Reports of cases ... in the High Court of Chancery ... [1789-1817];

Mode of access: Internet.

Cases argued and adjudged in the High Court of Chancery [1680-1719]

Mode of access: Internet.

Reports of cases decided in the High court of chancery, by the Right Hon. Sir J. L. Knight Bruce, vice-chancellor.

Mode of access: Internet.

Cases argued and determined in the High court of chancery during the time of Lord Chancellor Eldon ... 1815, with a few cases of an earlier period,

Binder's title: Cooper's cases.

The Skinners' Company versus the honourable the Irish Society, and others. Proceedings upon the motion for a receiver, at the suit of the Skinners' Company, commencing November 23, 1835, in His Majesty's High court of chancery. Copied from the transcript of the shorthand writer's notes.

Mode of access: Internet.

Notes of proceedings and cases determined in the high court of errors and appeals, the court of chancery, and the orphans court of the state of Delaware, 1792-1832

Contains summaries of cases heard by the Delaware Supreme Court and the Delaware Appeals Court in the counties of Sussex, Kent, and Newcastle covering a variety of legal topics. Supposedly based on Wilson's Red Book.

Talking with the “pouvoir constituant” in times of constitutional reform: The European Court of Justice on Private Applicants’ Access to Justice. Research Paper in Law 3/2003

[From the Introduction]. European lawyers, at least those dealing predominantly with institutional matters, are living particularly interesting times since the setting-up of the “European Convention on the Future of Europe” in December 2001.1 As the Convention’s mandate, spelled out in rather broad terms in the European Council’s declaration of Laeken,2 is potentially unlimited, and as the future constitution of the European Union (EU) will be ultimately adopted by the subsequent Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), there appears to be a great possibility to clarify, to simplify and also to reform many of the more controversial elements in the European legal construction. The present debate on the future of the European constitution also highlights the relationship between the pouvoir constituant3 and the European Courts, the Court of Justice (ECJ) and its Court of First Instance (CFI), who have to interpret the basic rules and principles of the EU.4 In that light, the present article will focus on a classic theme of the Court’s case law: the relationship between judges and pouvoir constituant. In the EU, this relationship has traditionally been marked by the ECJ’s role as driving force in the “constitutionalisation” of the EC Treaties – which has, to a large extent, been accepted and even codified by the Member States in subsequent treaty revisions. However, since 1994, the ECJ appears to be more reluctant to act as a “law-maker.”5 The recent judgment in Unión de Pequeños Agricultores (UPA)6 – an important decision by which the ECJ refused to liberalize individuals’ access to the Community Courts – is also interesting in this context. UPA may be seen as another proof of judicial restraint - or even as indicator of the beginning of a new phase in the “constitutional dialogue” between the ECJ and the “Masters of the Treaties.”

The house that the Court built. The retained powers case law of the European Court of Justice and the constitutional structure of the Union

Euroopan unionin perustamissopimusten katsotaan muodostavan EU:n valtiosäännön, jonka rajat ovat kuitenkin perustamissopimusten määräysten väljän muotoilun sekä Euroopan unionin tuomioistuimen tulkintakäytännön valossa epätarkat. Etenkin kysymys unionin ja sen jäsenvaltioiden välisestä toimivallanjaosta on EU-oikeudellisen tutkimuksen klassikoita. Tarkastelen pro gradu -tutkielmassani unionin valtiosääntörakennetta ja unionioikeuden kokonaisvaikutusta jäsenvaltioiden toimivaltojen käyttöön erityisesti EU-tuomioistuimen ratkaisukäytännössään kehittämän niin kutsutun retained powers -doktriinin valossa. Kyseisen opin mukaan EU-oikeus asettaa vaatimuksia jäsenvaltioiden toimivaltojen käytölle myös niillä aloilla, joilla sääntelytoimivalta on jäänyt jäsenvaltioille eikä sitä ole jaettu unionin kanssa. Aiheen teoreettisen tarkastelun pohjalta analysoin Euroopaun unionin tuomioistuimen ratkaisukäytäntöä erityisesti yhtä säilytetyn toimivallan alaa, koulutusta, koskevissa tapauksissa pyrkien havaitsemaan typologioita tuomioistuimen ratkaisutoiminnassa. Tutkimus noudattaa EU-valtiosääntöoikeuden metodologiaa. Keskeisenä lähdemateriaalina on siten käytetty unionituomioistuimen ratkaisukäytäntöä, joka heijastaa perustamissopimuksia tarkemmin unionin valtiosääntörakennetta. Oikeuskäytännön analyysi ja tulkinta on suoritettu peilaten sitä vasten unionin kehitystä markkinaorientoituneesta organisaatiosta yleismaailmalliseksi poliittiseksi unioniksi. Tutkielmani loppupäätelmä on, että jäsenvaltiot ovat tietyissä rajoissa hyväksyneet unionituomioistuimen kehittämän doktriinin, ja unionituomioistuin on siten saanut aikaan tosiasiallisen muutoksen EU:n valtiosääntörakenteessa. Retained powers -doktriini on omiaan syventämään eurooppalaista integraatiota ja nostaa kysymyksiä toimivallanjaon merkityksestä unionioikeudessa, perustamissopimusten kyvystä heijastaa unionin valtiosääntörakennetta sekä unionituomioistuimen toiminnan poliittisesta luonteesta.

Translation of the Decision of the International Court of Justice related to the Case concerning the dispute regarding navigational and related rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) Judgment

--

The Court of Justice of the European Union as a fundamental rights tribunal: challenges for the effective delivery of fundamental rights in the area of freedom, security and justice. CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe No. 49, 29 August 2012

This paper reflects on the challenges facing the effective implementation of the new EU fundamental rights architecture that emerged from the Lisbon Treaty. Particular attention is paid to the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and its ability to function as a ‘fundamental rights tribunal’. The paper first analyses the praxis of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and its long-standing experience in overseeing the practical implementation of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Against this analysis, it then examines the readiness of the CJEU to live up to its consolidated and strengthened mandate on fundamental rights as one of the prime guarantors of the effective implementation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. We specifically review the role of ‘third-party interventions’ by non-governmental organisations, international and regional human rights actors as well as ‘interim relief measures’ when ensuring effective judicial protection of vulnerable individuals in cases of alleged violations of fundamental human rights. To flesh out our arguments, we rely on examples within the scope of the relatively new and complex domain of EU legislation, the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ), and its immigration, external border and asylum policies. In view of the fundamental rights-sensitive nature of these domains, which often encounter shifts of accountability and responsibility in their practical application, and the Lisbon Treaty’s expansion of the jurisdiction of the CJEU to interpret and review EU AFSJ legislation, this area can be seen as an excellent test case for the analyses at hand. The final section puts forth a set of policy suggestions that can assist the CJEU in the process of adjusting itself to the new fundamental rights context in a post-Lisbon Treaty setting.