Building The Eu Judicial System: Politicians 1, (Judicial) Architects 0

 

Steve Peers

The Court of Justice has of late proposed that the European Union should double the let on of judges on the General Court, in addition to abolish the EU’s Civil Service Tribunal. Why did the Court advise such a dramatic alter to the European Union judicial system? And is it a proficient idea?  

Background

The evolution of the European Union judicial organisation has been dominated past times a steady increment inwards the book of litigation, leading to disputes over how best to care this workload. Traditionally, the solution has been to increment the let on of European Union courts. So the Single European Act, inwards forcefulness 1987, amended the Treaties to give the European Union the ability to works life a Court of First Instance (later renamed the ‘General Court’ past times the Treaty of Lisbon) to assistance the Court of Justice amongst its tasks. This ability was used to create that Court inwards 1989; both Courts receive got e'er had ane gauge per Member State.

As the representative charge of the Court of Justice continued to increase, to a greater extent than in addition to to a greater extent than of that Court’s jurisdiction was transferred to the Court of First Instance, in addition to then ultimately that Court had jurisdiction for almost all actions brought against the EU’s institutions, agencies in addition to other bodies. As an exception, the Court of Justice even in addition to then has jurisdiction over such cases if they are especially ‘constitutional’ inwards nature, namely actions brought past times the EU’s institutions against each other, in addition to challenges past times Member U.S. of A. to the European Union institutions’ essentially legislative acts. The Court of Justice hears appeals from the judgment of the Court of First Instance (now the General Court), in addition to retains amount jurisdiction over the other types of European Union police pull proceedings, mainly references from national courts for a preliminary ruling in addition to infringement actions against Member U.S. of A. for breach of European Union law.

Yet over time, this transfer of jurisdiction to the Court of First Instance overburdened that Court inwards turn. So the Treaty of Nice, inwards forcefulness 2003, gave the European Union ability to create a lower tier of European Union courts, called ‘judicial panels’ (renamed ‘specialised courts’ past times the Treaty of Lisbon). Only ane such specialised courtroom has been created: the European Union Civil Service Tribunal, which began its piece of job inwards 2005.  It has vii judges.

But every bit the European Union built to a greater extent than courts, to a greater extent than litigants came. By 2011, the CJEU was ane time again trying to discovery a way to create do amongst the increasing book of litigation. This time, instead of suggesting the creation of a novel Court, it proposed that 12 to a greater extent than judges endure appointed to the General Court. At the same time, it also proposed other amendments to the Court’s statute, every bit good every bit the creation of a aeroplane of temporary judges to assistance the Civil Service Tribunal.

Member U.S. of A. inwards the Council, every bit good every bit the European Parliament (the ordinary legislative physical care for applies to such changes), adopted the proposal on temporary judges for the Tribunal, every bit good every bit most of the other proposed changes to the CJEU Statute. But they did non adopt the increment inwards the let on of judges on the General Court. While they agreed amongst the increment inwards principle, they could non handle how to portion the extra judges amid Member States, or how to rotate the appointments betwixt them.

While these discussions dragged on without whatsoever conclusion, the backlog of cases at the General Court has continued to rise. And from this autumn, the province of affairs at the Civil Service Tribunal has begun to worsen every bit well, amongst the Council unable to create amount ii vacant slots due to the same arguments nearly the regulation of rotation.

So the Court of Justice has made a novel proposal: to double the let on of judges inwards the General Court to two/Member State, spell abolishing the Civil Service Tribunal. This would convey house inwards iii stages: 12 novel judges inwards the close future, transfer of the vii Tribunal judges inwards 2016, in addition to solar daytime of the month of the remaining nine judges from 2019. It remains to endure seen whether the European Parliament in addition to the Council volition convey this proposal.  

Comments

Undoubtedly, to a greater extent than or less remedy is necessary to bargain amongst the ever-increasing workload of the General Court. The European Union has an obligation nether Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to bargain amongst cases inside a reasonable time. While the novel judges volition toll money, failing to appoint them volition toll coin too: every bit the Court’s proposal points out, in that location are right away cases pending seeking damages because the European Union judicial organisation has failed to uphold the obligations imposed past times Article 47.

There are ii options available to this cease (without a Treaty amendment): the creation of to a greater extent than specialised courts, or the improver of to a greater extent than judges to the General Court. (It should endure noted that the planned ‘Unified Patent Court’ is not a specialised court, but a shape of shared national court; for to a greater extent than details, meet concluding week’s blog post on the developing European Union patent system).

The EU’s judges disagree amid themselves which of these ii options is best. It was an opened upwards secret, at the fourth dimension of the 2011 proposal, that the General Court judges wanted to create to a greater extent than specialist courts, but the Court of Justice’s preference for appointing to a greater extent than General Court judges prevailed. In the 2014 proposal, in that location is no longer an elbow grease to enshroud this disagreement: it’s openly acknowledged that the Court of Justice in addition to Civil Service Tribunal favour the proposal, spell the General Court does not.

Why this divergence of opinion? One argue is that European Union judges expect frontwards to dealing amongst civil service cases nearly every bit much every bit a truthful cat looks frontwards to a bath. The judges at the General Court thought they had got rid of these cases forever (except for appeals from the judgments of the Civil Service Tribunal). Indeed, there’s a rumour that on the solar daytime that Tribunal was created, every store inwards Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ran out of champagne. But now, to the horror of its judges, these cases seem laid to provide to the General Court.

On the other hand, the judges of the Civil Service Tribunal, after years of dockets consisting only of feuding functionnaires, tin expect frontwards to ruling also on bolshy Belarussians in addition to money-grubbing monopolists inwards the close future. Of course, past times the fourth dimension that the General Court consists of twice every bit many judges every bit the Court of Justice, the quondam volition outnumber the latter - although the Court of Justice, non the General Court (or the CJEU every bit a whole), which has the ability to brand proposals to amend the rules. (So does the European Commission).

Viewed objectively, which of these solutions is best? The Court’s proposals brand a let on of proficient arguments for increasing the let on of General Court judges. First of all, in that location is a proficient representative that the creation of specialist courts is less flexible, since litigation tin increment inwards areas non inside their jurisdiction (such every bit unusual policy sanctions, inwards recent years). Also, the creation of such courts does non necessarily solve the workload problem, since the cases most suitable for such courts (like trademark disputes) are oftentimes slowly to bargain with, in addition to nearly a 3rd of such cases volition endure appealed to the General Court anyway. Moreover, it makes feel to maintain such disputes closer to the Court of Justice (via agency of appeals from General Court decisions), since that Court has to bargain amongst similar cases inwards this context of references from national courts on the EU’s trademark Directive, in addition to on the human relationship betwixt intellectual belongings police pull in addition to European Union gratis displace in addition to contest law.

Furthermore, it takes longer to gear upwards a novel specialist courtroom than to appoint to a greater extent than judges to the General Court. While it is possible inwards theory to bargain amongst the ‘national representation’ upshot past times ensuring that in that location is ane to a greater extent than gauge per Member State across the General Court in addition to a let on of specialised courts, the Court of Justice is correct to believe that it volition endure hard to operate such a organisation inwards practice. The Council’s recent illegal refusal to appoint judges to the Civil Service Tribunal has shown that it values pork-barrel politics more than the dominion of law.

Finally, the most recent proposal volition receive got the singular payoff of simplifying the European Union judicial system, eliminating an entire tier of courts every bit good every bit the complex rules applying to screening whether the Court of Justice ought to review a judgment of the General Court on an appeal from a specialist court. This would brand the EU’s judicial organisation easier to empathise for the full general populace – in addition to inwards particular, for the beleaguered students of European Union law.

 

Barnard & Peers: chapter 10

 

Share this post