In the past few years, almost half of the Verfassungsbeschwerden (individual constitutional complaints) brought before the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG –Federal Constitutional Court) claimed a violation of the Recht auf rechtliches Gehör (right to a hearing in court), guaranteed in Art. 103 para. 1 of the Grundgesetz (GG – German Basic Law). These constitutional complaints do not only constitute the largest number of all constitutional complaints, they are also the most successful ones: If such a violation is plausible, then the Court usually does not make use of its discretion to refuse to hear the case, but rules on the merits in favor of the complainants.

This paper examines recent institutional and structural developments relating to unified supervision of financial services in Germany. The main thrust of the academic debate concerning unified supervision of financial services was started in the UK. More recently, international organizations have taken an interest in the subject. Some of the issues confronting countries the world-over with respect to the unified supervision of financial services are whether to adopt unified supervision and, if so, how to structure the institutional and regulatory framework for unified agencies. At the outset, it must be pointed out that issues of regulatory organization are essentially second order issues. Far more important—and the first order issue— is the implementation of financial regulation, in particular supervisory capacity and its quality and the soundness of the legal framework underlying the regulatory process.

The ancient Latin saying volenti non fit iniuria (loosely translated: if you consent you cannot complain) denotes a legal principle on a par with principles such as pacta sunt servanda or non concedit venire contra factum proprium. As a defence to tort claims well established in both the civil and the common law tradition, the phrase articulates an universal value that has never been seriously contested. Why, then, does a young German scholar devote a complete habilitation (professoral thesis) to the study of such an expression? The answer is clear: as with any general principle of law, the problems start once you try to apply them to a specific case. Unlike rules, principles do not lend themselves to easy execution but require thorough reasoning, taking into account the fact that principles may work both ways. For example, if a seller does not deliver the promised good in time, he may invoke the principle of pacta sunt servanda in order to convince a judge that despite his breach the contract should be upheld. Likewise, the buyer may claim that, since the seller did not keep his promise (i.e., violated the said principle), she does not have to keep hers either.

The above question was raised by Ewoud Hondius a few years ago in his regularly held lectures on the state of consumer law in Europe at the University of Utrecht. The European consumer programme in its basic structure dates from the years 1975 respectively 1981. It is rooted in President Kennedy's message to the consumers from the year 1962. Substantial variations cannot be recognised regarding both consumer programmes. Notifications, programmatic declarations and new impulses adopted after 1981 – the titles of the messages were changing constantly – did not alter the fundamental statement of the original programme. If President Kennedy's message is proceeded from, then it could be formulated, with some exaggeration, that European consumer law in its fundamental ideas is 40 years old.

The United Nations Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights unanimously approved the “Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with regard to Human Rights” (the Norms) on 13 August 2003. Together with the interpretative Commentary, the Norms constitute an authoritative guide to corporate social responsibility. They are the first set of comprehensive international human rights norms specifically aimed at and applying to transnational corporations and other business entities (companies). They set out the responsibilities of companies with regard to human rights and labor rights, and provide guidelines for companies in conflict zones. They prohibit bribery and provide obligations with regard to consumer protection and the environment. General provisions of implementation include the obligation to provide reparation for a failure to comply with the Norms.

Originally, a number of French and German historians and legal scholars merely planned to meet in Berlin at the Centre Marc Bloch to speak - both in French and in German - about the interdisciplinary challenges that have been emerging with regard to historians working on the history of law or, legal history. Eventually, the dimensions of the envisioned meeting widened as PhD-students and fellows working at the Centre and at other institutions expressed their interest in the topic. Step by step, he initial scope was extended to grow into a full day's workshop on June 24th, 2003, attracting some twenty-five scholars of history, law and the history of art to Berlin's Schiffbauer Damm, where the Centre Marc Bloch is situated. The workshop, organized by Anne-Sophie Beau, Isabelle Deflers, Thomas Horstmann, Guillaume Mouralis and Petra Overath, convened under the title: “History and Law: a mutual approach. Assessing the Dialogue between the History of Law and the Historical Sciences”.