The first punctual question arising is how, in its (single) constitutional being, a body such as the Union combines its constituent roots in the original founding authorities (the states) with those, autonomous, in its own institutions. These are the ECJ for interpretation; the political institutions for practice and convention. In other words, what is the actual relationship, under the urge of change, between the states as treaty masters and the European Council, the Council, the Parliament and the Court? Secondly, there is the question as to how these shared constituent roots reflect not on constitutional change but on the day-to-day legislative and executive functioning of the Union's body politic. The coming constitutional settlement on the euro's financial support mechanism will not only consist of a new treaty. It will also take the form of secondary legislation and case-law. A third, most fundamental, question is how this ever-unfinished constitutional situation, imperfect by definition, will ultimately allow the development of a sound relationship between the authorities and the people, a relationship which is at the heart of any constitutional settlement. The last question (for now) sends us back to the one put in a previous editorial (in issue 1 of this year). It is: how to account for this incomplete and urged situation in a single and coherent constitutional reading?

Council Decision of July 2010 to authorize enhanced cooperation for the first time – Planned Regulation on conflicts of law in divorce – Analysis of the application of the substantive and procedural rules applying to the authorization of enhanced cooperation in this case – Links between the planned legislation on this issue and other EU or international rules on related topics – Broader impact of the decision upon the EU legal order

Rule of law – Constitutional principle – Meaning – Scope of Application – Justiciability – Audit of the European Union's Constitutional Framework – Lisbon Treaty

Services Directive – Peculiar harmonisation technique – Unusual design – Key provisions giving rise to constitutional problems – Special derogation system – Freezing of the Rule of Reason – (In)compatibility with EU primary law – Appropriate legal basis? – Non–transposition by several member states – Arguments for a benign assessment of the Commission and the Court – Problematic enforcement in horizontal situations – Possible solutions and their shortcomings – Overall need for a flexible approach

Modern age technology spurs legal development – Temporal coincidence of conflicting national and Union legislative processes triggers interdependence between EU and member states – French Loi Hadopi cuts Internet without recourse to a court – Conseil constitutionnel enshrines Internet as fundamental freedom – EU telecoms reform incorporates several French fundamental rights safeguards

On 4 March 2010 the Court of Justice of the European Union issued its first judgment on the conformity with EU law of national provisions implementing Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family reunification. In the case Chakroun v. Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken the Court had to rule on the Dutch implementing measures concerning resource requirements and the concepts of family reunification and family formation.

On 16 December 2009, the UK Supreme Court held a state-funded Jewish school to be guilty of discrimination based on ethnic origin in the way it operated its admissions policies. The Jewish Free School (JFS), one of the top-performing schools in the country, refused a place to a thirteen year old boy, M., because it did not consider him Jewish. It is a fundamental tenet of traditional Judaism that to be Jewish one must be born of Jewish mother or to a woman who converted into Judaism prior to his/her birth. M.'s father was Jewish by birth, but his mother, who was originally an Italian Catholic, had converted to Judaism with the criteria set by a non-orthodox branch of Judaism. The School's admissions standards only recognized orthodox criteria for conversion as valid, hence deeming neither M. nor his mother to be Jewish.

About one year after the European Court of Justice had handed down its notorious decision on the Data Retention Directive concerning telecommunications traffic data, it was for the German Federal Constitutional Court to take a final decision on the German implementation of the Directive. So far, the latter Court had only issued temporary injunctions restricting data retrieval by the public authorities. Now, the final ruling by the Court has been anxiously awaited since the complainants had not only challenged the German provisions implementing the Directive, but also the Directive itself. Thus, the question was raised whether the Court would finally, for the first time in its history, initiate a preliminary ruling procedure according to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.