I don't think the first part by itself matters, they could have just used that phrase to refer to the concerned state, but I missed the second part.

You seem to be right considering the deadline. It would be better if it was worded differently IMO.

The phrase is "to decide on the legality of an act adopted by the European Council or by the Council pursuant to Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union", I interpret this to include all art 7 acts, including sanctions

b) not if it's unreviewable :) This hypothetical council would probably purport to suspend the principle of conferral and the national identity provisions as rights from the treaties. Probably wouldn't work in court, but see a)

a) The jurisdiction (and limitation) is over legality of an act adopted pursuant to art 7. It only refers to determinations as to determine the state concerned. I interpret that to include any subsequent art 7 act, the state concerned by determination is only a way to determine standing...

Article 7 decisions by the council are not subject to substantive review, only for procedural regularity, that is a carveout in 269 TFEU. (I wonder what would happen if EU tried fun stuff like changing member state internal arrangements or constitution thru art 7)

The sentence on not being able to give a ruling in art 177 proceedings seems interesting, probably the closest thing to the art 2 scope question. Maybe it has an unlimited scope but there are no appropriate proceedings to interpret it in some subjects.

Very interesting! Just read it, it seems similar to US political questions, but it seems to to leave open some way to question it eventually. I personally wouldn't use the word jurisdiction for this, I would use justiciability, but the court uses it, maybe there is no difference...

547 refers to *a* provision of EU law, I would best read it as saying a violation of *any other* provision isn't automatically *also* an art 2 breach. CJEU can be more limited when it wants eg in PL marriage case it frequently refered to necessity regarding free movement & no other national measures

To describe it no, but it is being applied against clear CJEU treaty jurisdiction, it's being used to mean something much more significant than it means. I know you didn't make it up, it appearded in member states' arguments and AG opinion, but I still think it doesn't make sense.

I can't know what AG Ćapeta was thinking and it's very possible that the CJEU limits art 2 scope somehow. I'm merely voicing my reasonably-strong not-very-informed opinions :) But (IMO) the limited competences principle cannot limit the treaties themselves, & CJEU has clearly delineated jurisdiction

I don't think that it is a free-floating anti-EU principle as it seems to be claimed. The CJEU limited competences are nicely enumerated and don't limit it's jurisdiction over art 2. I think the word competences is being used here in many not-entirely-compatible ways...

it limits the treaties, it merely means they don't have extra-treaty "inherent" powers. I don't think there is a treaty basis to limit CJEU powers, indeed if CJEU refused to interpret the treaties it would breach the principle of limited comptences and give itself discretion & power it doesn't have

Which TFEU provision would that limitation flow from? The jurisdiction-granting provisions are very general and refer to all treaty questions and obligations. CJEU still has limited competences, for instance art 2 doesn't let it hear appeals from national courts, limited doesn't mean that...

The scope talk seems to be a political play as to not to upset member states, (some people also normatively want there to be a scope limitation for various reasons, but I think it makes no sense with the second sentence of art 2).

Just skimmed it, I don't understand that to be a jurisdiction-based distinction, but it is obscure. But in my opinion, art 2 is either non-justiciable or applies to all member state action. A scope limitation doesn't make any sense in light of the actual article

under the treaties, and the questions and obligations can flow from article 2. Even if there was some scope limitation on art 2 (IMO unlikely), it would be a question about art 2 normative content, not about CJEU jurisdiction, except in some narrow CFSP and national security matters

Why would that matter? Art 2 is EU law it has the scope/effect it has or does not have. There is no separate jurisdictional question, it's all about the scope of art 2 itself. There is always jurisdiction because the jurisdiction is tied to questions (preliminary ref) and obligations (infringement)

I would interpret it to say there is no scope limitation (there is much general language about art 2, if they wanted scope limitation they would be more explicit IMO), the language in 547/550 is about severity/seriousness.

What would be the argument about jurisdiction? AFAIK jurisdiction is treaties except CFSP, it is not linked to EU law scope, but to EU law questions. Any article 2 breach is an obvious treaty question. I would interpret todays judgment to say no scope limitation, but there is a severity limitation

The NYT doesn't actually know if that was discussed by Rutte and Trump, they just reported what was discussed earlier by other pople. It literally says the officials don't know what was actually discussed.

That depends on how they rule and tge specific holding

Maybe I missed it in the analysis, but don't see it. Kubilius also reiterated it a few days ago. The Commission is still a relevant institutional actor. (CJEU probably doesn't have jurisdiction because of the CFSP ouster, no?)

It would be good to note that the Commission's position is that 42.7 TEU does apply to Greenland.

Where can the full transcript be found?

I'm not however sure what statute applies, FSIA, the Vienna Convention, custom, something else???

As far as I know sovereign and similar immunities go to subject matter jurisdiction, deference on jurisdiction is very weird doctrinally

He has a right to petition for certioari, not directly to review, right?

It seems no one cares, in the case I linked SCOTUS said that the guy being kidnapped isn't a problem

Denial of immunity is probably appealable tho, so he can try to drag it out at least

Unlawful arrest probably isn't viable: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...

Seems immunity is his best chance, in the Panama/Noriega case the courts deferred to gov on who head of state is, that was 11th circuit, but they cited a lot of 2d circuit deference precedent, so probably low chance