regards access to social welfare benefits by EU citizens who move to another Member State. Furthermore, the judgment could have broad implications for any attempts by the UK Government to renegotiate the UK's membership of the EU, which is likely to focus on benefits for EU citizens coming to the UK. This note is an updated and expanded version of my analysis on the EU Law Analysis blog: http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/benefit-tourism-by-eu-citizens-cjeu.html.

Economic governance – Financial assistance – Economic and monetary union – Patent litigation – Treaties between member states – Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice – powers of the EU institutions – Enhanced cooperation

Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance – Economic governance – Stability Pact – The European Council – National constitutional law.

Council Decision of March 2011 to authorize enhanced co-operation as regards unitary patent protection – Proposed Regulations implementing enhanced co-operation in this area – Proposed treaty concerning patent litigation – Challenges to the validity of the decision authorizing enhanced co-operation – Incompatibility of the patent litigation treaty with EU law – EU external competence concerning intellectual property and civil jurisdiction issues

Council Decision of July 2010 to authorize enhanced cooperation for the first time – Planned Regulation on conflicts of law in divorce – Analysis of the application of the substantive and procedural rules applying to the authorization of enhanced cooperation in this case – Links between the planned legislation on this issue and other EU or international rules on related topics – Broader impact of the decision upon the EU legal order

European Court of Justice decision of 25 July 2008, Case C-127/08, Metock et al. v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform – EU citizens and their third-country family members – ECJ largely reverses Akrich case-law – Dividing line between national and Community competences on immigration – ‘Reverse discrimination’ not a matter of concern for Community law – Analysis of repercussions of decision on EU and national legal orders

The position of human rights within the European Union legal order has been an issue since the early years of the original European Economic Community. For many years, the development of human rights as general principles of Community law was characterized by dialogue and debate between the Communities' Court of Justice on the one hand, and certain national constitutional courts on the other, as regards the protection of human rights recognized in national constitutions by the Community legal order. But in recent years, there has been a parallel dialogue between the Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, as regards the Community legal order's protection of the rights guaranteed by the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).

Following the last update in this Quarterly,1 the European Union (EU) has been quite active in agreeing new measures relating to cross-border policing and criminal law. First of all, the Tampere European Council meeting in October 1999 agreed a list of measures to be adopted to develop the EU's ‘Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’, particularly as regards criminal procedure. Here the European Council requested the Council to agree a work programme on mutual recognition in criminal matters within a year, and to establish an EU organisation facilitating cross-border prosecutions (Eurojust) within 2 years. Following agreement in the meantime on a Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters after 5 years’ negotiations,2 the work programme was duly adopted in November 2000, setting out a list of twenty-four measures which the Council should agree in the medium-term to facilitate cross-border investigations, prosecutions, and enforcement of judgments.3 Several Member States then began to implement this plan, tabling two versions of a proposed Decision to set up Eurojust and also making proposals for ‘Framework Decisions’ to harmonise national laws as regards enforcement of other Member States’ orders to freeze assets and evidence and enforcement of judgments imposing financial penalties.4

In recent years the European Union (EU) has played an increasing role in criminal law. A number of obligations for EU Member States have been agreed in various forms, ranging from substantive law obligations to procedural obligations and new mechanisms for enforcement, particularly the Europol and Eurojust agencies. These agencies and the novel procedural obligations, particularly in the form of the European arrest warrant, are well known. But is anything new in the EU's approach to substantive criminal law?

Since the last note on Current Developments in this area, the Amsterdam Treaty has entered into force on 1 May 1999, leading to a number of important developments in the legal system governing EU Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) law. In addition, the Court of Justice has clarified several aspects of the relationship between the first and third pillars.