However, in the
context of the Iraq war and the
constitutional momentum
of the Laeken
convention, delegates
of the
convention focussed on the reform
of EU foreign policy and ignored the proposed addition
of FDI to the CCP by Irish liberal - conservative MP John Bruton (Bruton was shortly thereafter appointed EU ambassador to the United States).
2) apart from the fact that CJEU stated that even before EU exercising its power, the MS must still act - when they have the power to do so - in a matter which does not jeopardise or prejudice the EU, so that the mere «potential» competence does have an effect, limitating the MS action, the parallel is that a negative rule is still a rule, so that the existence
of the rule makes the matter «regulated»: - as for the JHA, I must say that whilst I agree with you on the merits, I can see the issue raised by the CJEU, since it is quite the same raised by some national
Constitutional Courts, i.e. that ECHR standards may be in conflict with national standards and formally speaking the ECHR is a treaty and therefore has a lower rank that national Constititions, and the decision
of the ECHR on the interpretation
of such standards within the
context of the
Convention does not bind the national
Constitutional Court in interpreting the national Constitution standards: e.g..
The attraction
of the reference route, in comparison with Mr. Alani's challenge, is that Canadian courts have historically felt freer to deal with
constitutional conventions in that
context — notably in the Patriation Reference.