Estimates of the number of Muslims in EU Member States vary widely, depending on the methodology and definitions used and the geographical limits imposed. Excluding Turkey and the Balkan-regions, researchers estimate that as many as 13 to 20 million Muslims live in the EU: That is about 3.5 - 4% of the total EU population. Muslims are the largest religious minority in Europe, and Islam is the continent's fastest growing religion. Substantial Muslim populations exist especially in Western European countries, including France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and the Scandinavian Countries. Europe's Muslim populations are ethnically diverse and Muslim immigrants in Europe hail from a variety of Middle Eastern, African, and Asian countries, as well as Turkey. Most Muslim communities have their roots in Western Europe's colonial heritage and immigration policies of the 1950s and 1960s used to counter labor shortages during the period of reconstruction after World War II. These policies attracted large numbers of North Africans, Turks, and Pakistanis. Furthermore, in recent years, there have been influxes of Muslim migrants and political refugees from other regions and countries, including the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Before delving into the details of a specific German theory of sentencing, this first section attempts to very briefly outline the general framework of the sentencing process according to German law.

German law is codified law. This means that not only the individual crimes are laid down in the German Criminal Code, but also the general principles concerning sentencing are contained therein. The constitutional basis of the sentencing structure can be drawn from the notion of the Rechtsstaat, which can be translated with the term “rule of law.” This principle, which is laid down in Article 20 § 1 Grundgesetz (German Constitution – GG), encompasses the culpability-principle, under which the punishment must be proportionate to the individual guilt of the offender. Thus, section 46 § I of the Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch – StGB) reads: “the guilt of the perpetrator is the foundation for determining punishment.” The culpability-principle is a specific expression of the proportionality principle, which is also a constitutional requirement of the “rule of law.”

In the liberal tradition, there has always been scepticism about the state's involvement in the activities of industry. Instead, internal measures by way of self-regulation and collective action have been preferred. In recognition of the reality that exclusive reliance on such solutions has not prevented violations of human rights, to which a high constitutional importance is attached, other arrangements have to be provided. In the system of the European Convention of Human Rights (hereinafter the Convention), positive obligations are imposed engaging the state in the active protection of human rights. The need to protect human rights against the hazards of industry has been the main issue in the case of Öneryildiz v. Turkey, in which, for the first time in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter the Court), a claim under the right to life (Article 2 of the Convention) has successfully been asserted in the context of industry.

Given the scope of authority the United Nations has assumed in order to perform functions of territorial administration both in East Timor and Kosovo, it is, as one commentator remarked, rather surprising that the issue of the legitimacy of the internationalisation of state structures through post-conflict governance has inspired little debate. There are myriad reasons for the erosion of political authority in a territory temporarily administered by the international community – corruption, local obstructionism and internal divisions, failure to promote government transparency, a tenuous link between civil administration and the military command structure, the operation of (inter)national networks of patronage, and general incompetence, to name a few. This article analyses some of the inherent tensions involved in international institution-building. It introduces the variety of actors operating in an internationalised territory as the quest for legitimacy creates tensions between them, and portrays the dynamics that unfold in a process in which notions of legitimacy are subject to institutional contestation.

On January 20, 2007, the Transparenzrichtlinie-Umsetzungsgesetz (Transparency Directive Implementation Act or TUG) came into effect implementing the European Transparency Directive. It entails some significant changes to the disclosure requirements of German listed corporations, such as a newly introduced Bilanzeid (confirmation of the balance sheet). In addition, material alterations to the share ownership notification rules in the Wertpapierhandelsgesetz (German Securities Trading Act or WpHG) have been made. The latter changes should be carefully observed by investors and are analyzed in this article.

This paper argues that the third pillar, despite the ECJ's landmark ruling of Pupino (which extended communautaire reasoning to the third pillar terrain) is and remains different from the supranational sphere. In so doing, the paper asks whether a consistent approach to EU law can be derived from the orthodoxy of EC law by focussing on the recent judgments of Advocaten voor der Wereld and Dell'Orto.

The wave of democratization that has engulfed African countries since the 1980s has been characterized by the establishment of or return to multi-party politics. This has mostly happened in political systems with a long history of de facto and de jure constraints on the ability of political parties to function effectively. While few countries today (examples include Eritrea and Swaziland) continue to deny the principle and legitimacy of a pluralistic organization of political associations and parties, many political parties in “new democracies” still face insurmountable obstacles in creating a level playing field and have to cope with legal and administrative provisions that severely restrict their free operation.

During the past year, I have had an intensive and ongoing dialogue with European government officials about U.S. counterterrorism laws and policies, especially those relating to the detention, questioning, and transfer of members of al Qaida and the Taliban. During this same period, the U.S. legal framework governing the detention and treatment of detainees has evolved significantly, through the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act last December, the Supreme Court's decision in the Hamdan case in June, the transfer of 14 al Qaida leaders to Guantanamo in September, the announcement of new DOD detention policies in September, and the enactment of the Military Commissions Act earlier this month. It has been vexing that so many myths and misunderstandings about United States policies have proliferated. My dialogue with EU governments during the past year has helped to clear up some of these myths and to address issues that are troubling to Europeans. Tonight, I want to provide a comprehensive public explanation of our legal views and policy decisions with respect to the detention and treatment of terrorists, as these have evolved in the United States since September 11th.

Every year, the public law research assistants from all universities in Germany, Austria and Switzerland meet for a conference. This year's meeting of German-speaking public law assistants was the 47th meeting of its kind. For the first time since 1983, and for the first time since German reunification, the meeting took place in Berlin. The meeting was organised by and held at both universities in Berlin – the Freie Universität and Humboldt Universität. About 250 Public Law assistants from Germany, Switzerland and Austria attended to discuss various aspects of the general topic: Networks.

As the Action Plan on Modernising Company Law and Enhancing Corporate Governance in the European Union (2003) makes clear, the EU has sought to develop company and securities law as vital pillars of an overall attempt to improve Europe's international competitiveness. An important part of this is the creation of an integrated capital market in the EU. The regulation of takeover bids was deemed to be a key element of such an integrated market. This paper will focus on Directive 2004/25/EC on Takeover Bids and will seek to examine it under the regulatory microscope. It is too early to make a complete judgment about the Directive's effectiveness as a regulatory mechanism as this would involve determining whether it achieves its goals, secures high levels of compliance from Member States and market participants and is democratically accountable to the extent that its provisions affect the public interest. It is however possible to reflect upon some of its potential strengths and failings in respect of these criteria.

The rise of right-wing extremism in Germany since the beginning of the 1990s corresponds with an increasing number of propaganda offences, escalating from 8337 reported cases in 2004 up to 10881 in 2005. Also, the provision against the use of symbols of unconstitutional organizations, Section 86a Strafgesetzbuch (Criminal Code [StGB]), became increasingly important. The following essay will explain the aims and structure, the constitutional background and the main practical problems of applying this prescription.

The recent decision by the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) should please everyone concerned with sound constitutional and administrative law doctrine and the proper exercise of judicial functions. It should also please public procurement authorities and successful bidders; however, it will undoubtedly displease many attorneys and losing bidders.

In the last year John B. Bellinger, III, Chief Legal Adviser to the United States Department of State, has been engaging in a dialogue with politicians and legal scholars in European countries. These speeches and public appearances, like the remarks delivered at the London School of Economics in 2006 and republished in this issue of the German Law Journal, were meant to address the misimpressions, as Mr. Bellinger sees it, that have become prevalent in Europe over the last few years with respect to the US positions on questions of the legal basis and legal limits of the “war on terror” and the treatment of detained terrorists.

This year the Karl Mannheim Centre for Criminology at The London School of Economics hosted the 2007 annual conference of the British Society of Criminology between the 18th and 20th of September. Some 280 papers, two plenary sessions and a number of “author meets critics” sessions gave insight into the diverse fields of criminological research in the UK and abroad. The conference's theme was programmatic: “Crime and Justice in an Age of Global Insecurity”. The notion of insecurity, expressing a globalized experience and an ontological status of the human being in late modernity, termed a historical period of time. It fits to a conjuncture of theorizing the uncanniness of contemporary social life. In this way, the theme of the conference is partly to write the history of the present in terms of crime and justice. Such conferences are both a witness of the social processes surrounding the issues of crime and criminal justice, and an agent of change by providing directives for the future, thereby shaping the way in which criminologists look at the social world.