How the EU International Relations Law Was Revolutionized by Judgments of Kadi and ECOWAS by the ECJ - Coursework Example

EU International Law affiliation Introduction This essay looks at how the EU International Relations law wasrevolutionized by the Judgments of Kadi and ECOWAS by the ECJ. It looks at how it affected development cooperation policy, the CFSP, and the human rights. The essay will use case law, primary, and secondary sources to give an in-depth analysis. Analysis Kadi Judgment Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council of the European Union and Commission, it was stated by the court that the decisions of the previous court changed the Council Regulation 881/2002. That had made laws that restricted measures against persons who had any association with the accused persons and institutions that were in touch with such persons an also terror groups , Taliban since such relations violated rights established in the European Union. The EU Council in relation to resolutions in the UN Security Council analysed this case because of adoption of the regulation in question. The Court stated authority lacked in analysing the lawfulness of the UN Security Council with the resolutions passed where the judgment in this case allowed a wide range of interpretations on relations of the EU and the International law. The Kadi case relates to issues of restrictions to persons in economic activities. The UN Security Council Resolution 1267 of 1999 had a Commitment Sanctions that dealt with issuing funds and financial resources where all States are to freeze them to guard against them being used by the Taliban or other entities controlled by the Taliban. Resolution 1333 of 2000 covered the instructions by the UN Security Council Committee that was supposed to have a list of entities with individuals that are in touch with such accused persons where it was stated that Stats must freeze financial assets and funds of such entities and individuals. In the implementation of this resolution, the EU Council adopted the Council Regulation 881/2002 with reference to Article 308, 301 and 60 that is established in the EC.1 This resolution of 881/2002 established that any economic issues and funds that are controlled with legal and natural institutions and individual established under the Committee of Sanctions and that were found in Article 1(8). The Al Barakaat International Organizations and the suspects names was named in Annex 1 and this brought changes to the Regulation that dwelt with violation of rights was based on rights like a day in court and right to review under the court process. In Kadi judgment, the Court of First Instance went ahead and dismissed the actions where the jurisdiction lacks in analysing EU lawfulness decision institution under scrutiny. The objective puts effects on the Resolution that deals with Council on Security where its operation is under powers that are circumscribed where they lacked autonomous discretion. Such review as to internal lawfulness in the protection of rights implies courts must dwell with lawfulness of the resolution of the Security Council. It means that such jurisdiction is declared incompatible by undertakings of Member States in regards to the UN Charter by using Article 25, 48 and 103. The CFI established that is its objective in checking lawfulness directly of such resolutions in relation to jus cogens that is viewed as an guideline that deals with rules of a higher in law of international public matters that binds signatories under the law. It involves UN institutions where there is no derogation. The court of first instance held there lacked abuse of the principle of jus cogens. However, the judgement was set aside made by the previous court and changed the guideline in the Regulation where it denied the first ground of appeal that lacked the legal basis where it has stated Article 60, 301 and 308 of the EC Treaty on the regulation that was contested that constituted its proper rights in law. The Court established that the Community has the duty to ensure full review of the principle is analysed as to lawfulness of its community acts with reference to its fundamental rights that establish community law principles like the contested regulation that effect resolutions that are used in the Council of Security under the Charter of UN. The Community acts analyse in relation to the fundamental right applies the rule of law that stems from a constitutional basis in the EC Treaty in the autonomous legal system that lacks prejudice in the agreements of an international nature, The court analysed the lawfulness applies to such acts that legalise such agreements where it made it clear that local courts lack the power of reviewing the legality of any resolutions that re –accepted by the Council of Security of the UN Charter.2 ECJ analysed the principle of primacy of UN obligations. The ECJ and the CFI gives community measures that affect resolutions, contradict the principles of law in the legal order in the society, that does not entail challenges to any international law primacy in the resolution. With regards to ECJ established that CFI made an error in law where it had established that the regulation that was contested is allowed to value its jurisdiction in immunity since its formulated in effecting resolutions under the Council of the Security. Compliance with he regulation that was contested on rights under the court established that many defence rights as fundamental rights that allow people to have their day in court and the right for proper review in courts that is not respected. It laws established that the Council had not communicated to the available persons in court on adduced evidence in the case in justifying the restrictive measures implemented. Their rights were violated especially the to be informed of evidence use against them in a reasonable time when the measure was enacted. It shows that appellants lacked the chance to establish their viewpoint and the European Court of Justice established acceptance of measures that were restricted by the regulation that was restricted to Mr, Kadi where he was included in Annex 1 was unjustified restriction that violated his right to property. The contested regulation was therefore annulled by the ECJ where it allows the effects of it be in use for a period of three months since issuing of the judgment. The Kadi judgment left a number of unanswered questions and opened a few questions on issues of the effect of the structure of the international legal order. The main issue is whether the primacy of the law of the UN Charter is endangered. A hierarchal structure was not established by the ECJ jeopardized that would create interplay between European and International law. The court only highlighted the primacy of the UN Charter obligations and the lawfulness view under European law that deals and applies to community acts but doesn’t apply to matters under the Charter of the Council of Security. European Court of Justice emphasized on the rule of law where it established that judicial review covered acts in the Community though created to have the resolutions effected that were implemented in the Security Council of the UN.3 Its reciprocal concessions approach works where there is a method of implementation of the Security Council of its resolutions using rights under conformity in European Union. When resolutions were put into effect by, adopting Community acts that violate rights under the UN Charter that would create a conflict of obligations under EU.4 ECJ commitment in reviewing Charter UN primacy and integrity of the Security resolutions of its integrity would due to lack of discretional power in implementation of such resolutions in its fundamental rights using a better friendlier way. Due to lack discretion shows that obligations gives fundamental rights priority when breaches obligations under the UN Charter Kadi judgment by ECJ showed commitment to enforcement of rights that are compatible with the rule of law in EU. This shows that any rules that not in line with observation freedoms that are restricted in Europe. Its commitment to safeguarding such rights shows that bodies with political intentions are in a continuous flow where the Court established difficult for the Council on Security in adhering to abuses of such rights. Lisbon Treaty introduced institutional changes and legal changes in external actions in EU.5 This was with reference to the principle of consistency. There are always attempts of having a unified legal order by involving the legal personality principle and doing away with hierarchical relationships. This treaty disorganizes the EU external action where it contained security and foreign policy (CFSP), development of cooperation in technical economic matters and countries cooperation. Article 13 of the Treaty of TEU establishes that the Union is tasked with promoting values of consistency where external action is applied in different policies. The consistency principle in its relations is a multi-layered concept that different dimensions with obligations in the Treaty and political objective in the Union. The TEU accords a legal requirement in the Union where it has a general responsibility for focusing on consistency as a whole and ensures implementation of such policies with their powers. The Unions status on a global economic is use for promoting fundamental rights and freedoms for sustainable development. Consistency is considered as one of the EU constitutional values. Laws found in the treaties have applied and refer to the principle of consistency.6 It gives a context for the operation of fundamental legal principles that relate to relationships between EU institution and institutions and member states and establishing the primacy principle, competency, and legal personality that deal with cooperation. Article 13 TEU refers to consistency as an element for the implementation of policies of EU.7 Institutional frameworks are established by the Union in promoting its values, interests, and objectives for ensuring consistency and effectiveness of actions and its policies. Article 21(3) TEU deals with external action, and the Union is entitled to promote consistency in areas that are different in use of external action. Translation of principles and concepts of consistency as legal obligations is sometimes not straightforward where they are sometimes not properly established in EU law principles. They act as a good political aim in the Union where consistency policy making issued for several legal duties for the Union and member states. Consistency is an outcome of political process and is derived from the core principle of the Lisbon Treaty. CFSP The Treaty of Lisbon strengthens the role of the EU in the law in an international level.. Reforms are brought about to make the CFSP more effective and coherent in EU and enable it to increase its visibility properly. The Lisbon Treaty has introduced two innovations that are, certain of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and its European External Action Service. It has led to the development of the Common Security and Defence Policy.8 It also has other changes that deal with procedures of implementation of CFSP. The CFSP had formed the second pillar in the EU old structure previously. The intergovernmental cooperation governed it where the European Council used its decisions unanimously. Lisbon Treaty reforms the EU structure that was previously used where it abolished the difference between the three pillars.9 The merging of the pillars does not affect decisions and procedures on CFSP issues. The European Council roles and the EU Council are used and maintain as the unanimity principle. Merging of such pillars makes the European Community to be replaced when it disappears by the EU. It gains legal personality that is attributed previously to the European Community.10 Such legal personality gives EU rights at an international level as if the EU is able of issuing and concluding international agreements and joining international conventions.11 It uses a different method in types of acts used in CFSP. Instruments used previously like common strategies, and others changed actions that are common. EU and the Council apply such decisions like strategic objectives and interests in the union. It also has decisions on actions undertaken in the Union, positions and procedures for implementation such positions and actions of the Union. Lisbon Treaty does not stipulate many changes in the decision-making process of CFSP. The European Council deals with defining general guidelines and strategies of the Union of EU.EU Council develop and put in place implementation measures. CFSP matters members states usually have the rights of the initiative. The High Representative always exercise rights that support the Commission and regularly informs and consults the European Parliament when it comes to implementation of CFSP. The High Representative ensures that view of the Parliament is considered. Unanimity is a rule for decisions used by the European Council that concern CFSP where the Treaty of Lisbon uses a specific bridging clause that applies to CFSP. There are exceptions made for decisions that deal with military issues or areas of defence implications. This bridging clause in the European Council authorizes the Council to be able to use and adopts measures and act by a qualified majority.12 Article 31 of the Lisbon Treaty gives four exceptions where the Council uses qualified majority. It also maintains the principle that deals with jurisdiction lacking in CFSP and the Court of Justice, and this found in Article 24 of the EU Treaty. It also provides two other exceptions where the court can be able to exercise judicial control. It can decide whether theirs lawfulness of restrictive guidelines used in the Union against legal and natural persons under Article 275 of the Treaty on Functioning of the EU. It also monitors compliance with the law in Article 40 of EU Treaty and monitors respect for rules in institutions of Europe in implementation of CFSP. Article 218 of TFEU establishes opinions of the Court that can be obtained in regards international agreement whether is compatible with the formulation of EU guideline. Lisbon Treaty has not introduced changes in regards to financing of any expenditure that relates to CFSP. Expenditure that has military implications in defence areas is financed by member’s states and any other expenditure of financed through the EU budget.13 Lisbon Treaty has two mechanisms that promote financed for such actions that depend on EU budget where it benefits from procedure through quick finance. The council creates avenues to facilitate such arrangements and urgent actions that are financed by member states that can benefit from start-up funds that are contributed by member’s states.14 EU International Relations Revolution and its Effects Accepting the interpretations of Article 60 EC and Article 301 EC for restrictive measures as stipulated in Regulation 1390(2000) imposes such measures against persons that associate with Al-Qaida. This interpretation creates a bridge that is procedural in the EU together with Community competences in relation to policies of commercial and capital movement freely in regards with actual wording in adopting diverse measures that affect economic relations with third parties or countries. Such interpretation gets no support in Article 301 EC that issues material competence in the Community.15 The purpose and subject matter doesn’t mean that the it creates to international trade that its intention is it promote and govern facilitation of trade and, therefore, it dwell on community powers when it comes to policies of commerce. Measures in the Community fall in field of acceptability of Article 133 EC if it dwell on trade ta an international level that facilitates trade with products in question. The regulation cannot be considered to fall under the Treaty of European Commission for purposes of free movement of goods to third countries and capital. Article 57(2) EC, measures that are restrictive do not fall within the ambit in its Regulations.16 Article 60(1) EC the article 57(2) fails to furnish its objective of its regulation. Article 60(2) European Commission excludes Community competence where it does not enable Member States on exceptional grounds to have unilateral measures that are against third parties on issues of capital movement and payments where the Council requires Member state to abolish such measures. Article 308 EC allows Article 60 EC and Article 301 EC to adopt Community measures of not only the purpose in the Community but also the objectives of external relations in the EU Treaty that deal with security policy and common foreign that run under the wording of Article 308 EC.17 In consideration of actions of the Community that deal with measures of Article 60 EC and 301 EC and EU Treaty PURPOSES of external relations that, include the CFSP. The wording of the Treaty and its structure provides a foundation for the relations of applications of their guidelines especially in regards to Article 308 of the EC Treaty.18 European Commission in article 308 establishes actions stipulated deal with the common market operations that it is tasked with obtaining and is intended to attain the objectives.19 Coexistence between the Union and the Community and constitutional architecture by the Treaty has considerations of institutional nature without any provisions being extended of the regulation. Article 308 EC that is part of an institutional system that deals with principles of conferred powers are not applied for purposes of enlarging the powers of eh Community by the framework of the EC Treaty with definition of activities and tasks of the Community. Article 3 EU also cannot supply the base for Community powers to be widened that extend beyond the objects of eth Community.20 Article 308 EC fills the gap where there are no provisions that confer the institutions of the Community to act where they are unable to carry out their functions and duties to attain the objectives as stipulated in the regulation. The law No 881/2002 imposes measures that are restrictive that deal with particular entities and persons who are in touch with Al-Qaeda and impose restrictive measures of financial and economic nature that is in Article 60 EC and 301 EC.21 These provisions fail to have implied and express powers of action in imposing such measures in the governing regime in a third country where the regulation applies. A recourse stipulated in Article 308 EC for its legal basis that provides a foundation for its scope where other stipulations in the application of Article 308 EC rare satisfied.22 The contested Regulation objectives are to prevent such persons from disposing of any financial or economic resources to enable terrorists’ activities. It also refers to purposes in relation to Article 308 that deals with powers for the Community that have measure that area restrictive with a nature that is economic where its actions are implemented in the ambit of policies in security and of an economic nature, Article 60 and 301 of European Commission shows the purpose for ensuring such measure are adopted for the efficiency of the Community instruments to enable such objectives to be enhanced in the Community. When the Member imposes measures of financial and economic nature outlined by the guideline on a unilateral basis, states that the national and multiplication measure affects the market operation. Community acts apply the rule of law where institutions and signatories cannot escape court analysis of acts conformity in the Charter that deals with constitutional matters. It has a system that is complete that has procedures and remedies of a legal nature that allow the court in reviewing lawfulness of acts of such of international institutions do not impact powers allocation and autonomy of the Community legal system. Its Court ensures observation by jurisdictions provided under Article 220 EC that forms part of the Community platforms.23 UN Charter for Council for Security adopted Regulation No 881/2002 deals with restrictions on such measures that implements the resolution that. However the judicature for the community fails in jurisdiction under Article 220 EC in reviewing lawfulness of adopted resolutions by the international body even if it is limited to compatibility examination of the jus cogens and implementation of the Community measure. Judgments was issued by the judicature who decided the measure for the community that gives effect to resolutions of that kind and is viewed as being contrary to the rule of law principle in the legal order and may challenge the primacy of international law resolutions. Fundamental human rights for the integral guidelines of general application in rules where its implementation is ensured.24 It applies traditions in the constitution as guidelines that are used by signatories and guidelines by instruments of international nature in observance of purpose of protection of freedoms where collaboration is available by member states with signatories. The European Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms applies since it effects on its significance. Fundamental freedoms respect is a guideline of Community acts legality and for part of measures that are incompatible with respect to such rights and therefore not accepted in the Community. International agreements impose obligations that cannot affect prejudice of EC guidelines.25 These duties include rights to be respected and freedoms where there is always a condition for its lawfulness that law authorities in courts must analyse the system in terms of remedies of a legal nature as stipulated in the law. Community judicature in conferred powers by the European Commission must review the lawfulness of Community acts in regards to fundamental rights that establish Community law general principles. They must also analyse the measures of the in giving law effect in guidelines that are implemented by the Council of the Security in UN..26 Community acts in following international law must respect it fully especially when exercising powers and measures adopted by virtue of such powers where it is interpreted in view of international law and rules.27 The community must have attached special importance in accordance with Article 24 of the UN Charter where they constitute the primary responsibility where the international body deals with maintained by peace and security.28 The UN Charter fails to impose implementation of the Council Security resolutions where it is procedural applicability in legal domestic order respectfulness for every UN member. This regulation leaves Member of UN with the choice of other models for using of such resolutions and adopting them in their domestic legal order. The ECOWAS case in Commission v Council29 the ECJ held that the CFSP Council decision supported the moratorium on small arms in West Africa was annulled since it had adopted under Article 47 of TEU that strikes down the pillar that comes second. EU Treaty does not affect the Treaty that establishes the European Communities and, therefore, allows the ECJ to police the borders between EC and the intergovernmental pillars. In ECOWAS, it was argued that measures adopted in the EC Treaty of the development of aid where the court judge argue that the decision was correctly adopted in the framework of the CFSP. ECJ agreed with accordance to the view from the Commission where if the rule is used in pillars of intergovernmental manner and in the EC it becomes automatically used as part of the regulations.30 Ring and Skouboe Werge31 dealt with a first decision of unwariness under the Framework Directive on Employment 2000/78 where European Union had finalised on UN Convention on rights of persons in 2010. The court in this case did not use the meaning established under restrictive meaning and interpreted it in light of article 1 of CRPD. This case establishes that rights and freedom of persons in the European community must be strengthened and fulfilled without any unlawfulness. The EU is a donor in international development cooperation where it is the biggest market singly and partnering trader for countries that are developing and influences world policies in the market.32 It applies political, financial, and economic influences makes the EU an influential player in international development policy. Member States and the European Community share this development responsibility. The community policy complements the policies in the individual member states.33 The Treaty of Nice of 2003 provides the legal basis for the development of cooperation in EU. Article 177 deals with European development policy where the community aims to promote social and economic development in the global economy. This ensures that freedoms and the rule of law were strengthened.34 EU is a player in international development aid where the foundation for development cooperation is established in the Treaty on Functioning of the European Union35. It is main objective of EU is to reduce and eradicate poverty. The development policy has grown tremendously and in turn been strengthened. It also deals with the territories and countries that are in overseas that are connected in the Union in one way or another and have been extended to countries that are developing. Pillars are formed from such policies of external relations of the UN that issue tailored needs in developing countries.36 The Lisbon Treaty where the Union takes into view the cooperation development purpose in its implementation of policies and affects developing countries which is stipulated in Article 208 strengthens the judicial foundation of policy coherence. The European Union forms the development cooperation where grants are formed from other partner countries, organizations, and regions. EU being a member the stakes up this cooperation.37 For purposes of strengthening the effectiveness of the EU development cooperation, it directs support to areas that are limited for the purpose of cooperation.EU activities for change places practical changes with ongoing development programmes where there is a report on implementation of its development policy and foreign aid. The Commission on an annual basis publishes it.38 The EU Development Cooperation Instrument is a portfolio in the EU budget that deals with region and country specific. It offers thematic instruments that are used for support of cooperation that focuses on development themes in eth world. Cooperation policies are decided by member states.39 Conclusion The EU International Relations law has totally been revolutionized by the ECOWAS, and Kadi judgments were fundamental freedoms have been changed, and key development cooperation policies have been enhanced. The CFSP has also become more effective in its operations in eth Union. References Case Law Joined Cases C‑335/11 and C‑337/11 Ring and Werge (CJEU, 11 April 2013) Case T-315/01 Kadi v Council and Commission [Kadi I CFI][2005] ECR II-3649 Commission v Council (C-91/05) Books and Articles Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Bartels, ‘The Trade and Development Policy of the European Union’ in Cremona (ed), Developments in EU External Relations Law (Oxford: OUP, 2008) 128-171 Cremona in Cremona & de Witte (eds.), EU Foreign Relations Law, Chap. 5 Dashwood & Maresceau (eds.), Law and Practice of EU External Relations (CUP, 2008), Chap. 6 by Wessel De Baere, G. (2008). Constitutional principles of EU external relations. Oxford University Press. De Baere, G. (2010). The Framework of EU External Competences for Developing the External Dimensions of EU Asylum and Migration Policy. Leuven Centre for Global Governance Centre Working Papers, 1-41. De Búrca, ‘The EU in the Negotiation of the UN Disability Convention’ (2010) 35 European Law Review 174 (via Westlaw on the Library Gateway) DI FEDERICO, G. (2011). The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights from declaration to binding instrument. Dordrecht, Springer. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=666948. Duke, S., & Blockmans, S. (2010). The Lisbon Treaty stipulations on development cooperation and the council decision of 25 March 2010 (Draft) establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service. European Institute of Public Administration. DUNOFF, J. L., & POLLACK, M. A. (2013). Interdisciplinary perspectives on international law and international relations: the state of the art. Eckes, ‘Judicial Review of European Anti-Terrorism Measures — the Yusuf and Kadi Judgments of the Court of First Instance’ (2008) 14 European Law Journal 74 Fontanelli, F. (2009). Court Goes All In, The. Eur. JL Reform, 11, 473. Gardner & Eizenstat, ‘New Treaty, New Influence? Foreign policy has always been the weakest element of Europe’s integration project. But with the Lisbon Treaty now in effect the European Union has more power to implement foreign policy decisions – on paper, at least’ (2009) 89 Foreign Affairs 104 Global Governance?’ in Van Vooren, Blockmans & Wouters (eds), The EU’s Role in Global Governance: The Legal Dimension (OUP, 2013), Chap. 19, 306-321 (on Moodle) Herlin-Karnell, E. (2009). Case C-301/06, Ireland v. Parliament and Council, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 February 2009. Common Market Law Review, 46(5), 1667-1684. Hillion & Koutrakos (eds), Mixed Agreements Revisited – the EU and its Member States in the World (Hart, 2010) Hillion, C. (2009). Mixity and coherence in EU external relations: the significance of the duty of cooperation. Centre for the Law of EU External Relations (CLEER). Hillion, C. (2014). Tous pour un, un pour tous! Coherence in the external relations of the European Union. Coherence in the External Relations of the European Union (March 6, 2014). M. Cremona (ed.), Developments in EU External Relations Law, Collected Courses of the Academy of European Law (Oxford, Oxford University press, 2008) pp, 10-36. Hillion, C., & Wessel, R. A. (2009). Competence distribution in EU external relations after Ecowas: Clarification or continued fuzziness?. Common Market Law Review, 46(2), 551-586. Klamert, M., & Maydell, N. (2008). Lost in exclusivity: implied non-exclusive external competences in community law. European Foreign Affairs Review, 13, 493-5. Koedooder, C., & de Lang, N. (2009). Anti-terrorist Blacklisting in the European Union: The Influence of National Procedures on the Judgments of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities. Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 36(4), 313-337. Merket, H. (2012). The external action paradox of the Lisbon Treaty: reconciling integration with delimitation. In International graduate conference: United We Stand?. Meyn, ‘Economic Partnership Agreements: A ‘Historic Step’ Towards a ‘Partnership of Equals’?’ (2008) 26 Development Policy Review 515 Quille, The Lisbon Treaty and its implications for CFSP/ESDP, Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union, Directorate B, Policy Department, European Parliament, February 2008. Available at: Schneider, Human Rights Conditionality in the EU’s Generalised System of Preferences: Legitimacy, Legality and Reform, [2012] ZEuS 301 [Moodle] Stevens, ‘The EU, Africa and Economic Partnership Agreements: unintended consequences of policy leverage’ (2006) 44 Journal of Modern African Studies 441 Tzanou, M. (2009). Case-note on Joined Cases C-402/05 P & C-415/05 P Yassin Abdullah Kadi & Al Barakaat Interantional Foundation v. Council of the European Union & Commission of the European Communities. German LJ, 10, 123. Van Elsuwege, ‘EU External Action after the Collapse of the Pillar Structure : In Search of a New Balance between Delimitation and Consistency’ (2010) 47 Common Market Law Review 987 Van Ooik, R. (2008). Cross-Pillar Litigation Before the ECJ. European Constitutional Law Review, 4(03), 399-419. Van Vooren, ‘A Legal-Institutional Perspective on the European External Action Service’ (2011) 48 Common Market Law Review 475 Van Vooren, B. (2009). EU–EC external competences after the small arms judgment. European Foreign Affairs Review, 14(1), 7-24. Van Vooren, B. (2009). The small arms judgment in an age of constitutional turmoil. European Foreign Affairs Review, 14(2), 231-248. Weiler, The Constitution of Europe (Cambridge, 1999), Chap. 4 Wessel, R. A. (2008). The EU as a party to international agreements: shared competences, mixed responsibilities. In Law and practice of EU external relations: salient features of a changing landscape (pp. 152-187). Cambridge University Press. Wessel, R. A. (2009). The dynamics of the European Union legal order: An increasingly coherent framework of action and interpretation. European Constitutional Law Review, 5(01), 117-142. Read More