<?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/10.17176/20171006-152151</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>https://staging.verfassungsblog.de/a-trojan-horse-challenges-to-the-primacy-of-eu-law-in-the-draft-agreement-on-accession-to-the-echr/</dc:identifier>
  <dc:title>A Trojan Horse? Challenges to the Primacy of EU Law in the Draft Agreement on Accession to the ECHR</dc:title>
  <dc:creator>Thym, Daniel</dc:creator>
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:date>2013-09-11</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 negotiations for a draft agreement on the accession of the EU to the ECHR was quite successful – and yet the draft provokes a couple of questions, bringing us back to the original challenges to the primacy of Union law, which the CJEU has always been eager to deter. It might do so again: just before the summer recess, the European Commission referred the matter to the CJEU in Luxembourg, in Opinion 2/13 whether the Draft Accession Agreement falls foul of the EU Treaties.</dc:description>
</dc>
