The European Union is unique among jurisdictions in having constitutionalized its policy goals and methods, by embedding these in the Treaties. As a result, the legislature is far more constrained in its activities than is the case in other constitutional orders. Yet the Treaties are indeterminate, and it is the Court of Justice which interprets and delimits them, and instructs the legislature on how and to what extent it may pursue them. There is, in substance, a principal-agent relationship between the Court and the EU legislature, enforceable by the Court's capacity to annul legislation contrary to its preferences. An examination of internal market legislation shows that indeed it consists of codification of prior case law. The judicial constraints on the EU legislature are sufficiently tight that the legislature is more akin to a subordinate implementing regulator than to an autonomous political policy-maker.

Most cases involving EU law are decided in national courtrooms without a preliminary reference. The influence of the Court on these cases is often overstated by focusing on headline principles, such as mutual recognition and state liability. However, application of these principles in specific cases is often mediated by open norms such as proportionality, which allow much national court discretion. Whether national judges apply these open norms in a prointegration way determines how far the broader principles directly impact on the national legal system, and on national regulators: these latter will condition their behaviour according to their expectations of the national judiciary, since these are the judges to which they are directly subject. The Court's role here is important, but limited. It enables and encourages pro-integration national judicial choices, but its case law does not compel them. Claims of activism need to be partly relocated from Luxembourg to national courts.

This eagerly awaited new edition has been significantly revised after extensive user feedback to meet current teaching requirements. The first major textbook to be published since the rejuvenation of the Lisbon Treaty, it retains the best elements of the first edition – the engaging, easily understandable writing style, extracts from a variety of sources showing the creation, interpretation and application of the law and comprehensive coverage. In addition it has separate chapters on EU law in national courts, governance and external relations reflecting the new directions in which the field is moving. The examination of the free movement of goods and competition law has been restructured. Chapter introductions clearly set out what will be covered in each section allowing students to approach complex material with confidence and detailed further reading sections encourage further study. Put simply, it is required reading for all serious students of EU law.

No abstract

In recent cases concerning mobile citizens and access to social assistance the Court has sided with Member States against the litigating citizens. Given that in early cases it sided with the litigants, this has created the impression of a change in judicial perspective. This article looks at the most discussed sub-set of cases, and argues that a more plausible explanation lies in the changing characteristics of the litigants themselves -recent claims for social assistance are based on less meritorious facts. This raises a broader issue about research into judicial decisions: Trends in outcomes cannot be analysed without taking account of possible trends in inputs. These may vary due to changes in skills or strategies at national courts or authorities, or social changes leading to different litigant characteristics. Unless accounted for, claims that a court is changing its approach will be unreliable.