Astrophysics Telescope for Large Area Spectroscopy Probe is a concept for a National Aeronautics and Space Administration probe-class space mission that will achieve ground-breaking science in the fields of galaxy evolution, cosmology, Milky Way, and the Solar System. It is the follow-up space mission to Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST), boosting its scientific return by obtaining deep 1–4 μm slit spectroscopy for ∼70% of all galaxies imaged by the ∼2 000 deg2 WFIRST High Latitude Survey at z > 0.5. Astrophysics Telescope for Large Area Spectroscopy will measure accurate and precise redshifts for ∼200 M galaxies out to z < 7, and deliver spectra that enable a wide range of diagnostic studies of the physical properties of galaxies over most of cosmic history. Astrophysics Telescope for Large Area Spectroscopy Probe and WFIRST together will produce a 3D map of the Universe over 2 000 deg2, the definitive data sets for studying galaxy evolution, probing dark matter, dark energy and modifications of General Relativity, and quantifying the 3D structure and stellar content of the Milky Way. Astrophysics Telescope for Large Area Spectroscopy Probe science spans four broad categories: (1) Revolutionising galaxy evolution studies by tracing the relation between galaxies and dark matter from galaxy groups to cosmic voids and filaments, from the epoch of reionisation through the peak era of galaxy assembly; (2) Opening a new window into the dark Universe by weighing the dark matter filaments using 3D weak lensing with spectroscopic redshifts, and obtaining definitive measurements of dark energy and modification of General Relativity using galaxy clustering; (3) Probing the Milky Way’s dust-enshrouded regions, reaching the far side of our Galaxy; and (4) Exploring the formation history of the outer Solar System by characterising Kuiper Belt Objects. Astrophysics Telescope for Large Area Spectroscopy Probe is a 1.5 m telescope with a field of view of 0.4 deg2, and uses digital micro-mirror devices as slit selectors. It has a spectroscopic resolution of R = 1 000, and a wavelength range of 1–4 μm. The lack of slit spectroscopy from space over a wide field of view is the obvious gap in current and planned future space missions; Astrophysics Telescope for Large Area Spectroscopy fills this big gap with an unprecedented spectroscopic capability based on digital micro-mirror devices (with an estimated spectroscopic multiplex factor greater than 5 000). Astrophysics Telescope for Large Area Spectroscopy is designed to fit within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration probe-class space mission cost envelope; it has a single instrument, a telescope aperture that allows for a lighter launch vehicle, and mature technology (we have identified a path for digital micro-mirror devices to reach Technology Readiness Level 6 within 2 yr). Astrophysics Telescope for Large Area Spectroscopy Probe will lead to transformative science over the entire range of astrophysics: from galaxy evolution to the dark Universe, from Solar System objects to the dusty regions of the Milky Way.

The original authors of Billman et al. (2000) are joined by three other analysts from the Cowboy Wash research team to respond to the critique of this article by Dongoske et al. (2000). Dongoske and his coauthors state that Billman et al. (2000) failed to test alternative hypotheses or to consider alternative explanations for the findings at 5MT10010 and similar sites. The original authors point out that alternative hypotheses were examined and rejected, leaving a violent episode of cannibalism as the most plausible explanation for the remains found at 5MT10010. Dongoske et al. also question many aspects of the osteological, archaeological, coprolite, and biochemical analyses that were presented in the 5MT10010 study. Our response addresses issues of data collection, procedure, and interpretation, and attempts to clarify some points that were not fully developed in the original text due to length restrictions.

Article N of the Treaty on European Union (TEU ) called for an intergovernmental conference (IGC) in 1996 to reform the articles of the Treaty for which a revision is provided. Also, it was felt that the institutional question should be addressed before the next wave of enlargement; the institutional structure which was adopted to deal with six member States could hardly be stretched further to include the Eastern European applicant States. A complete re-engineering of the institutional framework was required. Furthermore, the reform of the institutions should tend to increase democracy in the Union.

This area of law is dominated by the drive towards harmonisation, and a considerable body of legislation and case law continues to be generated. The vision is of investment in creativity and innovation, leading to growth and competitiveness of a wide range of European industries. Significant progress—sometimes unexpected—can be recorded in certain areas, but it should also be acknowledged that the scale of the problems precludes easy solutions in others.

In the last two years, there has been a dearth of legislative initiatives in the field of company law.1 This may be attributed to several reasons. Whilst the company law harmonisation programme is now largely complete, the principle of subsidiarity has to some extent hampered moves toward further harmonisation. Disagreement still reigns over certain crucial issues such as employee participation in corporate management. Also, in the light of the objective to advance EMU, there has been a shift in the Community's priorities. The search for consensus continues in relation to the proposal for a thirteenth company law directive on take-overs and the proposed European Company Statute, although, currently, the national delegations seem to be closer to agreement in relation to the latter than in relation to the former.2

The Treaty of Amsterdam, signed on 2 October 1997 and in force since 1 May 1999, will make important changes to the external powers and procedures of the European Union.

Since the last note on this subject,1 developments have focused on continuing problems: financing new infrastructure; allocation of the true costs of transport among those who generate them; and external relations. In addition, further more detailed legislative measures have been adopted for each mode of transport.

The last contribution on this topic, which was published in the July 1997 issue of the Quarterly,1 examined the Court's remarkable ruling in CIA Security International S.A. v. Signalson SA and Securitel SPRL,2 in which the Full Court decided that where a member State neglects to notify draft national technical regulations to the Commission in breach of the obligations set out in Directive 83/189,3 it may not rely on those regulations in subsequent proceedings before national courts. The Court's ruling attaches a meaningful penalty to State failure to abide by the obligations of notification stipulated by the Directive. It thereby induces compliance with requirements of transparency on which the Commission pins great faith in its “post-1992” strategy for the management of the internal market. The case law since CIA Security has generated a sufficient number of further illuminating rulings to justify a further tour of the area in this contribution.

The last time this column appeared1 there was considerable discussion about the proposals being considered at the then ongoing intergovernmental conference (IGC). Not surprisingly the proposals of the UK government in its Memorandum on the Court of Justice were not adopted in the Treaty of Amsterdam. No institutional changes have been made in relation to the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance. So the approval of their Rules of Procedure is still subject to the approval of the Council and their terms of office are still six years but can be renewed.

The period under consideration (mid-1995 to March 1998) was a relatively quiet one for Article 85. Note should be taken of the publication in 1997 of the Commission's Green Paper on vertical restraints in competition policy,1 which is likely to lead to a significant overhaul of a number of block exemption regulations. The existing block exemptions on patent licensing and know-how agreements2 were merged into a new single block exemption on technology transfer.3 Perhaps the most interesting and potentially far-reaching development was the Commission decision in Bayer/Adalat,4 in which the Commission characterised as agreements—and so falling within Article 85—attempts by the German chemicals group Bayer to limit supplies of a range of pharmaceutical products from its wholly owned distributors in other member States to wholesalers there in order to stem parallel exports. This was not an Article 86 case (Bayer was not dominant in the relevant product market), of which refusal to sell is more commonly a feature, and an agreement between manufacturer and distributor/wholesaler which prohibits re-export of the contract goods has long been recognised as falling within Article 85(1). But in Bayer/Adalat the wholesalers never agreed to the (alleged) export ban, and in fact resisted Bayer's attempts to limit supplies both directly and by subterfuge. Nevertheless, the Commission found an agreement between the Bayer distributors and the wholesalers, effectively simply in continuing to deal, the former having committed “an infringement of Article 85(1) by imposing an export ban as part of their continuous commercial relations with [the latter]”,5 the ban having “been agreed [sic] as part of their ongoing business relations”.6

Taking stock in its Agenda 2000—For a Stronger and Wider Union,1 the Commission offered a frank view of the shortcomings in this field. “Rural policy of the Union”, it said, “still appears as a juxtaposition of agricultural market policy, structural, and environmental policy with rather complex instruments and lacking overall coherence.”2 Consequently, the Commission sees an “urgent need for a radical simplification of rules and a greater, decentralisation of policy implementation”.3

The last note1 on this subject recorded that the Commission's proposals for the definitive VAT system (initially envisaged to be presented before 31 December 1994) were still awaited.

The internal financial market is still far from its completion. Parts of the financial market and certain financial institutions are not yet covered by implementing directives. In areas that are covered by directives, transposition by member States has not removed important practical barriers to cross-border establishment and provision of services. An interesting feature of the current developments in the EC regulation of financial markets is the Commission's use of “Communications” to implement Treaty freedoms and so to remedy the situation where the member States have blocked proposals for a directive or where unacceptable barriers remain after their transposition.

The addition of “Justice and Home Affairs” (JHA) to the list of subjects covered in Current Developments reflects the growing significance of this area of European law and policy within the overall Treaty framework. In this introductory note, a brief account is given of the history of co-operation between EU member States in JHA matters, culminating in the significant changes announced in the Treaty of Amsterdam in October 1997. It is a historical record which is marked by discontinuity and institutional complexity, full justice to which would require detailed analysis. Here we confine ourselves instead to a broad-brush approach, seeking to highlight the main themes which have characterised JHA co-operation. In future notes particular areas and issues of current interest will be examined more closely.

The European Commission has adopted an Action Plan to speed up the full implementation of the Single European Market. As part of its strategy the Commission has launched a stream of cases under Article 169 of the EC Treaty seeking to ensure the implementation of Community law in the fields covered by this note, which takes up and explains some of them. The first case is Commission v. Belgium where the European Court found that the Belgian rules, which effectively excluded those searching for work from Belgium after three months, contravened the job-seekers rights derived from Article 48 as interpreted in Antonissen. The Antonissen rights have also been extended to Turkish workers lawfully resident in Germany. Germany found itself condemned for failing to implement directives

In the past 18 months developments which have been most relevant to the transport industry as a whole involve the control of State aids and external relations. In addition, at the end of 1995, the Commission published a Green Paper entitled “Fair and Efficient Pricing in Transport”,1 the aim of which was to initiate a debate on how best to allocate the true costs of transport among those who generate them, in the fairest manner. The argument of the paper is that each form of transport should bear the external costs for which it is responsible. This position has been hotly disputed.

The period since the last note on this subject has been eventful.1 There have been some important legislative measures, and a good deal of significant case law. However, contradictory messages are being conveyed. The volume of legislation marks the Community's recognition of the economic value of intellectual property rights in international trade. Its broad aim is, as always, to achieve a level playing-field for competition, and to integrate the market by removing restrictions on the free movement of goods. Yet the unwavering adherence to the principle of free movement is being challenged in several areas, precisely because of its effect on competition, notably in the pharmaceuticals market.

1. From “Sunday trading” to Keck and Mithouard

These Current Developments surveys have consistently been driven to consideration of the Court's attempts to fix the outer limits of Article 30 of the EC Treaty, beyond which national authorities remain exclusively competent to regulate their markets without fear of legal challenge based on Community rules governing the free movement of goods. The high-water mark of judicial interventionism came in the so-called “Sunday trading” cases where the United Kingdom was required to justify against standards recognised by Community law rules governing shop opening hours despite the fact that such rules, although inhibitive of commercial freedom, posed no demonstrable obstacle to the construction of an integrated marketing strategy for the whole territory of the Community.1 In Criminal Proceedings against Keck and Mithouard2 the Court sought to curtail the reach of Article 30. A French rule prohibiting resale at a loss was held unaffected by Article 30. The Court overruled previous decisions, probably including the pair dealing with Sunday trading, although the Court was not explicit. Its intention to refocus the law of the free movement of goods on measures hostile to market integration, rather than those merely oppressive of commercial freedom, was reflected in the formula:

Although these last two years have been relatively quiet in terms of institutional developments, a number of important inter-institutional agreements have been negotiated in order to facilitate the working of some of the powers granted by the Maastricht Treaty, while some other powers were used for the first time: the European Ombudsman has issued his first report, the European Parliament has set up two Committees of Inquiry. Lastly, the European Court of Justice delivered an important opinion as regards the European Convention on Human Rights.

The enlargement of the European Union from 1 January 1995 by the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden inevitably necessitated amendments to much Community legislation.1