Explore the vast range of titles available.

This article explores the use of the systemic criterion in the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) case law on judicial independence under Article 19(1)(2) Treaty on European Union (TEU). It starts from the observation that ever since the Portuguese Judges judgment, the case law has moved towards a more abstract and general assessment of issues of judicial independence. Yet, despite that evolution, the Court—perhaps surprisingly—only rarely uses the systemic criterion in its judgments. There are only two strands of case law to be found, neither of which tell us much about how the Court understands the notion of “systemic” in this field. This article argues that this criterion nevertheless has an important role to play in the case law on judicial independence and that the Court should explicitly limit the finding of a violation of Article 19(1)(2) TEU to those issues that have a systemic impact on the functioning of the domestic judiciary. By limiting the effects of Article 19(1)(2) TEU in such a way, the Court would strike a balance between the protection of the independence of the domestic judiciary, which is crucial for the proper functioning of the European Union (EU), and respect for the autonomy of the Member States as to the organization of their judiciary.

Time for the European Court of Human Rights to interpret Article 6 ECHR to encompasses a subjective right for domestic judges to their own independence – Overview of the existing case law on the principle of judicial independence – Such a right currently not present in case law – Judges are obliged to frame their complaints, while at their heart independence-related, in terms of other substantive Convention rights – Court cannot properly address one of the fundamental aspects of these cases – Lower protection for the domestic judges – Other international legal orders do include such a subjective right to a judge’s independence – Several arguments for the European Court of Human Rights to similarly acknowledge such a right under the Convention – Few difficulties in integrating such a right into the existing case law

This Article describes and analyzes the role that various supranational actors from the European level play in the rise of formalization in the European states of the legal framework surrounding their judiciary. It starts from the observation that those supranational actors act as a driving force towards increased formalization via a variety of recommendations, reports, or decisions. It first provides several concrete examples of where the supranational actors act as such a driving force towards more formalization. In a second step, the Article looks more generally at how the various supranational actors think about informality surrounding the judiciary and tries to discern the rationales that underlie their position. In a third step, it assesses the various advantages and disadvantages of the rise in formalization that is propagated by the supranational actors. In doing so, the Article shows how the topic of informal judicial rules and practices cannot be understood fully without having due regard to the supranational level and contributes to the literature on the relationship between formal and informal institutions.

This article discusses the existence and development of informal judicial practices in the Belgian legal order. It starts with the observation that the Belgian legal system is already highly formalized and suggests two reasons for that. Further, it shows that despite this rather high degree of existing formalization, important informal practices have nevertheless taken shape. However, over time the legislature intervenes, often as a reaction to some kind of external catalyst, and formalizes those previously informal aspects of the Belgian judicial system. This article therefore describes the Belgian legal order as a process of incremental and reactive formalization, taking place between the judiciary and the legislature.

The last decade has seen a surge in interest in questions of judicial self-government - and in judicial councils in particular - by international organisations, judicial associations and legal scholars. Increasingly, questions on these topics have also been brought before international courts, with two cases making it to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in 2018 alone. The judgment in the joined cases of A.K., CP and DO was the first opportunity for the Court of Justice of the European Union to substantively deal with questions concerning a national judicial council, more particularly its composition, competences and independence from the political branches. The preliminary questions stemmed from the highly contentious reforms that the Polish government has carried out in its judicial system, which have already been the subject of several other judgments of the Luxembourg Court. Among other things, these reforms introduced a new Disciplinary Chamber in the Polish Supreme Court, altered the composition of the National Council of the Judiciary and lowered the retirement age throughout the judiciary.

It is a well-known maxim in the legal world that hard cases make bad law. Yet, this familiar phrase has long been turned upside down as well, as cases that are - by and large - not too difficult may also lead to judgments that are unconvincingly argued or poorly structured. It is especially disheartening to find such judgments in areas where the stakes are high, and even more so when the judgment has been issued through a more authoritative composition, such as a grand chamber.

Alternative dispute resolution procedures before the European Court of Human Rights – The state agent, a member of the executive branch, tasked with representing the respondent state – Judicial and legislative branches of the respondent state limited or bound by concessions by the state agent – Convention framework effectively increases the power of the executive branch to the detriment of the other branches of government in the respondent state – Tension with national separation of powers – Possible solutions on a national and international level

Glioblastoma is one of the most highly aggressive types of brain tumor in adults. With limited treatment options, current therapies remain insufficient due to its invasiveness and immune evasion, highlighting the urgent need for new treatments. Bifunctional molecules targeting multiple aspects of the disease could be promising to overcome drug resistance and tumor heterogeneity. Metformin has demonstrated protective effects against brain tumors but requires high doses for efficacy, making it of great interest for molecular optimization. In this context, we synthesized a series of nine metformin–phenolic molecules, combining the metformin guanidine framework with phenolic acids, which have well-established properties in inhibiting cancer cell migration and adhesion. Their impact on cytotoxicity, reactive oxygen species inhibition, and signaling pathways was investigated for glioma cell lines and stem cells. Two of these hybrids, 5a and 5h, particularly enhanced cytotoxicity in glioblastoma cells, selectively targeting cancer cells while sparing healthy ones. Their mechanism of action differed significantly from metformin. Unlike metformin, which mainly triggers metabolic stress, the hybrids broadly inhibit RTK–MAPK–PI3K signaling, leading to cell cycle arrest and apoptosis. The results suggest that these compounds could offer a more effective and synergistic approach for glioblastoma treatment.