>3) do not make the mistake of assuming a humongous organism like the EU always talks with one voice. Already what we call "EU" is actually a hodgepodge of trea

>3) do not make the mistake of assuming a humongous organism like the EU always talks with one voice. Already what we call "EU" is actually a hodgepodge of treaties and institutions (including nation-states that literally invented the various different forms of nation-statehood to mark differences with their neighbours...) that are slowly being integrated together. Then you have competing interests between nations, between institutions, between different economic and political interests, and between individuals. In this case a court ruled in a certain way following existing guidelines; but it might well happen that something else, like EuroParliament, looking for a fight at some point, will eventually pick up this sort of issue and push for change. This is an important point that is often forgotten. People complain that the EU is too complicated, but it became that way be necessity. You couldn't have built a European federation with the same scope and less complexity.