Dear reader, After four years, ‘Despite our Differences’ comes to an end today. And what a time it has beenin which to blog! We have seen Brexitrear its ugly head, rule of law issues, a megalomaniac Trump, mass migration from the Middle East, the rise of populism and the efforts of globalists to strike back, as well as serious environmental shifts, to name but a few significant events in that short period. It is almost an understatement to say that it has been an incredible tour de force for anyone following the European agenda. For the Court of Justiceand lawyers across the EU these years hav ..read more

If any of you are interested in EU law litigation at national courts, the Court of Justice’s judgment in Eurobolt (C-644/17) is well worth your time. The question at stake concerns whether a national court can request information from an EU Institution in order to rule on the validity of an EU act. Needless to say, this situation arises when the EU Institution is not a party in the national proceedings, in which case the EU Institution is requested to cooperate sincerely on the sole grounds of Article 4 TEU. In principle, this should not really be an issue, because national courts can only rul ..read more

Here is an interesting case for the many fans of the preliminary reference procedure. A Constitutional Court of a Member State introduces a case-law that imposes on all courts of last instance a duty to make a preliminary reference pursuant to Article 267 TFEU as a question of constitutional principle. Thus, if a Supreme Court decides not to make a reference in breach of Cilfit or Da Costa, its judgment is now subject to a constitutional appeal for breach of the fundamental right to an effective remedy. The Constitutional Court thus becomes a guarantor of the correct enforcement of EU law by n ..read more