<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd">
  <responseDate>2026-05-03T16:01:48Z</responseDate>
  <request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:verfassungsblog.de/39142" metadataPrefix="oai_dc">https://verfassungsblog.de/oai/repository/</request>
  <GetRecord>
    <header>
      <identifier>oai:verfassungsblog.de/39142</identifier>
      <datestamp>2019-03-24T19:46:04Z</datestamp>
      <setSpec>posts</setSpec>
    </header>
    <metadata>
      <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/10.17176/20190324-204345-0</dc:identifier>
        <dc:identifier>https://verfassungsblog.de/crossing-the-baltic-rubicon/</dc:identifier>
        <dc:title>Crossing the Baltic Rubicon</dc:title>
        <dc:creator>Sarmiento, Daniel</dc:creator>
        <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
        <dc:date>2019-03-04</dc:date>
        <dc:type>electronic resource</dc:type>
        <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
        <dc:subject>ddc:342</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>Constitutional Moment</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>Judicial Review</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>Rimsevics</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>Last week, a constitutional moment took place in the European Union. In a rather technical area of law, the Statute of the European System of Central Banks, the Court of Justice ruled for the first time in a case that ensued in the annulment of a decision of a Member State. The Court did not declare that a Member State had failed to fulfill its obligations under EU Law. What the Court did was much more ambitious.</dc:description>
      </dc>
    </metadata>
  </GetRecord>
</OAI-PMH>
