<?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/10.17176/20171006-150919</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>https://staging.verfassungsblog.de/no-donum-danaorum-a-reply-to-daniel-thyms-a-trojan-horse/</dc:identifier>
  <dc:title>No Donum Danaorum! A reply to Daniel Thym’s “A Trojan Horse?”</dc:title>
  <dc:creator>Breuer, Marten</dc:creator>
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:date>2013-09-16</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>Does the draft agreement on the accession of the EU to the ECHR challenge the primacy of EU Law? Marten Breuer, unlike his colleague from Konstanz Daniel Thym, does not think so.</dc:description>
</dc>
