Institutional reform is needed to ensure that the EU can be effective.

Yet moves to provide access to justice have been stalled, says Kiran Desai

What is a constitution? According to the Collins dictionary it is 'the fundamental principles on which a state is governed'.

And while the draft EU constitution contains some key elements of a constitution - particularly the mechanism by which it can be changed - it actually bears more resemblance to a European treaty than a set of 'fundamental principles'.

It is widely acknowledged that wholesale institutional reform is needed to ensure the newly enlarged EU - which admits 10 new members on 1 May - can function more effectively.

Even lawyers experienced in European legislation currently find it difficult to work with the overlayering and interlocking treaties.

Most agree that a single document simplifying and bringing together all the previous treaties is a welcome development.

What is less welcome is the fact that opportunities have been missed in the process.

One would expect the EU, in its desire to connect with citizens and their concerns, to be a champion of access to justice, yet there is no mention of access to justice in the draft constitution's preamble - other than the rather woolly phrase 'social justice'.

Access to justice is not strictly limited to judicial remedies, but it is the cornerstone of our judicial system.

The Law Society's EU committee has recommended to the UK government and the EU's institutions that rights of audience before the courts be widened.

The 'direct and individual concern' test is too restrictive and should be modified as the need to demonstrate 'individual concern' is an anachronism today.

Natural and legal persons are often directly and adversely affected by European legislation, yet they have limited means of challenging it, except by challenges in their national courts.

There is also concern about judicial review.

The actions of all EU bodies must be subject to judicial review if people are to have confidence that due process has been followed.

All areas of EU competence should be subject to judicial review.

In recent years, myriads of newly created bodies and committees with significant powers of their own have appeared at EU level.

These bodies include powerful scientific committees, but they are not subject to the same checks and balances as the EU's institutions.

This democratic deficit needs to be closed.

At last month's EU summit, French president Jacques Chirac said he was determined to do everything he could to achieve agreement on the constitution before the EU summit on 17-18 June.

There has been political gridlock on adoption of the draft, arguably led by Spain and Poland in relation to voting rights.

However, the recent socialist party victory in Spain left Poland isolated and indications now are that the draft EU constitution may be adopted by the June summit.

After adoption, each member state must within two years ratify the constitution before it takes effect, which means that the UK could have a written constitution - albeit of an EU variety - by 2006.

The high politics of the constitution could be argued endlessly.

There are also numerous issues that don't make headline news, but that nonetheless affect people's lives and how they are governed.

The ultimate goal of the constitution should be to provide for a democratic EU.

The current draft constitution is the best vehicle we have and we must work with it as constructively as possible to ensure the best outcome.

Kiran Desai is a partner in the EU competition and trade practice of Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw and manages the law firm's Brussels office.

He is also is a member of the Law Society's EU committee