Religion as Culture? How European and American High Courts Endorse Majority Religion

This paper examines a trend in European and American High Courts to endorse majority religion by transforming it into “culture”, and thus by secularizing it. To dissociate religion and state is the hallmark of the liberal state. However, no state has ever managed a perfect separation, not even the American. Under conditions of mounting religious pluralism and ongoing secularization, there is pressure on the state to live up to its “neutrality”. A main strategy to square the circle of neutrality and incomplete dissociation from religion is to declare it “culture”, which gives the state the license to associate or even identify with it (as guardian of nationhood). The paper compares recent American and European High Court rules on religious symbols (especially crucifixes) that exhibits this strategy, addressing similarities and differences as well as the limits and pitfalls of “culturalizing” religion.

Eficácia temporal da revogação da jurisprudência consolidada dos Tribunais Superiores = Temporal effectiveness of revocation of consolidated jurisprudence of the Superior Courts

Número dedicado ao Novo Código de Processo Civil.

Observations on the courts of law in Nova Scotia, Canada, 1775

Contains a discussion of the organization of the courts in Nova Scotia and recommends changes to allow for greater efficiency and logical administration of cases through the system of justice.

Notes of cases decided in the Superior and Supreme Judicial Courts of Massachusetts from 1772 to 1789: taken by the Hon. William Cushing, one of the judges during that period and most of the time Chief Justice

Notes of cases taken by Judge William Cushing during his tenure on the Massachusetts superior and supreme courts. (Formerly MS 2141.)

Lawyer's case book containing notes of cases adjudged and determined in the courts of Delaware, 1793-1796

Lawyer's case book containing notes on cases before the Delaware Supreme Court and Delaware Court of Common Pleas. Contains information on the cases and judgements.

[ Minutes of the proceedings of a general courts-martial], 1776

Varick served as judge advocate during these court-martial proceedings.

Notes of cases before colonial New Jersey courts, 1735-1755

Contains notes of cases before several New Jersey courts especially the New Jersey Supreme Court. Possibly compiled by Coxe.

The Future Organisation of the European Courts. Research Papers in Law, 2/2005

From the Introduction. According to Article 220 of the EC Treaty, the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance (hereinafter CFI) “each within its jurisdiction, shall ensure that in the interpretation and application of [the EC] Treaty the law is observed”. The “pre-Nice” allocation of jurisdiction between the two Community courts can be summarized as follows. At Court of Justice level, mention should first of all be made of references for a preliminary ruling. A national court, in a case pending before it, can - or in some circumstances must - refer to the Court of Justice a question relating to the interpretation of provisions of the EC Treaty or of secondary Community law, or relating to the validity of provisions of secondary Community law.1 Moreover, the Court of Justice ensures the observance of the law in the context of actions for annulment or failure to act brought before it by the Community institutions, the European Central Bank (hereinafter ECB) and the Member States.2 These actions concern, respectively, the legality of an act of secondary Community law and the legality of the failure of the institution concerned to adopt such act. The Court of Justice also has jurisdiction in actions brought by the Commission or by a Member State relating to the infringement of Community law by a Member State (hereinafter infringement actions)3 and in actions relating to compensation for non-contractual damage brought by Member States against the Community.4 Finally, as regards the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, mention should be made of appeals which can be lodged on points of law only against rulings of the CFI.5

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).