This article considers some of the challenges which lie ahead for the Court of Justice of the EU in the field of remedies against the EU institutions following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. It examines the evolving role of EU remedies and, in particular, recent decisions of the General Court applying the new standing rules in Article 263(4) TFEU.

Although very different in many respects, the EU and Canada nevertheless confront common problems in certain areas. One such common problem is how to manage inter-state regulatory diversity within a federal (or federal-like), multinational system. This paper compares the different ways in which the EU and Canada have chosen to address the problem of national barriers to trade within their internal markets, and the consequences of these choices. It is somewhat counterintuitive for EU lawyers that a full-fledged state may have an internal market that is less integrated than that of the EU; and yet that is the case in Canada. The comparison is illuminating as to the different possible approaches of federal polities to the problem of state regulatory choices and barriers to trade, the paramount importance of institutional choice, and the significance of historical and political circumstances.

The “good Constitution” in a democratic country seeks to balance the morality of law and the morality of government. The good Constitution can be considered at the levels of abstraction of the relationship to human rights or of the progression from parliamentary to constitutional supremacy. But this article suggests that the level of the balance between the two moralities is more fruitful. The morality of law focuses on individual rights, the morality of government on the public interest. The constant task of the Constitution is to achieve an accommodation by restraint on the part of both the judges and the executive.

Where a fiduciary receives a bribe or a secret commission in breach of fiduciary duty it remains controversial whether the bribe or secret commission will be held on constructive trust for the principal. The Court of Appeal has held that in most cases there will only be a personal liability to account. That is incorrect. The duty of the fiduciary is to serve the interest of the principal to the exclusion of his own interest. A fiduciary who keeps a profit for himself abuses the trust and confidence placed in him by the principal. He is bound to hand it over to his principal the moment he receives it. Equity's response to a breach of this duty is to enforce the duty by means of the constructive trust.

This article aims to map the position of academic legal research, using a distinction between “law as a practical discipline”, “law as humanities” and “law as social sciences” as a conceptual framework. Having explained this framework, we address both the “macro” and “micro” level of legal research in the UK. For this purpose, we have collected information on the position of all law schools within the structure of their respective universities. We also introduce “ternary plots” as a new way of explaining individual research preferences. Our general result is that all three categories play a role within the context of UK legal academia, though the relationship between the “macro” and the “micro” level is not always straight-forward. We also provide comparisons with the US and Germany and show that in all three countries law as an academic tradition has been constantly evolving, raising questions such as whether the UK could or should move further to a social science model already dominant in the US.

There is a trend within the EU Member States to introduce criminal sanctions for cartel activity. Such criminalisation must respect the human rights of the accused. Unfortunately the literature on cartel criminalisation pays scant regard to the investigation of human rights issues. A comprehensive analysis of the impact of the principle of legal certainty (Article 7 ECHR) upon cartel criminalisation in the EU Member States is conspicuously absent from the literature. This article rectifies this deficiency by examining how this particular principle of European human rights law may impact upon the concept, substance and existence of a criminal cartel offence.