Protection of personal data as a fundamental right – GDPR’s enforcement dilemma in cross-border cases – “One-stop-shop” model’s inadequacies highlighted – Distinction: regular cross-border enforcement versus cases of common European concern – Proposal: centralised enforcement mechanism for cases of common European concern – Union supervisory authority as a solution – Insufficiencies of the harmonisation proposal of the European Commission – Centralisation’s advantages: uniform enforcement, better coordination, and curbing forum shopping – Implications: fundamental rights protection and EU’s constitutional obligations – Constructive critique of the one-stop-shop model, not a dismissal – European constitutional law mandates effective data protection enforcement.

Citizenship deprivation on security grounds – Difference in state practices – Underlying citizenship regimes and states’ constitutional structures – Constitutional roles attributed to the citizen – Judicial decisions on citizenship deprivation – Comparison with a focus on France and the United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights holds that the Bosphorus presumption of equivalent protection cannot apply to the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement – Its reasons focus on EEA Agreement’s lack of primacy, direct effect and adequate enforcement mechanisms – Not applying Bosphorus presumption to EEA Agreement results in the indirect review of EU law by the Strasbourg Court, given that EEA and EU law are substantially identical – Court’s arguments are open to strong criticism – However, its conclusions are correct – They are substantiated by two considerations, which were overlooked by the Court – First, EEA law is to be considered ‘freely entered into’ international law under the Matthews case law – Second, the EFTA Court lacks the power to strike down EEA law breaching upon fundamental rights – Both these consideration are the corollary of the fundamental premises of the EEA Agreement: the retention by EFTA states of sovereign decision-making powers – Refusal to apply Bosphorus presumption to EEA Agreement will likely determine a growing inconsistency between the Convention, EU and EEA law – This entails serious systemic problems

Judicial independence as a European constitutional principle – Freedom of expression of judges in connection with judicial independence – Rule of law backsliding – Catalan secession crisis – Spanish Constitutional Court disqualification doctrine of magistrates – Freedom of expression of judges in favour of the Catalan secessionist movement – Spanish soft law on judicial independence

Constitutional design – Constitutional degradation – Power sharing – The rule of law – Constitutionalism – Constitution making – Constitutional transition – Divided societies – Role of internal diversity – Bosnia-Herzegovina – Inherent degradation – Dynamic degradation – European Court of Human Rights – Sejdić and Finci – Constitutional Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina – Compliance issues with court judgments – Repression of the public sphere – Electoral discrimination of national minorities – High Representative – Lack of local ownership

Focus of the literature on the European West, overlooking the marginalised European Central-East – Assumption of all illiberal states equally resisting international courts – Hungary’s unique subtle push-back against the European Court of Human Rights compared to overt resistance against the European Court of Justice – Empirical analysis of original data – Three strategies to control the narrative of compliance – Status signalling to avoid international and domestic political repercussions – Friendly settlements and unilateral declarations as means of avoidance – Disguised non-compliance to convey bona fides – Negative narrative to subvert public opinion – Explaining state behaviour through rationalism and constructivism – Complementing constructivism with the identitarian counterwave in recently-emerged illiberal states – EU membership as a constraint – Illiberalism as fuel for Hungary’s resistance against the Strasbourg Court

The United Kingdom Human Rights Act 1998 – Constitutional migration – Impacts of legislative design and process on the internalisation of international standards – A taxonomy of migratory patterns under the Human Rights Act – Constitutional migration as a source of constitutional instability – Proposals for a British Bill of Rights

The German Federal Constitutional Court’s recent case law in context – A systematic account of the Federal Constitutional Court’s changing constitutional imagination – The constitutional footprint of the grand coalitions during Angela Merkel’s 16-year term as German Chancellor – The changing architecture of parliamentary government in the Federal Republic and the role of the Court – The supermajoritarian structure of the German political system – Majority rule and veto players – Legislation and parliamentary oversight – Executive autonomy and parliamentary control – Political representation and counter-representation by the Court – The constitutional nature of cabinet and ministerial responsibility – constitutional limits of political speech in government office – The normative model of administrative constitutionalism – The pouvoir neutre in the German constitution – The constitutionalisation of distributive justice

Private actors as non-institutional, and therefore often overlooked, participants in EU legal processes – A specific focus on their role as private regulators – Private actors such as companies, contracting parties and industry associations, play a pivotal regulatory role in the EU legal order – Classifying the existing legal research on private regulation – A legal-doctrinal approach towards private regulation also needed – Theoretical background of a novel legal-doctrinal perspective on private actors – Addressing the most pressing practical methodological challenges – Specific focus on the problem of accessibility and the difficulty of understanding and interpreting private regulation doctrinally

Judicial independence in the context of rule of law backsliding – a systematisation of case law from the Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights – classic dimensions of objective and subjective independence of judges – a new third dimension: the right of judges to their own independence as final safeguard

Putting ‘lobbyists’ and ‘lobbying’ on the EU law map – acknowledging that there is little interest in lobbying by EU legal research – explaining why EU lawyers and especially constitutional law scholars should be interested in lobbying – presenting a framework to study lobbyists as regulated actors under EU law – considering the merits of ethnographically-oriented socio-legal research and the ‘new legal realism’ as methods of studying lobbyists and lobbying.

Introduction to the special section – Actors of EU law – Activities of EU actors – Role definition in EU constitutional law – Constitutional theory – Separation of powers –Relationship between public authorities and individuals – Institutional actors – Private actors – Lobbyists – Law and practice – Legal doctrine – Research methods in EU law – Importance of theoretical frameworks in defining the parameters of legal research

Methodological choices in the legal study of the role of EU institutions – The so-called doctrinal legal method is appropriate, provided that it includes the analysis of key elements of non-legal institutional practice – Simple distinction between the study of ‘law in the books’ and that of ‘law in action’ to be qualified – Doctrinal legal scholarship is meaningful only when it acknowledges and incorporates a certain amount of ‘law in action’