Publications

Request History

No previous requests logged.

Session

• 0(null)

Request

Cake Params

• plugin(null)
• controllerpublications
• actionindex
• named(empty)
• pass(empty)
• localeen
• paging(array)
  • Publication(array)
    • page1
    • current7
    • count612
    • prevPage(false)
    • nextPage(true)
    • pageCount88
    • order(array)
      • Publication.publication_datedesc
    • limit7
    • options(empty)
    • paramTypequerystring
    • queryScope(null)

Post data

No post data.

Query string

No querystring data.

Cookie

To view Cookies, add CookieComponent to Controller

Current Route

• name(null)
• _fields(empty)
• resourceActionindex
• modelPublication
• keys(array)
  • 0locale
• options(array)
  • pass(empty)
• defaults(array)
  • controllerpublications
  • actionindex
  • plugin(null)
• template/:locale/publications
• config(empty)

Sql Logs

Logs

View Variables

• menuNameCurrentMenuLinkmain
• title_for_layoutPublications
• publications(array)
  • 0(array)
    • Publication(array)
      • id1799
      • created2019-06-27 12:42:56
      • modified2019-06-27 14:51:09
      • publication_date2019-06-24 00:00:00
      • first_nameAuke
      • last_nameWillems
      • occupationLecturer in Law
      • institutionUniversity of Liverpool
      • address
      • postal_code
      • countryGB
      • telephone
      • fax
      • emaila.willems@liverpool.ac.uk
      • titleThe Court of Justice of the European Union’s Mutual Trust Journey in EU Criminal Law: From a Presumption to (Room for) Rebuttal
      • authorAuke Willems
      • co_author
      • publication_typearticle
      • journal_publisherGerman Law Journal 20(4)
      • pages468-495
      • abstractMore than any other EU institution, the Court of Justice of the European Union has upheld the presumption of mutual trust in EU criminal law cooperation. Surprisingly though, despite mutual trust’s centrality in the Court’s jurisprudence, it has long not qualified nor properly elaborated the notion of trust, but rather held on to its presumed existence based on a high level of fundamental rights protection throughout the Union. This article will assess the important role of the Court in establishing, upholding and ultimately qualifying the trust presumption in the EU criminal justice context. Along the lines of a number of key cases, the narrative of a strong defence of (the presumption of) mutual trust appears, but also of an evolution toward more room for rebuttal in recent cases. This signals the increased weight given to fundamental rights protection in the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.
      • languagesEnglish
      • keywords
      • slugthe-court-of-justice-of-the-european-union-s-mutual-trust-journey-in-eu-criminal-law-from-a-presumption-to-room-for-rebuttal
      • attachment_id(null)
      • approved(true)
      • online(true)
      • old_id(null)
      • full_nameAuke Willems
      • approved_online1
    • Attachment(array)
      • id(null)
      • name(null)
      • extension(null)
      • filename(null)
      • mimetype(null)
      • md5(null)
      • type(null)
      • size(null)
      • width(null)
      • height(null)
      • protected(null)
      • old_media_id(null)
      • created(null)
      • modified(null)
      • title(null)
      • online(null)
  • 1(array)
    • Publication(array)
      • id1797
      • created2019-06-04 11:10:54
      • modified2019-06-06 17:31:23
      • publication_date2018-10-22 00:00:00
      • first_nameSimone
      • last_nameLonati
      • occupationProfessor
      • institutionBocconi University
      • addressVia Roentgen 1, Milan
      • postal_code20136
      • countryIT
      • telephone
      • fax
      • emailsimone.lonati@unibocconi.it
      • titleIs the European Protection Order Sufficiently Robust to Prevent Any Discrimination Among Victims Moving Across the European Union? An Assessment of the First Seven Years
      • authorSimone Lonati
      • co_author
      • publication_typearticle
      • journal_publisherEuropean Criminal Law Review , Volume 8, 3/2018
      • pages332-367
      • abstractThe purpose of this paper is, on the one hand, to highlight the reasons that have thus far prevented a systematic and widespread recourse to the commendable (in intent at least) European Protection Order, introduced by Directive 2011/99/EU (so-called EPO DIRECTIVE); and, on the other, to assess whether said mechanism is actually capable of preventing discriminations in the protection of victims within the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. Starting from a general analysis of the above instrument, this article briefly examines how the foregoing Directive has been implemented in the domestic legal systems of the only Member States that, as at 2017, have issued at least one protection order: Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. In particular, the analysis focuses on the main issues surrounding this instrument that have caused it to be used on a merely sporadic basis, and it shows how the European Protection Order pays the price of the almost complete lack of harmonization in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters: the profound discrepancies between the individual domestic legal systems as to the type of offences criminalized, and the absence of protection measures common to all Member States, are the primary factors standing in the way of achieving sufficient and uniform levels of victim protection throughout the entire EU territory.
      • languagesEnglish
      • keywords
      • slugis-the-european-protection-order-sufficiently-robust-to-prevent-any-discrimination-among-victims-moving-across-the-european-union-an-assessment-of-the-first-seven-years
      • attachment_id(null)
      • approved(true)
      • online(true)
      • old_id(null)
      • full_nameSimone Lonati
      • approved_online1
    • Attachment(array)
      • id(null)
      • name(null)
      • extension(null)
      • filename(null)
      • mimetype(null)
      • md5(null)
      • type(null)
      • size(null)
      • width(null)
      • height(null)
      • protected(null)
      • old_media_id(null)
      • created(null)
      • modified(null)
      • title(null)
      • online(null)
  • 2(array)
    • Publication(array)
      • id1795
      • created2018-09-21 16:37:00
      • modified2018-09-21 16:38:20
      • publication_date2018-08-21 00:00:00
      • first_nameSergio Carrera; Valsamis Mitsilegas
      • last_nameMarco Stefan; Fabio Giuffrida
      • occupation
      • institution
      • address
      • postal_code
      • country
      • telephone
      • fax
      • emailfabio.giuffrida@uni.lu
      • titleCriminal Justice and Police Cooperation between the EU and the UK after Brexit - Towards a principled and trust-based partnership
      • authorSergio Carrera; Valsamis Mitsilegas; Marco Stefan; Fabio Giuffrida
      • co_author
      • publication_typestudy
      • journal_publisherCentre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) and Queen Mary University of London
      • pages167
      • abstract<p style="text-align: justify;">Brexit poses several challenges for future interaction between the EU and the UK in the areas of criminal justice and police cooperation. A new legal framework will be required to sustain the EU’s relations with the UK – an active participant in numerous EU criminal justice and police cooperation instruments – once it leaves the Union. The negotiations on the exit of the UK from the EU must grapple with the crucial questions of how and to what extent can the two parties continue to maintain effective arrangements for fighting cross-border crime, while at the same time guaranteeing compliance with the rule of law and fundamental rights.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><br /> This report is the result of intensive deliberations among members of a Task Force set up jointly by CEPS and the School of Law at Queen Mary University of London, who met regularly throughout the first half of 2018. It examines the feasibility of retaining the current EU–UK framework for cooperation in these critical fields and explores possible alternatives to the status quo. It also delves into the conditions under which the UK could continue to participate in EU instruments and EU agencies engaged in cooperation in criminal matters and to have access to justice and home affairs databases and other informationsharing tools. In their conclusions, the members offer a set of specific policy options for the EU and the UK to consider after Brexit with a view to developing an effective partnership in the areas of criminal justice and security based on trust and shared values. </p>
      • languagesEnglish
      • keywordsBrexit
      • slugcriminal-justice-and-police-cooperation-between-the-eu-and-the-uk-after-brexit-towards-a-principled-and-trust-based-partnership
      • attachment_id2570
      • approved(true)
      • online(true)
      • old_id(null)
      • full_nameSergio Carrera; Valsamis Mitsilegas Marco Stefan; Fabio Giuffrida
      • approved_online1
    • Attachment(array)
      • id2570
      • nameTFR_EU_UK_Cooperation_Brexit_0.pdf
      • extensionpdf
      • filenameTFR_EU-UK_Cooperation_Brexit_0
      • mimetypeapplication/pdf
      • md567d132bd0729dff38dbb7a06bfd97dc5
      • typedocument
      • size1986006
      • width(null)
      • height(null)
      • protected(false)
      • old_media_id(null)
      • created2018-09-21 16:30:57
      • modified2018-09-21 16:30:57
      • title
      • online(true)
  • 3(array)
    • Publication(array)
      • id1793
      • created2018-02-22 12:29:09
      • modified2018-04-30 13:44:27
      • publication_date2018-02-20 00:00:00
      • first_nameLeandro
      • last_nameMancano
      • occupationLecturer
      • institutionUniversity of Edinburgh
      • address
      • postal_code
      • countryBE
      • telephone
      • fax
      • emailLeandro.Mancano@ed.ac.uk
      • titleJudicial Harmonisation through Autonomous Concepts of European Union Law. The Example of the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision
      • authorLeandro Mancano
      • co_author
      • publication_typearticle
      • journal_publisherEuropean Law Review
      • pages20
      • abstractThe Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has been a key institutional actor for the promotion of legal integration within the EU. On many occasions, such a function has been performed to fill or supplement the harmonisation gap left, intentionally or not, by the Union legislature. In this sense, an important tool resorted to by the CJEU to achieve closer integration has been the attribution of the status of autonomous concept to provisions of EU law, so as to reduce the discretion of State authorities. Against this background, this article raises the following question: has the Court used autonomous concepts in order to pursue judicial harmonisation in areas where the main intention of the EU legislature was to preserve Member States’ autonomy? The answer put forward in this article is in the affirmative. The hypothesis is tested by analysing the use of the autonomous concepts in the context of the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision (EAW FD), an instrument adopted in an area extremely sensitive for national sovereignty. By drawing on Tridimas’s distinction between outcome, guidance and deference cases, this article shows that the CJEU’s use of autonomous concepts in interpreting the EAW FD has had great potential in terms of having a harmonising effect.
      • languagesEnglish
      • keywords(null)
      • slugjudicial-harmonisation-through-autonomous-concepts-of-european-union-law-the-example-of-the-european-arrest-warrant-framework-decision
      • attachment_id0
      • approved(true)
      • online(true)
      • old_id(null)
      • full_nameLeandro Mancano
      • approved_online1
    • Attachment(array)
      • id(null)
      • name(null)
      • extension(null)
      • filename(null)
      • mimetype(null)
      • md5(null)
      • type(null)
      • size(null)
      • width(null)
      • height(null)
      • protected(null)
      • old_media_id(null)
      • created(null)
      • modified(null)
      • title(null)
      • online(null)
  • 4(array)
    • Publication(array)
      • id1794
      • created2018-04-30 11:27:50
      • modified2019-06-06 17:32:06
      • publication_date2018-02-18 00:00:00
      • first_nameLeandro
      • last_nameMancano
      • occupationLecturer in EU Law
      • institutionEdinburgh Law School
      • address
      • postal_code
      • countryLR
      • telephone
      • fax
      • emailLeandro.Mancano@ed.ac.uk
      • titleJudicial harmonisation through autonomous concepts of European Union Law: The example of the European Arrest Warrant Framework decision
      • authorLeandro Mancano
      • co_author
      • publication_typearticle
      • journal_publisherEuropean Law Review
      • pages69-88
      • abstractThe Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has been a key institutional actor for the promotion of legal integration within the EU. On many occasions, such a function has been performed to fill or supplement the harmonisation gap left, intentionally or not, by the Union legislature. In this sense, an important tool resorted to by the CJEU to achieve closer integration has been the attribution of the status of autonomous concept to provisions of EU law, so as to reduce the discretion of State authorities. Against this background, this article raises the following question: has the Court used autonomous concepts in order to pursue judicial harmonisation in areas where the main intention of the EU legislature was to preserve Member States’ autonomy? The answer put forward in this article is in the affirmative. The hypothesis is tested by analysing the use of the autonomous concepts in the context of the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision (EAW FD), an instrument adopted in an area extremely sensitive for national sovereignty. By drawing on Tridimas’s distinction between outcome, guidance and deference cases, this article shows that the CJEU’s use of autonomous concepts in interpreting the EAW FD has had great potential in terms of having a harmonising effect.
      • languagesEnglish
      • keywords
      • slugjudicial-harmonisation-through-autonomous-concepts-of-european-union-law-the-example-of-the-european-arrest-warrant-framework-decision-1
      • attachment_id(null)
      • approved(true)
      • online(true)
      • old_id(null)
      • full_nameLeandro Mancano
      • approved_online1
    • Attachment(array)
      • id(null)
      • name(null)
      • extension(null)
      • filename(null)
      • mimetype(null)
      • md5(null)
      • type(null)
      • size(null)
      • width(null)
      • height(null)
      • protected(null)
      • old_media_id(null)
      • created(null)
      • modified(null)
      • title(null)
      • online(null)
  • 5(array)
    • Publication(array)
      • id1796
      • created2019-06-04 10:48:36
      • modified2019-06-06 17:31:55
      • publication_date2018-01-15 00:00:00
      • first_nameSimone
      • last_nameLonati
      • occupationProfessor
      • institutionBocconi University
      • addressVia Roentgen 1
      • postal_code
      • countryIT
      • telephone
      • fax
      • emailsimone.lonati@unibocconi.it
      • titleAnonymous Witness Evidence before the European Court of Human Rights: Is It Still Possible to Speak of "Fair Trial"?
      • authorSimone Lonati
      • co_author
      • publication_typearticle
      • journal_publisherEuropean Criminal Law Review
      • pages116-142
      • abstractThe purpose of this paper is to encourage a reflection on the use of anonymous witness evidence by the European Court of Human Rights. An analysis of the leading cases solved by the Strasbourg judges will provide an overview of the European case law developments on such a delicate topic, considering how the accused’s right of defence is seriously impaired when anonymous depositions are admitted in proceedings. The Court’s most recent decisions on this topic do create some concern. They represent a considerable step backward in the guaranteed right to confrontation, which, especially when dealing with anonymity, does not seem acceptable. While there is no question on the need to protect persons other than the accused in criminal proceedings and on the urgency to safeguard the safety of witnesses, when in danger, and preserve the source of evidence, on other hand, it is hard to imagine what “counterbalancing procedures” could compensate for all that the accused is denied when the identity of the person making incriminating statements against him/her is concealed. It is therefore a matter of making a civilised choice, and of asking ourselves whether in a trial that still aspires to be defined as “fair”, anonymous incriminations may be tolerated.
      • languagesEnglish
      • keywords
      • sluganonymous-witness-evidence-before-the-european-court-of-human-rights-is-it-still-possible-to-speak-of-fair-trial
      • attachment_id(null)
      • approved(true)
      • online(true)
      • old_id(null)
      • full_nameSimone Lonati
      • approved_online1
    • Attachment(array)
      • id(null)
      • name(null)
      • extension(null)
      • filename(null)
      • mimetype(null)
      • md5(null)
      • type(null)
      • size(null)
      • width(null)
      • height(null)
      • protected(null)
      • old_media_id(null)
      • created(null)
      • modified(null)
      • title(null)
      • online(null)
  • 6(array)
    • Publication(array)
      • id1790
      • created2017-10-11 09:58:15
      • modified2017-10-11 09:59:03
      • publication_date2017-11-01 00:00:00
      • first_nameMichiel
      • last_nameLuchtman
      • occupationPofessor of Transnational Law Enforcement and Fundamental Rights
      • institutionUtrecht University
      • address
      • postal_code
      • country
      • telephone
      • fax
      • emailm.luchtman@uu.nl
      • titleLaw Enforcement by EU Authorities: Implications for Political and Judicial Accountability
      • authorMiroslava Schloten
      • co_authorMichiel Luchtman
      • publication_typecollective_book
      • journal_publisherElgar
      • pages416
      • abstract<p>Law Enforcement by EU Authorities is the first comprehensive study of a new development in the field of EU law and governance: the proliferation of EU enforcement authorities (EEAs). It offers an investigation into each of the existing eight EEAs, the prospective European Public Prosecutor’s Office and how they enforce EU law vis-à-vis private actors together with relevant national enforcement authorities.</p> <p>The study focuses on the interplay between political accountability and judicial protection in the system of shared direct enforcement. It offers a comparative investigation into the EU-national interrelationship in the field of shared enforcement and shows the need for improvement of democratic control and judicial protection in the area of ‘shared tasks, but separated controls’. Expert contributors analyse these issues in relation to specific sectors, including financial/banking supervision, aviation, food law, fisheries, fraud, financial interests of the European Union, competition law and pharmaceuticals.</p> <p>This detailed book includes insights from both academics and practitioners, drawing on different national backgrounds and subject specialisms. It provides an important resource for researchers of EU law and governance and officials in the field of enforcement.</p>
      • languagesEnglish
      • keywordslaw enforcement; EU law; EPPO; judicial protection
      • sluglaw-enforcement-by-eu-authorities-implications-for-political-and-judicial-accountability
      • attachment_id(null)
      • approved(true)
      • online(true)
      • old_id(null)
      • full_nameMichiel Luchtman
      • approved_online1
    • Attachment(array)
      • id(null)
      • name(null)
      • extension(null)
      • filename(null)
      • mimetype(null)
      • md5(null)
      • type(null)
      • size(null)
      • width(null)
      • height(null)
      • protected(null)
      • old_media_id(null)
      • created(null)
      • modified(null)
      • title(null)
      • online(null)
• query(empty)
• meta(array)
  • titlePublications
• $request->data(empty)
• $this->validationErrors(array)
  • Menu(empty)
  • MenuLink(empty)
  • MenuLinkTranslation(empty)
  • AcademicProject(empty)
  • SearchDocument(empty)
  • Page(empty)
  • PageTranslation(empty)
  • EuLegislatoryDocument(empty)
  • PhdDocument(empty)
  • Newsletter(empty)
  • NewsletterTranslation(empty)
  • EuCaseLawDocument(empty)
  • Member(empty)
  • Event(empty)
  • EventTranslation(empty)
  • Publication(empty)
  • Link(empty)
  • LinkTranslation(empty)
  • Attachment(empty)
  • AttachmentTranslation(empty)
• Loaded Helpers(array)
  • 0Asset
  • 1Attachment
  • 2Html
  • 3Share
  • 4Form
  • 5Paginator
  • 6CookiesWarning
  • 7EventDates
  • 8Website
  • 9FormCrypt
  • 10Number
  • 11SimpleGraph
  • 12Menus
  • 13DebugTimer
  • 14Toolbar
  • 15Text
  • 16HtmlToolbar

App Constants

CakePHP Constants

PHP Environment

Included Files

Include Paths

• 1/usr/share/php
• 2-> /var/web/vd13792/ulb008_releases/20220919065337/cakephp/lib/Cake/

Included Files

• core(array)
  • Behavior(array)
    • 0CORE/Model/Behavior/ContainableBehavior.php
  • Cache(array)
    • 0CORE/Cache/Cache.php
    • 1CORE/Cache/Engine/FileEngine.php
    • 2CORE/Cache/CacheEngine.php
  • Component(array)
    • 0CORE/Controller/Component/PaginatorComponent.php
    • 1CORE/Controller/Component/SessionComponent.php
  • Config(array)
    • 0CORE/Config/config.php
  • Configure(array)
    • 0CORE/Configure/PhpReader.php
    • 1CORE/Configure/ConfigReaderInterface.php
  • Controller(array)
    • 0CORE/Controller/Controller.php
    • 1CORE/Controller/ComponentCollection.php
    • 2CORE/Controller/Component.php
  • Datasource(array)
    • 0CORE/Model/Datasource/CakeSession.php
    • 1CORE/Model/Datasource/Database/Mysql.php
    • 2CORE/Model/Datasource/DboSource.php
    • 3CORE/Model/Datasource/DataSource.php
  • Error(array)
    • 0CORE/Error/exceptions.php
    • 1CORE/Error/ErrorHandler.php
  • I18n(array)
    • 0CORE/I18n/I18n.php
    • 1CORE/I18n/L10n.php
  • Log(array)
    • 0CORE/Log/CakeLog.php
    • 1CORE/Log/LogEngineCollection.php
    • 2CORE/Log/Engine/FileLog.php
    • 3CORE/Log/Engine/BaseLog.php
    • 4CORE/Log/CakeLogInterface.php
  • Model(array)
    • 0CORE/Model/Model.php
    • 1CORE/Model/BehaviorCollection.php
    • 2CORE/Model/ConnectionManager.php
    • 3CORE/Model/ModelBehavior.php
  • Network(array)
    • 0CORE/Network/CakeRequest.php
    • 1CORE/Network/CakeResponse.php
  • Other(array)
    • 0CORE/bootstrap.php
    • 1CORE/basics.php
    • 2CORE/Core/App.php
    • 3CORE/Core/Configure.php
    • 4CORE/Core/CakePlugin.php
    • 5CORE/Event/CakeEventManager.php
    • 6CORE/Event/CakeEventListener.php
    • 7CORE/Event/CakeEvent.php
    • 8CORE/Core/CakeObject.php
  • Routing(array)
    • 0CORE/Routing/Dispatcher.php
    • 1CORE/Routing/Filter/AssetDispatcher.php
    • 2CORE/Routing/DispatcherFilter.php
    • 3CORE/Routing/Filter/CacheDispatcher.php
    • 4CORE/Routing/Router.php
    • 5CORE/Routing/Route/CakeRoute.php
  • Utility(array)
    • 0CORE/Utility/Hash.php
    • 1CORE/Utility/Debugger.php
    • 2CORE/Utility/CakeText.php
    • 3CORE/Utility/Inflector.php
    • 4CORE/Utility/ObjectCollection.php
    • 5CORE/Utility/ClassRegistry.php
  • View(array)
    • 0CORE/View/HelperCollection.php
• app(array)
  • Behavior(array)
    • 0APP/Model/Behavior/CachableBehavior.php
  • Config(array)
    • 0APP/Config/core.php
    • 1APP/Config/preview/bootstrap.php
    • 2APP/Config/bootstrap.php
    • 3APP/Config/languages.php
    • 4APP/Config/routes.php
    • 5APP/Config/database.php
    • 6APP/Config/preview/database.php
  • Controller(array)
    • 0APP/Controller/PublicationsController.php
    • 1APP/Controller/AppController.php
  • Model(array)
    • 0APP/Model/Menu.php
    • 1APP/Model/MenuLink.php
    • 2APP/Model/MenuLinkTranslation.php
    • 3APP/Model/AcademicProject.php
    • 4APP/Model/AppModel.php
    • 5APP/Model/Page.php
    • 6APP/Model/PageTranslation.php
    • 7APP/Model/EuLegislatoryDocument.php
    • 8APP/Model/PhdDocument.php
    • 9APP/Model/Newsletter.php
    • 10APP/Model/NewsletterTranslation.php
    • 11APP/Model/EuCaseLawDocument.php
    • 12APP/Model/Member.php
    • 13APP/Model/Event.php
    • 14APP/Model/EventTranslation.php
    • 15APP/Model/Publication.php
    • 16APP/Model/Link.php
    • 17APP/Model/LinkTranslation.php
    • 18APP/Model/Attachment.php
    • 19APP/Model/AttachmentTranslation.php
  • Other(array)
    • 0APP/mysqli-overwrites.php
    • 1APP/Entity/AppEntity.php
    • 2APP/Entity/EventEntity.php
• plugins(array)
  • BoostCake(array)
    • Config(array)
      • 0BoostCake/Config/bootstrap.php
    • Component(array)
      • 0BoostCake/Controller/Component/BoostCakeComponent.php
  • CakeAdmin(array)
    • Config(array)
      • 0CakeAdmin/Config/routes.php
    • Plugin(array)
      • 0CakeAdmin/Lib/Routing/Route/AdminRoute.php
      • 1CakeAdmin/Lib/AdminConfig.php
      • 2CakeAdmin/Lib/Routing/Route/AdminBelongsToRoute.php
  • Contact(array)
    • Config(array)
      • 0Contact/Config/routes.php
  • DebugKit(array)
    • Component(array)
      • 0DebugKit/Controller/Component/ToolbarComponent.php
    • Plugin(array)
      • 0DebugKit/Lib/DebugMemory.php
      • 1DebugKit/Lib/Panel/HistoryPanel.php
      • 2DebugKit/Lib/DebugPanel.php
      • 3DebugKit/Lib/Panel/SessionPanel.php
      • 4DebugKit/Lib/Panel/RequestPanel.php
      • 5DebugKit/Lib/Panel/SqlLogPanel.php
      • 6DebugKit/Lib/Panel/TimerPanel.php
      • 7DebugKit/Lib/Panel/LogPanel.php
      • 8DebugKit/Lib/Log/Engine/DebugKitLog.php
      • 9DebugKit/Lib/Panel/VariablesPanel.php
      • 10DebugKit/Lib/Panel/EnvironmentPanel.php
      • 11DebugKit/Lib/Panel/IncludePanel.php
      • 12DebugKit/Lib/DebugTimer.php
      • 13DebugKit/Lib/DebugKitDebugger.php
  • Event(array)
    • Model(array)
      • 0Event/Model/PluginEvent.php
      • 1Event/Model/EventAppModel.php
      • 2Event/Model/PluginEventTranslation.php
    • Plugin(array)
      • 0Event/Entity/PluginEventEntity.php
  • MailingService(array)
    • Config(array)
      • 0MailingService/Config/routes.php
  • Media(array)
    • Component(array)
      • 0Media/Controller/Component/UploadComponent.php
    • Model(array)
      • 0Media/Model/PluginAttachment.php
      • 1Media/Model/PluginAttachmentTranslation.php
      • 2Media/Model/MediaAppModel.php
  • Menu(array)
    • Config(array)
      • 0Menu/Config/bootstrap.php
    • Component(array)
      • 0Menu/Controller/Component/MenusComponent.php
    • Model(array)
      • 0Menu/Model/PluginMenu.php
      • 1Menu/Model/MenuAppModel.php
      • 2Menu/Model/PluginMenuLink.php
      • 3Menu/Model/PluginMenuLinkTranslation.php
    • Plugin(array)
      • 0Menu/Lib/Tree.php
      • 1Menu/Lib/Vertex.php
  • Page(array)
    • Model(array)
      • 0Page/Model/PluginPage.php
      • 1Page/Model/PluginPageTranslation.php
  • Search(array)
    • Config(array)
      • 0Search/Config/routes.php
    • Behavior(array)
      • 0Search/Model/Behavior/SearchableBehavior.php
    • Model(array)
      • 0Search/Model/SearchDocument.php
    • Plugin(array)
      • 0Search/Vendor/DoubleMetaPhone.php
  • Share(array)
    • Config(array)
      • 0Share/Config/routes.php
  • System(array)
    • Config(array)
      • 0System/Config/bootstrap.php
    • Plugin(array)
      • 0System/Lib/I18n/Language.php
      • 1System/Lib/Routing/Resources.php
      • 2System/Lib/Routing/Route/I18nResourceRoute.php
      • 3System/Lib/Routing/Route/ResourceRoute.php
      • 4System/Entity/Entity.php
    • Model(array)
      • 0System/Model/EntityModel.php
    • Behavior(array)
      • 0System/Model/Behavior/TranslatableBehavior.php
      • 1System/Model/Behavior/ViewsBehavior.php
      • 2System/Model/Behavior/SluggableBehavior.php
  • Utils(array)
    • Plugin(array)
      • 0Utils/Lib/Routing/Filter/MaintenanceFilter.php
    • Component(array)
      • 0Utils/Controller/Component/FormCryptComponent.php
    • Behavior(array)
      • 0Utils/Model/Behavior/ArchivableBehavior.php