The Account of Thomas B. Gannett Executor of the last will & testament of Caleb Gannett late of Cambridge Esqr. deceased, 1819 February

Four-page handwritten account statement of the estate of Caleb Gannett with the note on the verso: "This account of administration was rendered the Judge, but was declared by him to be incorrect-- Feb 1819."

The first account of Thomas B. Gannett Executor of the last will & testament of Caleb Gannett late of Cambridge Esq. deceased, 1820 February

Four-page handwritten account statement with the note on the verso: "Thomas B. Gannett's first account as executor to C. Gannett February 1820 copy."

The first account of Thomas B. Gannett Executor of the last will & testament of Caleb Gannett late of Cambridge Esq. deceased, [1820]

One-page handwritten accounting document with the note on the verso: "changes of from which items in 1st account of administration are formed." The document is undated.

The Common Agricultural Policy: The Future of the CAP and why real reform will never happen. EUMA Paper Vol. 6 No. 7, May 2010

This paper sets out to examine the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European Union from its inception to present day 1. Specifically, this paper seeks to answer the following questions: (1) What long-term effects, if any, did the circumstances surrounding, and leading up to the formation of the CAP have; (2) What have internal and external responses been to the CAP; (3) How has the CAP responded to major events both internally (within the European Union), and externally (internationally); (4) What affect does the recently implemented Lisbon Treaty2 have on the CAP, and (5) What is the future of the CAP and CAP reform? In order to answer these questions this paper begins with the contention that the CAP is in fact the largest and strongest driving force of EU expansion. In support of this proposition, this paper first examines the circumstances and events leading to the creation of the CAP in the European Community. Second, this paper examines what long-term effects the circumstances surrounding the CAP’s inception have had on the policy, particularly calling attention to the disproportionate Franco-German CAP benefits. Third, the paper then examines how the CAP has responded to historical events that have had significant effects on the European community, particularly EU expansion, the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty, and the recent worldwide economic crisis. Finally, this paper examines common criticisms of and conflicts surrounding the CAP, both internally and externally, and argues that CAP reform, at least within the current institutional framework of the European Union, can never truly occur.

The Judicial Dimension of the European Neighbourhood Policy. EU Diplomacy Paper 08/2013, November 2013

In this paper, the expression “neighbourhood policy” of the European Union (EU) is understood in a broad way which includes the members of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) contracting parties to the European Economic Area (EEA), the EFTA State Switzerland, candidate states, the countries of the European Neighbour-hood Policy (ENP), and Russia. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is the centre of gravity in the judicial dimension of this policy. The innermost circle of integration after the EU itself comprises the EFTA States who are party to the European Economic Area. With the EFTA Court, they have their own common court. The existence of two courts – the ECJ and the EFTA Court – raises the question of homogeneity of the case law. The EEA homogeneity rules resemble the ones of the Lugano Convention. The EFTA Court is basically obliged to follow or take into account relevant ECJ case law. But even if the ECJ has gone first, there may be constellations where the EFTA Court comes to the conclusion that it must go its own way. Such constellations may be given if there is new scientific evidence, if the ECJ has left certain questions open, where there is relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights or where, in light of the specific circumstances of the case, there is room for “creative homogeneity”. However, in the majority of its cases the EFTA Court is faced with novel legal questions. In such cases, the ECJ, its Advocates General and the Court of First Instance make reference to the EFTA Court’s case law. The question may be posed whether the EEA could serve as a model for other regional associations. For the ENP states, candidate States and Russia this is hard to imagine. Their courts will to varying degrees look to the ECJ when giving interpretation to the relevant agreements. The Swiss Government is – at least for the time being – unwilling to make a second attempt to join the EEA. The European Commission has therefore proposed to the Swiss to dock their sectoral agreements with the EU to the institutions of the EFTA pillar, the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) and the EFTA Court. Switzerland would then negotiate the right to nominate a member of the ESA College and of the EFTA Court. The Swiss Government has, however, opted for another model. Swiss courts would continue to look to the ECJ, as they did in the past, and conflicts should also in the future be resolved by diplomatic means. But the ECJ would play a decisive role in dispute settlement. It would, upon unilateral request of one side, give an “authoritative” interpretation of EU law as incorporated into the relevant bilateral agreement. In a “Non-Paper” which was drafted by the chief negotiators, the interpretations of the ECJ are even characterised as binding. The decision-making power would, however, remain with the Joint Committees where Switzerland could say no. The Swiss Government assumes that after a negative decision by the ECJ it would be able to negotiate a compromise solution with the Commission without the ECJ being able to express itself on the outcome. The Government has therefore not tried to emphasise that the ECJ would not be a foreign court. Whether the ECJ would accept its intended role, is an open question. And if it would, the Swiss Government would have to explain to its voters that Switzerland retains the freedom to disregard such a binding decision and that for this reason the ECJ is not only no foreign court, but no adjudicating court at all.