 Felly, fel ydych yn gweithio yma, yn ymhyngau, i'w ddweud i'r ddysgu'raves. Mae'r ddeugau neu ddysgu'r Ddweudio Ddegwyddiad. Felly, mae'n fath o fyddiad, i'w ddod o'r cymdeithas hynny, roedd oedd yn cymdeithas hwn yn ei ddweud i ddweud i'w ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i ddweud o fynd? at llyfr pensio'r ysgol yn eistedd i ddaeth i'r bario yn ynnyddol. Mae'r ysgol yn ymddangos i mi am ystod, eithaf ei wneud i gael i'r ddeuilio yn ei ddiweddol yn ddiweddol. Rhaid, bod y gwaith ymddangos i ni ymddangos i chi yn cyflawni i fi'w gwirio'i os ymddangos i chi'n gwaith cyflawni i chi'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio. Felly, dwi'n edrych i gael ei ddweud mewn ddweud'r rhai o'r hyn o'r amser oesio o'r tyfnod i ddim yn yn fawr. Ychydig i ddweud y cyfrifetio mae'r gweithio a'r angen i'r cyfrifetio cyfrifetio. Yr hwnnw, y ddweud â'r cyfrifetio sydd gyda'r cyfrifetio, ychydig i'ch gael'r gyfrifetio a'r Yrwf Eurup Yrwyr. Ydw i'ch gael eu ddweud, maen nhw'n ddweud eich ddweud o'r cyfrifetio. ac oedd wrth gwaith yma yma, rwy'n holl bryd eich ysbytyd. Rwy'n holl yma, mae'n holl yma'r holl, sy'n holl yma'r holl, rydw i'n mynd i'n bywio am y ffrem y ffaith yma, mae'r holl yma'r holl yma, rydw i'n holl yma'r holl, drog McLeor o blaen. Rydw i'n holl yma yma, rhagos i'n rhaid beth y mawr a'r byd yma yma yn gweithio'r UK. Sorry, the European Union, my father. We were talking downstairs at lunch. Sorry about that. He'd now been nearly out of a job, you know. He's going to talk to us today about what is happening. He's president of the fifth chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union. He's going to discuss with us the changes that may arise in the Court of Justice post Brexit, as well as the rule of law and the preservation of EU values. Another big issue that is on people's minds with the changes that are happening is the whole issue of extradition and the European arrest warrant. Now, none of you, I hope, will ever have to worry about the European arrest warrant anywhere you travel, but it is a big issue and we have people today I'm very pleased to say from all elements of our law in the country between the Chief Justice and the DPP and somebody from the AG's office. And these are issues that are currently being very well studied, as you know by everybody, just to see where we're going now with the Brexit agreement. So I was working here with Eugene in the Committee of Justice and I don't think he ever thought he would be a judge in the European Court, but he has been elected now as the president and there are four, Eugene will explain, I think there are four, five senior Irish people now in the various systems in the European Court. And it's a tribute to those of you who are in the academic world who have maybe taught some of these people, those of you who are practicing law here, to see how our lawyers can take their place among the best in the world. And of course on another element it's very important that there are Irish people in these positions because as you know we are one of three common law jurisdictions left now, Malta and Cyprus and Ireland, Ireland being the biggest one left now, so it's important to have Irish people there. So we're looking forward to hearing what Eugene has to say and then you can store up your questions at the end, so Eugene the floor is yours. Thank you very much Nora. I enjoyed my time at the Institute here and Nora was a superb chairperson of the Justice Group. I think we did a lot of very good work and really appreciated working with her. I also with Jill Dunahoo who was director of operations at all times and I have to say while I came to the Institute with a certain knowledge of the law it was fine-tuned here in many respects in the Institute as we went through the different treaty changes from the Nees Treaty, Lisbon Treaty and all these treaties where you examine every change in my new detail and if I wasn't an expert in European law before I came here I felt I was in leaving the Institute. I was also delighted to see Barry Andrews here. Barry Andrews is a gentleman. He was a gentleman in the cut and thrust of politics out in Don Leary when I was competing against him and I'm delighted to see him in the position and his involvement here in the Institute. The challenges facing Europe they just change in nature but there have always been extraordinary challenges. The Union itself was a response to the Second World War. The enlargement was a response to the need for democratisation in Europe and particularly in Eastern Europe. The single market was a response to the need for a strong European internal market to compete against other markets at that time the United States of America and the development of Union citizenship and fundamental rights also responded to concerns both political and legal about the democratic and legal legitimacy of the Union. Today we're faced with other problems. Financial and economic crisis was one of them. The war on our borders which leads to the refugee crisis and increased migration flows and there's the issue of state and commercial surveillance and the perennial legitimacy issues within the Union itself including the respect for free movement and the fact that so many of these issues can only be resolved at a European level and in many cases at a global level it does mean that these problems can only be resolved at that level and 28 member states representing 7% of the world's population have pulled their sovereignty and in an endeavour to resolve these type of issues whether it's from fishing to air traffic control privacy, data privacy and the European Space Agency. That is the commitment. They have also committed to the binding jurisdiction of a legal system and the European Court. Shortly to be 27 it would appear. Therefore many of the challenges facing today's society are ultimately ones which find their way to the European Court and we see that court as a court which is in partnership with national courts. It is part of one system and it is the national courts which are on the front line in terms of raising the problems, raising the issues which our court have to find an interpretation and a suggested solution which facilitates the application of European law at national level. I'd just like to say a few words about the structure, the role and structure of the court. I will touch on the UK withdrawal issue but there's very little I can say on that but I will refer then to a number of very specific issues which I think are very important in Europe, important for Ireland and I think just as the courts cooperate with the European Court in the type of questions they refer which enables us to resolve certain key issues, I think it applies more generally in that Ireland can play this role in terms of not only trying to solve our own problems but by thinking and working at a European level we can assist in solving some of the European problems and thereby solve our own because they are in fact the same problems. With regard to I think the Chief Justice was speaking Frank Lark here earlier in the week and mentioned this issue but apex courts and essentially the European Court, it's a court of interpretation, it's not a supreme court in terms of appealing to Europe from national courts, it's a question of interpretation, questions are referred to us from national courts and we work with national courts in providing an interpretation which assists them in resolving their case only when it comes to an interpretation of European law. The court has six main functions, now some of the lawyers in the room would know this but perhaps I can remind them. It's first a court of final appeal, not from the national courts, from the lower court in Luxembourg, the general court and we have two Irish members on that court, Tony Collins and a former High Court Judge Colin McCockey. So for example the Apple case goes to the general court and it will most likely possibly maybe come to us on appeal so we then deal with requests as I said from national courts and tribunals in terms of interpretation where there is a point of an EU directive or treaty article which has not been interpreted, the position is not quite clear on the interpretation then the courts here will refer a question to us and I'll give some examples of that. Then you have infringements where member states do not comply with directives, do not comply with regulations or in some way infringe EU rules then there are infringement proceedings and also penalty proceedings so that member states can be penalized as Ireland has in certain environmental matters, can be penalized periodically as well as a lump sum penalty and there's no problem about collecting these penalties because they're deducted from member states budget so it's a very effective weapon to ensure the rule of law or the compliance with the law. The fourth element of the court's work is to resolve inter-institutional disputes between the institutions. It's not down as one of its functions but there is a jurisprudence that where there's a dispute between member states they're obliged to bring that case to before the European Court. We have at the moment I think there's a land dispute between Slovenia and Croatia, that type of case is brought to the court. The fifth is we issue opinions, in other words the European Commission requested an opinion of the court as to the compliance with EU law of the Singapore trade agreement, we have the same with Canadian agreement and in the past we had given opinion on the accession of the European Union to the Court of Human Rights, Convention of Human Rights. The sixth role is the declaration of persons entering upon high office so commissioners or judges or positions of such high office in the European institutions, the court would, there is a hearing and they make an oath, their oath of office before us. As to the functioning of the court in a way the court has been well served in the past and just to remind you of the people who have held the position I hold today, Caha Rodoli, President of the High Court Andreas O'Keefe at the time, former Chief Justice Tom O Higgins, then former Attorney General John Murray, former High Court judges Fidelman Macken and Andreas O'Keefe. So I'm very proud to serve in that tradition. Then we had Niall Fennelly as Advocate General. So in the court you have 28 judges, one from each Member State and you have 11 Advocate Generals who have given opinion on cases before they would come to us. It's very much a French system in that regard. But we had Niall Fennelly was appointed in 1995 I think is the year and he served with distinction for six years and gave some very seminal opinions which influenced ultimately the court in its judgments. And this year we have Gerard Hogan who is a former judge of the Court of Appeal and he has joined us from the 7th of October or 8th of October and will be with us for six years. The next time Ireland will have the Advocate General position is likely to be in the 30s, 2030. So it's by rotation. The larger Member States have a permanent Advocate General. Now the court elects its own President and Vice President and the President of Chambers and I was saying earlier that I thought I had left politics and I have but I was appointed tallyman for the voting of the new President, Vice President and Head of Chambers when I came to the court three years ago. But in fact I was elected myself. I served as President of Chamber of Three which is the sixth chamber in the second year in Luxembourg but it is the fifth chamber of five where there is an election and I was elected to that position President of Chamber. And the way that works is the court is split into five chambers of five and when a case is allocated by the President to any judge in that chamber of five it will be heard in the chamber that I'm President of. And also each chamber is sovereign in that it is up to us how to decide that case and there is no interference from President, Vice President or any other judge in the court. It is that chamber that decides that case and has full authority to come to a decision in that case. One thing about the court is that we have no ability to refuse cases. There is no filtering system. We must deal with every case from that to environment, the rule of law, the Brexit, whatever the cases are, we have to hear them. And we dealt in 2017, just to give you the flavour of it, around 750 cases and 72% of these were preliminary questions from national courts throughout the union and about 20% were appeals from the general court equivalent of the high court here in Luxembourg. Now we take about 16 months to give an answer to a question from national court which seems like an eternity but in fact if you allow for translation of documents into 24 official languages you can appreciate that translation accounts for a very significant amount of the time. We try to balance dealing with the case efficiently but also fairly and allowing enough time and due consideration for the case. But the way it works very simply, if I am appointed judge rapporteur after all the written procedure with all the interventions of the parties and I should say when there is a question referred from a national court all governments, all member states have an opportunity to make an intervention. So all of that is taken into account when we have a hearing and in deciding on the case. But if a case is referred to me and I would do a preliminary report for the weekly meeting of the court and I would recommend given the importance of the case that it should be dealt with in a grand chamber which is a chamber of 15. That's when it's a unique issue has quite wide implications, new area of law and if it's a very straightforward case which the law as well settles there might be just some technical issues to look at it would recommend a chamber of three. Then you might have a case like the Pringle case which had to do with the stability mechanism. That was a full 28 judges and we have a case tomorrow which is a case from the Scottish courts in relation to Brexit and that will be a plenary hearing also of 28. The last case where it was a full court was Pringle. The one before that was commission versus Madame Cresson and if you remember at the time of the dismissal of the commission, she was a commissioner at the time. The other issue while we have the average is around 16 months, we do have a system of expedited procedure and urgent procedure and I'll give some examples of Irish cases that have come to us where we have dealt with them by expedited and urgent procedures and we can generally deal with the case within three or four months. But it is better if there is time to, for proper consideration of the cases, it can lead to problems if the matter is rushed. So, as I say, if I am Judge Robertair present a report very briefly, then within literally five weeks we have a hearing and after that you have a certain number of weeks for the Advocate General to give an opinion. And it's like clockwork. If the Advocate General gives a particular opinion on a particular date, I would indicate literally within a week whether I'm going to follow the broad lines of the Advocate General or not. If not or if yes, another judge might say, well I think we should have a table or discussion about this and we, that might be a meeting to agree the general orientation on the case and then you write up the judgement accordingly. If nobody objects to the approach you're taking, you proceed to draft the judgement and it goes for deliberation or for consultation. But again, I would draft a case, a judgement and the judges in my chamber are if it's a grand chamber case, there's literally ten days for them to produce a note if they have some suggestions to make or objections to make to some of the drafting. And then I would have literally a number of days to incorporate what I consider appropriate of those suggestions for an amended judgement and then we have an oral discussion about the case. But it is a very efficient system even though it seems like a long time for a case to get back to the national courts. We have about a hundred grand chamber cases and that is a case dealt with by 15 judges and that is around the equivalent of the number of cases I believe that the US Supreme Court would deal with. Now they would have a filtering system of cases but in a sense we compare those cases to the type of cases that the United States Supreme Court would deal with. One issue about how we deal with cases, the hearings, we do actually have hearings for the vast majority of cases but it's very much a feature of our common law system, not so much the civil law system. There are many Supreme Courts and Constitution Courts that never have a hearing or very seldom and if they are they are very perfunctory. But you have to reason and justify why you want a hearing. In other words to clarify specific questions. But again if the question that's referred from the national court, if the factual context is explained clearly and the legal position nationally is explained, we don't interpret national law, we interpret European law but it is necessary to have the context and if in fact on the day of a hearing there is a dispute about factual matters our interlocutor is the national court and we go on what they tell us and it does create a problem if there are other parties now saying well actually that's not how the national legislation operates that's not the factual situation in the case. However the other aspect is unlike the Supreme Court here there's no dissenting judgements there's no, we might dissent but we don't publish those dissents and perhaps it's also ensures that there's an effort made to encompass all positions but there's no question that our cases are not decided by unanimity and there will always be a certain tension in terms of how a case should be either concluded or reasoned and I should say that the vast majority of judgements in whatever chamber they're dealt with the end result there is in fact a broad consensus and a lot of our discussion is how we reason it, how we explain it so I think that's what's very important for lawyers and national authorities in implementing and courts in following through on the interpretation that we give I would say given the way the court operates, French is the language of the court all our discussions are in French, all our judgements are produced in French any notes that are produced in relation to judgements are in French so it is very important that when we think of the common law system that we have lawyers who can master that language it's not necessary when they're presenting a case in the court because we have interpretation for all official languages which I think is a very good thing but in terms of increasing numbers of Irish lawyers who might work in the court and there is a crying need for more Irish lawyers and common law lawyers the language is an imperative it's not written in stone that we operate through French it is actually a decision that was made presumably from the time of the 6 and it is the last of the institutions, the European institutions that actually have retained French as their main language but I don't see it ending tomorrow it is well embedded and I think it gives a flavour to the way that European judgements and European law manifest itself just a word about Ireland and the courts our system is based on a constitutional system it's based on the rule of law, respect for fundamental rights the EU also is a constitution it is based on guarantees of independent judiciary protects decisions against arbitrary exercise of power and the Irish state is also founded on respect for international law it is reflected in article 29 so that there is a great similarity in some respects and it does explain also by virtue of the fact that we have successive referendum which have changed our fixed constitution in accordance with popular view and opinion that there has been no element of difficulty in adjusting to the European legal system or indeed a willingness to incorporate EU law and to test EU law, Irish law against EU law and I have to say that Ireland features very much in Europe at the moment mainly because of the Irish question, the Irish problem and I keep trying to explain it's not exactly an Irish problem but it also features in another respect and that is the references that come from the Irish courts quite extraordinary, they're excellently framed, they're relevant and I think very, very pertinent to all that's happening in Europe in the area of extradition we have had Lannigan, Selmer O'Connor cases and one of them now which has been renamed Oro but in the extradition area you have Cousins and Donnellan in the area of taxation you have Farall and Whitty in Smith and Meade in the area of horizontal direct effect and the issue of direct effect and then you have Pringle in the area of monetary policy and of course the digital rights Ireland in which I in fact appear for the Irish state and Shrems in the field of personal data so the Irish references have been right on point cutting at the heart of some of the European, important European policies and they have made new law so I think it is that cooperation between our court and the national courts which is of fundamental importance and it is amazing that Ireland has been able to make such a contribution I think since our entry we had 115 references the United Kingdom had 633, France had a thousand so I think at different times we have not had so many references but overall I think it's a large figure and it's rising last year we had more references than the United Kingdom which I think is not just because the United Kingdom have dropped but it's because the Irish courts have been somewhat more active in referring cases the way it works with references is that any court can refer a case recognise court can refer a case for clarification to our court the Supreme Court must make a reference if it's not clear the interpretation, there is an obligation there and I think the system has worked very very well the other thing is that I think it is generally recognised apart from the references the quality of lawyers who the state appoint and companies appoint to represent them in our court all of the other judges remark on the quality of the lawyers who come out because I don't know whether it's the tradition but in terms of fielding questions, responding to questions being a bit more flexible in their presentation and more whereas other countries seem to have followed a very set script where something is simply read out when they're asked a question tend to in many cases fall apart now that's not in all cases but the Irish advocacy from the Irish baristers and it's not I saying it it has been said to me before by other judges the UK and I have to say the UK bar has been excellent and it does influence cases, the outcome of cases where the Irish state would intervene and inform presentation of a case it can have a profound effect then just to speak about a number of issues Brexit is the one issue that is of the political issue of the day and it comes to our door in two respects first an excellent reference from Ireland both from the High Court and the Supreme Court now in fairness the Supreme Court was first in making the reference and it does concern and did concern the effect of Brexit individuals who if they are extradited to the United Kingdom the question arises well what about their fundamental rights in the light of Brexit which will not be subject to the same system they would not be able to if an issue arises on their imprisonment that they would not be able to challenge something or the European Court they might not get the full benefit of deduction of sentences which is all provided for in EU law and that is a case that came to my chamber not as the previous chamber where I was a member of and basically the response was well let's take the law as it is and also even if you project into the future the United Kingdom is still a member of the European Convention of Human Rights and there is a parallel between the protection of rights in the European Convention of Human Rights as there is in the European Charter which is part of the treaty and there is no reason to believe that the rights guaranteed in that convention would not be respected by the UK courts and the UK authorities then we have the inner house of the Scottish Court of Session Scotland's highest court which have referred a case to us concerning the withdrawal of article 50 and in fact that's going to be dealt with as I said tomorrow in Luxembourg tomorrow morning and it will be the full 28 judges of the court it's a very straightforward question can Britain unilaterally revoke the notice now we have to deal with first is it a hypothetical question is it admissible and then we have to deal with the substance of the case if deemed admissible but it will be a full hearing it's impossible to say anything else about it in case I would in any way get myself in trouble so I think we can speculate as to what cases might come to our court in relation to Brexit but you know the very withdrawal agreement itself whatever that withdrawal agreement will be if ratified because as I said earlier we have a member state or an institution can request an opinion from us as to whether an agreement is complies with EU law and its own right so I think one can anticipate issues of free movement social security, fundamental rights but I can only speculate as to those type of issues that may arise post Brexit except I think we do know and can anticipate that it's not going to be a smooth passage just one other matter concerning Brexit is that the fact that the common law will now be much reduced in terms of presence in Europe and in the court personally I don't see a problem with that it is a system given to us in Ireland when the Normans came we have adjusted and adopted it I think very well but I think that there has been the common law has influenced European law in many ways to date and I think there is an appreciation as I said earlier of the common law tradition also I think our interpretation of law is not too dissimilar from our own system I mean we look at the wording we look at the context we look at the intention of the legislator we look at the objectives of the director of the system or of the treaty provisions we work on a comparative model of interpretation there is a section within the court called research and documentation and quite often before we have a hearing or a delivery on a case they do an exercise on checking what is the situation in all member states in relation to some aspect of the law so it's not as if we operate in this civil law context and also I think there is as many differences between the civil law tradition in different member states than there is between the common law and civil law so I think it is sometimes we get a little bit too concerned in this regard there is also something that our systems apart from the legal system there are systems of government which are different the one thing that strikes me is well actually I didn't have to register but if you go as a non-diplomatic status person to Luxembourg or Belgium or Germany you have to register in your local commune that is quite a significant thing you don't have to do that in England or Ireland this registration and I think there are a lot of aspects of the way the system of government works which means we have a very similar type of legal system as well as the United Kingdom it's not just the legal system but the system of government if I can just move to the issue of fundamental rights the rule of law now when we joined the European Union even then fundamental rights was not an issue that there were certain referenced fundamental rights into the common traditions of constitution traditions of member states but fundamental rights became more and more important to have that embedded and given treaty status which was done with the Charter of Fundamental Rights it is not as if the Court was impervious to that issue but more and more the very legitimacy of the Union and the legitimacy of its decisions had to take account of fundamental rights and the German Constitutional Court had a role to play in that regard now again this is an issue raised by a reference from the High Court here which raised the issue the European Commission have produced a paper on foot of article 7.1 of the treaty that there's a risk to the rule of law in Poland and so she's asking why should we why how can I safely extradite somebody to Poland if there is a threat to an independent judiciary and to the whether this person would have an effective remedy and receive a fair trial and that created consternation in Poland and there was a lot of public comment and indeed on fair criticism of the Irish High Court judge for raising that issue I have to say no reference from any court has got so much attention as this reference from the High Court because it did raise a very fundamental question about the rule of law and independent judiciary in Poland and that was in a grand chamber case of 15 I was in the chamber and we did rule that it is only the council that under article 7.2 that can deem a member state there is provision in the European arrest warrant framework decision that it's only in those circumstances where the council find under article 7.2 that a member state is in breach that you would not extradite but in fairness the High Court judge in an excellent reference outlined a procedure whereby she could work with the decision of the court and do I test and ask more questions of the Polish courts in the event following our judgement which advised to do just that that it's the fact that there's a threat doesn't mean that the Polish judiciary is an individual judges I mean to condemn the entire judiciary in those circumstances we felt was unjustified so that it was to examine in a concrete case what is the position is it a political type of fence is it an ordinary criminal offence and in Donnelly did go back with further questions and in a very comprehensive judgement I think it runs to almost 40 pages analysing in minute detail actually did extradite the person in question but I do think the message was made and sent out about the importance of the rule of law and I think that judgement was just simply had profound effects and in one way in terms of the ultimate result I think it shows that she acted in a completely balanced correct manner and followed through on the logic of her own decision in testing the danger that the person might not get a fair trial the European arrest warrant is an issue and we were speaking about it earlier fundamental to the investigation, prosecution and of crime in the European Union and we created an exception to extradition in a case called Calderadu and Arun Niosi where if there is a risk of inhuman integrating treatment in terms of prison conditions there can be an exception to what normally was strict rules set out in a framework decision I had a case where I was Judge Rapporteur in my chamber and it was a German case concerning extradition to Hungary and it was a case where I think the judge perhaps stuck it too far and he had 78 questions for the Hungarian court but what are the smoking conditions has the person facilities to practice the religion which is all very reasonable but it went on in that vein it wasn't just the space in the prison it was everything and anything so the court found that perhaps being a little bit too anxious about the so we revert to the application of the the regulation of the framework decision independence of judiciary again it's on the same theme but there was a case against Hungary some years ago where the retirement age was reduced from 70 to 62 years for all judges and that was a case actually that didn't the rule of law issue wasn't really didn't feature in the case as such but it was decided purely on discrimination grounds that this was a breach of the quality directive then we had a case this year concerning judges pay in Portugal and this was a reduction it has a certain residence I know in this country and the judges it was a reference about now it was a reduction salary reduction across the board ministers everybody had the same reduction but the court had the opportunity to deal with the concept of independence and I think it's worth just reading just one short paragraph if I may it's stated that the concept of independence presupposes in particular that the body concerned exercises its judicial functions wholly autonomously without being subject to any hierarchical constraint or subordinated to any other body and without orders or instructions from any source whatsoever and that it is thus protected against external interventions or pressure liable to impair the independent judgment of its members and to influence their decisions and again you know I know we had the constitutional amendment in 2012 but in a sense the reductions here were it wasn't the focus of the judgment but they were totally across the board in Portugal the other case which is again the most important case I think that we are dealing with at the moment other than Brexit and that is commission versus Poland and this again is about judges and they forced retirement of judges by means of the reduction of the retirement age now I would just say on this in terms of the article 7.1 procedure which the commission initiated it was always said that this could not be progressed because Hungary was aborting Poland and it would never get past the post but in fact article 7.1 about a risk of threat to the rule of law does not require unanimity it required four fifths majority in the council but you would be surprised by the member states who did not support that progressing that 7.1 procedure it's the 7.2 that requires unanimity where you find an actual finding and not just a risk and again that is something which has landed at our door now the commission worked with Poland for quite a number of years to try to resolve this but ultimately and only very recently initiated infringement proceedings the vice president she is authority to deal with injunctive type procedures but she issued an injunction to Poland not to proceed with this and to suspend until we dealt with the case and it does appear that Poland have ultimately decided to reverse the law in this area and I think it perhaps does demonstrate the importance of the court and the importance of as a guarantor of the rule of law and the fact that it is very exceptional that a ruling of the court is not respected and in this very highly charged political atmosphere it is important to see that Poland has responded and I think it's to be welcomed very quickly on data protection and privacy and this has become a very important issue of course it features in the Charter of Fundamental Rights the protection of personal data but in the age of Cambridge Analytica it's not just the profiling of individuals but it's also the and the right to privacy and the risk to democracy and again one of the most important cases here was first digital rights and then Shrems was influenced by digital rights both were references from the Irish courts to the European court but we have at the moment cases like Facebook Ireland which concerns the co-responsibility of operators of Facebook fan pages we have a case at the moment which concerns it's a lottery in Germany and you have to unselect if you don't agree to the data being used but again we're right in the thick of that with digital rights and Shrems and also of course that a lot of the companies other headquarters here which feature in these cases monetary and budgetary policy I've mentioned Pringle we had the Gauweiler case which concerned the overwrite monetary transaction scheme I won't go into the details but it had to do with which the court which was the first reference ever from the German constitutional court to our court and it is a big issue in Germany of course that the actions of the European Central Bank respect strictly their mandate on monetary policy and don't approach into economic policy and finance and be seen to finance member states budgets but we have that case which had been decided in favour of the decision actually that case concerned a press release by the European Central Bank as to what they were going to do in terms of outright monetary transaction scheme and we have another case at the moment which concerns the public sector asset purchase programme and again it's vice is the name of the case again that will be announced on the 11th of December I think but again it's the same issue and it shows the sensitivity of that issue in Germany one other case Spain versus council and here's where one of the communities in Spain gave the wrong figures to the central government the wrong figures were reported to the European statistics office and ultimately they proposed debt budgetary deficit in Spain was incorrectly reported and a financial penalty was imposed on Spain for that breach so it just illustrates the importance of this issue and how strictly the European Commission and the authorities have taken to ensuring that budgetary discipline and the rules are applied correctly we have of course a particular issue at the moment in Italy and without saying anything more about it it's distinctly possible to hear about it in Luxembourg at some future date I know taxation is always a big issue it is generally left to member states but there are cases where member states cannot buy their tax system encroach on the various freedoms freedom movement of capital and free movement of services etc we have the apple case but that doesn't come to us that is with the general court I think a hearing should take place very soon and it's very possible it may come to our court just last item fraud there is a general principle of EU law that EU law cannot be relied on for the purpose of abuse or fraud and I think this is an issue which we've had various cases a case from Ireland, Cusin's case which concerned various property transactions which had to do with VAT and again we've had a case concerning the social security system where posted workers are sent to another member state they are given the equivalent of a passport it's called an E-101 cert I think it's an A1 cert now and again the question that was posed to us if a national court while this cert is sacrosanct you're not subject to the Belgian social security system if you come to Ireland with this cert in fact I was involved in the very first case concerning this but this case concerned if a Belgian court finds that there has been fraud in the way this cert has been obtained or used does that still mean that that cert is valid and the tests were drawn by the issuing member state and we found that the cert could be set aside in those circumstances that EU law should not be used for the purposes of fraud I was actually a judge or a parter in that case if I'm right you were for me Karen Toland at free movement and migration again this is an issue which ac mae'r cyfnodd ymddangos ar y frontau. Mae'r cyfnodd cyfnodd ymddangos. Mae'r cyfnodd yn ymddangos ymddangos i'r slofiacau a'r hongoryn yn ddod i gael y ddisysgwm yn yr oedd y byddai'r gafodd o'i ddweud, a'r cyfnodd yn y ddysgwm yng Nghymru. Mae'r cyfnodd yn ddod i'r cyfnodd yn ddod i'r cyfnodd ond yw'r ystod gyda hongoryn rydych chi'n mynd i'i llunio. Mae gennym am hongoryn gweithio cysylltiadau, sydd yn gweithio'r gweithio cyfnod sydd yn ffordd o gynnalu i gyrfaenau cyfnodol yng ngharwng hongoryn arall, sydd wedi cychwyn i'r gweithio'r rhaid o'r aed o'r ffrifigiau yn hongoryn. Rhaid i chi'n gweithio i chyfyddiad, Mr Sores yn yng Nghymru. We had, going back to legal costs, two interesting cases. North East Pylon Pressure Campaign and Tlone, which were two references from Ireland, and they concerned legal costs. When groups challenge the on environmental grounds, certain decisions made by the planning authorities. And the issue is there's a Noro's Convention and there's a directive on this, but it's that for these groups, the legal cost shouldn't be prohibitively expensive. And I think to summarize, we found that no, the legal cost shouldn't be prohibitively expensive. And even though the Oros Convention does not apply, does not have direct effect that they should apply. In conclusion, you know, as I've perhaps outlined, I hope that the court rules on, you know, a diverse and very live issues, political issues that touch our everyday lives. And I think we, you know, we live in a on a continent now, and I think we're more aware even in Ireland than ever, just how important problems that arise are solved at a European level. We saw that in the past with our economic crisis and we see it today with Brexit and the support which Europe has provided and that element of solidarity. But apart from that, I do think that we can make an extraordinary contribution where we, I say that in terms of the law, I say it in the cooperation of the judiciary here, our lawyers before the court, our presence in the court. I think we can play our part in ensuring that the law is interpreted and applied in a manner which fits with our perception of the legal world. And I think the same applies politically. And I think Ireland can play an important role. And I think probably just as legally we have to be more assertive and in terms of our legal system, I think it probably will be, if I may say this, politically, I think Ireland will have to play a much more active role in the European Union's institutions and indeed in policy formation if we are to maintain our presence and retain our place at the heart of Europe. Thank you very much for your patience.