<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/simpledc20021212.xsd">
  <dc:identifier>http://dx.doi.org/10.17176/20180727-105046-1</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>https://staging.verfassungsblog.de/a-clever-compromise-or-a-tectonic-shift-the-lm-jugment-of-the-cjeu/</dc:identifier>
  <dc:title>A Clever Compromise or a Tectonic Shift? The LM Jugment of the CJEU</dc:title>
  <dc:creator>Sonnevend, Pál</dc:creator>
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:date>2018-07-27</dc:date>
  <dc:type>electronic resource</dc:type>
  <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
  <dc:subject>ddc:342</dc:subject>
  <dc:publisher>Verfassungsblog</dc:publisher>
  <dc:relation>Verfassungsblog--2366-7044</dc:relation>
  <dc:rights>CC BY-NC-ND 4.0</dc:rights>
  <dc:description>The LM judgment is certainly not the end, rather the beginning of a development. Its teaching is not that systemic deficiencies of the judiciary do not matter. Rather, such deficiencies shall be addressed systemically. Such systemic solutions may force the respective member state to adjust without making its participation in the EU abruptly impossible.</dc:description>
</dc>
