A purist might say that the judicial architecture of what is now the European Union was first altered by the 1957 Convention on Certain Institutions Common to the European Communities. That Convention set up a single Court of Justice with jurisdiction under the three Community Treaties which had by then been signed. However, the 1957 Convention should probably be regarded as the last brick in the original edifice, which was to remain unchanged for nearly 30 years. Although the Court started to express concern about its capacity to cope with its workload in the 1970s, the Member States did not respond until 1986, when provision for a court of first instance was made in the Single European Act. That reform marked the beginning of a period of rapid change in the judicial architecture of the Union.

In an unusual step the Conseil constitutionnel published a communiqué on 10 October 2000 concerning the criminal liability of the head of state. In it, the Conseil stated that “the criminal law position of the Head of State does not confer a ‘criminal immunity’, but a privilege of jurisdiction during his tenure of office”. This statement contains the nub of the difficulty in understanding how French law treats the criminal law liability of the head of state and of ministers. Does the Constitution afford them immunity for their actions performed during their tenure of office, or does it merely make provision for a different court to try the offences?

Various provisions of the Treaty on European Union (“TEU”) and of the EC Treaty specifically require action to be taken, at the definitive stage or at some preparatory or intermediate stage of decision-making, by the European Council, or by the Council of the European Union meeting in the composition of Heads of State or Government (“the HSG Council”); and there is one instance of an appointing power exercisable by an intergovernmental conference at the level of Heads of State or Government (“an HSG Conference”). Reserving a role for the political leaders of the Union in the adoption of particular decisions was an innovation of the TEU, more especially in the Title of the EC Treaty on economic and monetary policy, and further instances have been added by the Treaty of Amsterdam (“TA”) and the Treaty of Nice (“TN”).

The Brussels and Lugano Conventions together create a common European regime for regulating jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. This was never intended to replace entirely the equivalent rules of national law, and local rules conferring jurisdiction generally govern if the defendant is not domiciled in a Contracting State. But it remains unclear when, if at all, national rules for declining jurisdiction may be employed if a court’s competence derives from the European regime.

The draft treaty agreed at the Nice Intergovernmental Conference (“IGC”) has had a very mixed press throughout the European Union, even if not all of the criticisms have been entirely justified. Its rejection by voters in the Irish Republic in the referendum on 7 June 2001 appears, according to most commentators, to have been motivated by a wide range of concerns, only some of which relate directly to what was actually agreed at Nice. Whilst this rejection has certainly added to the impression that the Nice Treaty itself is inherently flawed, there are however some aspects of the Treaty of Nice which are undoubtedly very positive, and which should be relatively uncontroversial, even to those most sensitive to the development of the Union. Not the least of these are the provisions that will create the possibility of far-reaching improvements to the present system of Community courts in Luxembourg, and to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (“CFI”) in particular.

In September 2000 a celebratory meeting was jointly organised in Brussels by the EC Directorate General for Competition (the former DGIV) and the International Bar Association, to mark the tenth anniversary of the implementation of Regulation 4064/89 which set up the EC system of merger control. As is usually the case at birthday parties, the emphasis was on the success already achieved by the celebrant rather than on any of its possible shortcomings! Much was said about the sound foundations laid in the years immediately before the Regulation was adopted, when a range of opinion was sought from all around the Community on how its procedures should be set up, drawing on the experience of officials and lawyers in many Member States as well as the USA. Tribute was also rightly paid at the celebrations to the proactive role of Commission officials in the Merger Task Force especially during its early years, when its traditions of a user-friendly approach and the positive use of the pre-notification period were established.

The admission, reception and treatment of asylum seekers in the European Union has been an issue of continuing political and legal concern throughout the 1990’s. The rising numbers of persons seeking protection at the beginning of the period coupled with a rapidly developing regional jurisprudence on the right to protection from the European Court of Human Rights in particular, changed the nature of the debate. The Member States began to search for common policies and practices as regards asylum through intergovernmental measures. With the Amsterdam Treaty, the most important aspects of asylum have been transferred to the EC Treaty: criteria and mechanisms for determining which Member State is responsible for considering an application for asylum; minimum standards on reception of asylum seekers; minimum standards with respect to the qualification of nationals of third countries as refugees; minimum standards on procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status amongst others.

The office of European Ombudsman was created by the Treaty of Maastricht. The first Ombudsman, Jacob Söderman, began work in September 1995. To judge by the number of requests for materials and interviews that the office receives, particularly from students, academic lawyers are well aware of the existence of the European Ombudsman. There is also a growing body of literature about the office. Many practising lawyers, however, remain uncertain about the scope and functions of the work of the European Ombudsman. This is partly because the concept of an ombudsman is not always well understood, even by specialists in public law. This article will explain what an ombudsman is, the relationship between the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman, and the nature of the latter’s work. The aim is to persuade colleagues working in the field of European public law that the office of the European Ombudsman is well worth monitoring.

The impact of the increasing liberalisation of the energy sector in general and electricity supply in particular is hard to deny. Yet just a few short years ago, such developments were almost unthinkable. A complex combination of factors has led to an increasingly favourable political and economic climate for market opening and competition. However, the benefits of these developments remain distinctly unevenly spread throughout Europe, while the potential difficulties that an unchecked liberalisation process can cause are slowly coming to the fore. The challenge faced by the European Union in this sector is to promote these developments while remaining alive to their potential social and environmental consequences.

In 2000 the European Community adopted the General Framework Directive aimed at combating discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation as regards employment and occupation. This important measure followed closely on the heels of the Race Discrimination Directive adopted earlier in the year. The adoption of these measures was made possible after the Treaty of Amsterdam inserted a new Article 13 into the EC Treaty which empowered the Community to adopt measures to combat discrimination on the above grounds, as well as in the fields of sex, race and ethnicity. While Article 13 was greeted with much acclaim, doubts were expressed as to whether or not binding measures would be forthcoming. As it has turned out, such pessimism was unwarranted and the Community has now adopted measures aimed at eliminating discrimination on all the grounds specified in Article 13. The adoption of these directives is, therefore, a highly significant expansion of the Community’s competence and ensures the continued development of the Community beyond its original purely economic focus.

Ten years ago justice and home affairs (JHA) did not yet even exist as a EC/EU policy-making area. Yet—after modest beginnings in the context of the Maastricht Treaty’s “Third Pillar” in 1993—the development of EU policies in the JHA area was transformed into a fundamental treaty objective by the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam on 1 May 1999, Article 2 TEU providing for the maintenance and the development of the European Union as an “area of freedom, security and justice” (AFSJ). This new integration objective was strengthened by the introduction of a range of new policy objectives, the communitarisation of asylum, immigration and other issues of the former “Third Pillar”, the incorporation of the Schengen acquis, new and more appropriate legal instruments and improved judicial control. This, and the results of the Tampere European Council of October 1999, led to a further expansion of the scope of policy-making in justice and home affairs, with dozens of new legislative acts being adopted, a considerable number of new legislative initiatives and even the establishment of new bodies—such as the prosecution agency Eurojust and the European Police College. There is no other example in the history of EC/EU integration process of an area of previously loose intergovernmental co-operation ever having made its way so quickly to the top of the Union’s political and legislative agenda.

Hundreds of studies have been conducted by lawyers, economists and political scientists on international trade and environment, yet very few attempts have been made to compare judicial decisions adopted in this area by the European Court of Justice, its Court of First Instance, and GATT/WTO rulings on trade and environment. Most of the existing publications are either limited in scope, because they only focus on a comparison of two cases at any one time, or are outdated, especially in the light of innovative European and Appellate Body jurisprudence of the last few years. Here, a comparison of the main trade and environment themes traversing the two bodies of case-law, including procedural issues, will be undertaken. This will cast light on the means by which the current tension between trade and environment might be resolved. Account will be taken of the different “constitutional” positions of judicial bodies in the two legal orders, the role played by the presence (or absence) of the legislator, and its influence on reasoning in judicial decisions.

The environment, along with the areas of human health and consumer protection, can be considered one of the so-called “risk regulation” sectors. In these fields the role of scientific expertise is particularly important. This is due to the fact that a great deal of technical implementing legislation is needed in order to apply the political objectives of legislation adopted through EC Treaty rule-making processes involving the Council, the Commission, and the European Parliament. Secondary legislation in environmental policy often consists of technical specifications, which refer to the limit values of polluting substances. At times, technical standards are needed for products susceptible to having an impact on the environment.

In October 2000 the Commission of the European Community presented an amended proposal of the Council’s new Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. This Regulation proposes considerable changes to the Brussels Convention. Article 5(1) has been one of the most frequently used and often litigated provisions of the Brussels Convention. Academic criticism of it in England has occasionally been forceful. Article 5(1) has not escaped the reforming zeal of the Commission and it is interesting to reflect on the new Regulation.