Ten years ago, as the European Constitutional Treaty was made ready for signature, this journal was made ready for launching. Both events would take place at the end of October 2004. Our first issue was, of course, devoted to the Treaty. It broke down the document's substance into twenty-four key topics, each dealt with in turn by the members of the editorial and the advisory boards. From that first issue, the course of this journal would become inspired less by the document, however, than by the events concerning the constitutional settlement as it evolved for the Union.

Time appears in the development of law in several capacities. One of its powers is to provide relief for courts gridlocked in contradictory claims of hierarchy. That is the topic of this editorial. A showcase is provided by the Melki saga, as it recently unfolded in a rich and rushed contention between the French courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union, more commonly known as the Fiscal Compact, and the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) are closely linked in several ways. Both treaties are formally placed outside the European Union framework, but substantively govern Union matters. Together they are designed to combat the sovereign debt crisis which has been ravaging the European Union for years now. The Fiscal Compact does so by enhancing and sharpening budgetary discipline in the Eurozone states, the ESM Treaty by offering assistance to Eurozone states in financial distress. To receive financial aid from the ESM, states not only need to have ratified the Fiscal Compact, but also to have implemented a balanced budget rule in their national law in the way the Compact demands. Apart from combating the crisis, the Treaties also bring reforms to the Eurozone; they express the wish of the signatory parties to share their destinies in new ways.

Of the three branches of government traditionally distinguished since Montesquieu, two have received ample scholarly attention in their relation with the European Union. A plethora of books and articles have been written on the role and position of national courts and national parliaments in Europe. As to the former, the interaction of national courts with the Court of Justice of the European Union is still massively researched. As to the latter, it has been thoroughly analysed how national parliaments were sidelined from the start of the integration process, only to regain lost ground later. In particular, attempts to include the national parliaments in EU decision-making, via the renewed Subsidiarity Protocol among other ways, have attracted numerous research activities.

In between the writing of this editorial and the publication of this issue of EuConst, the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union, in everyday parlance the ‘Fiscal Compact’, will have been signed by the representatives of the governments of the contracting parties — the member states of the European Union minus the United Kingdom and the Czech Republic. The Fiscal Compact is intended to foster budgetary discipline, to strengthen the coordination of economic policies and to improve the governance of the euro area.

Seven of the member states of the European Union are monarchies. They are, in alphabetical order, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. It is to these European monarchies that the European Constitutional Law Review dedicates a series of articles. Its aim is to find answers to questions regarding their current organization and legitimation, the (remaining) monarchical competences or powers and the republican ‘opposition’. The overriding aim is to see what the Union means for them and how monarchies can survive constitutionally in the European Union (if at all).

Constituent power of the courts, in dialogue, accommodation or even collaboration, has become undeniable. It raises at least two points for scholarship to contemplate. First, what is the foundation of this power in terms of classical constitutional theory? Second, instead of or apart from the courts and their interactions: what is the relationship, in this constituent activity, between the courts and the political institutions, including the people?

The Bundesverfassungsgericht was castigated for the Maastricht-Urteil by most European lawyers, especially the Germans among them. But that judgment has placed its stamp on much of the constitutional development of the Union and has allowed theories of constitutional pluralism, polycentrism, multilevel constitutionalism, Verfassungsverbund and the constitution composée to flourish. The German constitutional court is likewise being castigated for its Lissabon-Urteil. Certainly, it has put the questions of democracy, the level at which democracy is to be aggregated and articulated, and the pertaining institutional arrangements in the member states and in the Union higher on the agenda of intellectual and political engagement than they have been over the last decades. Perhaps it will be just as fruitful for European constitutional theory as the Maastricht-Urteil was.

One of the most remarkable results of the elections for the European Parliament on 4–7 June 2009 is that the Swedish Piratpartiet won one seat, to which another will be added if the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force. One of the aims of this party is a reform of copyright law to restore the, in its eyes, lost balance between the potentially conflicting interests of creating and spreading culture. The party strives for, among other things, the decriminalisation of all non-commercial copying and use of copyrighted material on the internet.

To this day the founding treaties of the European Union contain no legally binding bill of rights in the traditional sense protecting religion, privacy, family life, the freedom of expression, and so forth. As we all know, while the European Court of Justice initially rejected appeals relying on fundamental rights as found in national constitutions, the Court changed its position under pressure of German courts.

At the time this issue of EuConst goes to the press, May 2007, the German presidency is nearing the climax of its efforts to solve the conundrum of the future EU treaty or constitution. There is no way of even guessing what the outcome will be, as every day brings a new set of circumstances and proposals.

The Conseil constitutionnel has spoken again. In a decision of 27 July 2006, no. 2006-540 DC, the French constitutional court has further and significantly elaborated on earlier rulings on the status of Community directives in the French legal order. In the summer of 2004, it had ruled, in cases in which it was asked to declare unconstitutional an act of parliament implementing Community directives, that ‘the transposing of a Community directive results from a constitutional requirement with which non-compliance is only possible by reason of an express contrary provision of the Constitution’ (decisions of, inter alia, 10 June 2004, no. 2004-496 DC and 29 July 2004, no. 2004-498 DC). Very recently, the Conseil d'Etat, France's highest administrative court, took a similar stance in a case in which the constitutionality of a government decree implementing a directive was at stake (Decision of 8 February 2007, Société Arcelor Atlantique et Lorraine et autres).