The Joint Reader was developed by the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights and the South East European Law Schools Network within the project „Legal Protection against Discrimination in South-East Europe” supported by German Cooperation and implemented by Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). It is based on the lectures held during the Winter School that was implemented at the Law Faculty of the University of Belgrade in January 2018. The Winter School provided students with an overview about the concepts, forms, areas and grounds of discrimination defined at international and European level, from a comparative perspective of South- Eastern European countries. Students gained insights into protection mechanisms against discrimination, procedural aspects of discrimination cases and possible remedies for persons affected by discrimination. They also got the opportunity to actively involve themselves in discussions and workshops aiming at the practical application of the theoretical knowledge gained during the lectures. The program was based on the idea that discrimination is a system that creates and reproduces stories of norm and normality and uses real or perceived differences to label human beings. Discrimination creates hierarchies and results in unjust distributions of power and privileges. As discrimination hampers prosperity and curbs the development of individuals and societies, legislation protecting against and preventing discrimination has been established. The description of the lectures and workshops displayed in the Joint Reader shall support the implementation of the course on “Legal Protection against Discrimination in Southeast Europe” at different law faculties, which are members of SEELS network, or support the introduction of various elements of the course into already established legal courses or legal clinics within the same. The descriptions of the learning objectives and the content (e.g. power point presentations), as well as the working sheets, case studies and information on background material are presented in a way so that they can be used as a solid foundation for lecturers who have basic knowledge of discrimination and want to prepare lectures and workshops on this topic.

Through the judgments Digital Rights Ireland and Tele2 Sverige, the CJEU emphasised the power of the CFR (in particular arts 7, 8, 52) through the fundamental right of data protection and general principles of law such as the principle of proportionality and legal certainty. Article 52 CFR represents the essence of justification. In the spirit of article 52(3) and (4) CFR it becomes evident that the CJEU, the ECtHR and the German Constitutional Court go in the same direction. The CJEU was brave enough to deliver a scathing verdict on data retention. More strongly than the German CC, the CJEU safeguards data protection. Hence, the decisions of the CJEU were described as milestone decisions and the CJEU as a Court of fundamental rights. On the other hand, the CJEU focused all its power on proportionality expressed through the element of strict necessity. It is astonishing that the Court does not use the existing methodology on proportionality to strengthen legal discipline and confidence. Although proportionality may be assessed differently in single legal systems and cultures, the broad constitutionalisation and application of proportionality in jurisdiction proves the power of this general principle of law. The exploration of this principle is rather challenging, but most beneficial for the future application of primary law

Usually at this place of the conference proceedings, some final remarks and conclusions of on the three main topics of the conference should be presented. However, some of the biggest names of PIL presented their paper at the conference, at the Faculty of law in Zenica, and submitted their papers with conclusions in these conference proceedings. There is no need or space left for additional conclusions. In addition, the topic of states with more than one legal system is a very important topic for Bosnia and Herzegovina who belongs to the group of only three states in Europe with such complex legal system and Art 36 of the Succession Regulation brings some important changes with regards to this question of EU PIL. In the first part, the paper will focus on the obligation of (potential) candidate states to harmonize their national PIL with EU law even before becoming member of the EU. In the second part it will focus on the question how to harmonize the national laws of (potential) candidate states with the EU PIL provisions on states with more than one legal system (“multi-unit states”).

The recast of the Brussels I Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters arouses interest in the region in terms of both aspects, harmonization of the national legislation with the PIL of EU and its application in the courts of the Member States on matters related to the SEE countries. The obligation to harmonize national legislation with the Brussels I Regulation in the pre-accession period is disputable, as the regulations may not be transposed in the national law and the Brussels I Regime is based on the mutual trust between Member States, with no benefits for (potential) candidate states. The national legislators of the South East Europe used the Brussels I regime as a model for the reforms of their Private International Law Acts, but also to create a regional multilateral convention with identical content as the Brussels I Regulation, which is called the Sarajevo Convention. This leads to an interesting situation where the EU Member States and the Lugano Convention parties will become third States to their own regime taken over in the Sarajevo Convention. Consequently, the reform of the status of third States in the Brussels I recast gets a new dimension for both, the SEE states and the Member States of the EU.