Casual but Smart: The Court’s new clothes in the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (AFSJ) after the Lisbon Treaty. Research Papers in Law, 2/2008

Introduction. Unintended as it was, the European Court of Justice (ECJ, the Court, the Court of the EU) has played an extremely important role in the construction of the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (AFSJ). The AFSJ was set up by the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 and only entered into force in May 1999. The fact that this is a new field of EU competence, poses afresh all the fundamental questions – both political and legal – triggered by European integration, namely in terms of: a) distribution of powers between the Union and its Member States, b) attribution of competences between the various EU Institutions, c) direct effect and supremacy of EU rules, d) scope of competence of the ECJ, and e) extent of the protection given to fundamental rights. The above questions have prompted judicial solutions which take into account both the extremely sensible fields of law upon which the AFSJ is anchored, and the EU’s highly inconvenient three-pillar institutional framework.1 The ECJ is the body whose institutional role is to benefit most from this upcoming ‘depilarisation’, possibly more than that of the European Parliament. This structure is on the verge of being abandoned, provided the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force.2 However spectacular this formal boost of the Court’s competence, the changes in real terms are not going to be that dramatic. This apparent contradiction is explained, to a large extent, by the fact that the Court has in many ways ‘provoked’, or even ‘anticipated’, the depilarisation of its own jurisdictional role, already under the existing three-pillar structure. Simply put, under the new – post Treaty of Lisbon – regime, the Court will have full jurisdiction over all AFSJ matters, as those are going to be fully integrated in what is now the first pillar. Some limitations will continue to apply, however, while a special AFSJ procedure will be institutionalised. Indeed, if we look into the new Treaty we may identify general modifications to the Court’s structure and jurisdiction affecting the AFSJ (section 2), modifications in the field of the AFSJ stemming from the abolition of the pillar structure (section 3) and, finally, some rules specifically applicable to the AFSJ (section 4).

The End of the Transitional Period for Police and Criminal Justice Measures Adopted before the Lisbon Treaty: Who monitors trust in the European Criminal Justice area? CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe No. 74, December 2014

This study examines the legal and political implications of the forthcoming end of the transitional period for the measures in the fields of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, as set out in Protocol 36 to the EU Treaties. This Protocol limits some of the most far-reaching innovations introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon over EU cooperation on Justice and Home Affairs for a period of five years after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon (until 1 December 2014), and provides the UK with special ‘opt out/opt-in’ possibilities. The study focuses on the meaning of the transitional period for the wider European Criminal Justice area. The most far-reaching change emerging from the end of this transition will be the expansion of the European Commission and Luxembourg Court of Justice scrutiny powers over Member States’ implementation of EU criminal justice law. The possibility offered by Protocol 36 for the UK to opt out and opt back in to pre-Lisbon Treaty instruments poses serious challenges to a common EU area of justice by further institutionalising ‘over-flexible’ participation in criminal justice instruments. The study argues that in light of Article 82 TFEU the rights of the defence are now inextricably linked to the coherency and effective operation of the principle of mutual recognition of criminal decisions, and calls the European Parliament to request the UK to opt in EU Directives on suspects procedural rights as condition for the UK to ‘opt back in’ measures like the European Arrest Warrant.

Mexican west coast and Lower California: a commercial and industrial survey,

Plates printed on both sides.

Application of positive guidance at a freeway-to-freeway connector in California; an urban location in Dubuque, Iowa; and a two-lane rural site in Washington State. Final report.

Mode of access: Internet.

California disability insurance program.

Mode of access: Internet.

An assessment of sample surveys as feedback mechanisms for guiding local decision making /

Research supported by U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

Catalytic conversion of solvent refined coal to liquid products /

"LBL-6807."

An investigation of the effectiveness of existing bridge design methodology in providing adequate structural resistance to seismic disturbances : Phase III, Nonlinear soil-structure interaction of skew highway bridges : final report : prepared for Federal Highway Administration, Offices of Research and Development /

Bibliography: p. 46-48.

Criminal justice and democracy in the Western Hemisphere.

"April 1989."

Reflector use and the effect they have on the number of mule deer killed on California highways. Final report.

Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.

1990 census of population and housing.

"Issued July 1991"

A geographic dimension for decisionmaking : conference proceedings, October 30 and 31, 1975, San Francisco, California.

Item 142-F

The Justice Department's handling of the Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie case : hearing before the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Sixth Congress, first session, September 22, 1999.

Shipping list no.: 2000-0170-P.

Reconnaissance report on coastal erosion at Fort Ord, California /

This is a photocopy reproduction.

Supplement to School law of California, 1921 : containing statutes pertaining to education enacted by the legislative session.

"Issued by the superintendent of public instruction."