Location Of The Court Of Justice Law European Essay

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Introduction: Structure of the Court of Justice

The European Court of Justice is the judicial authority of the European Union. It works with the courts and tribunals of the 27 Member States, and in doing so it ensures that application and interpretation of European Union law is uniform across all Member States.

The Court of Justice of the European Union, based in Luxembourg, is made up of three courts: the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal. Over 15,000 judgments have been delivered by the three courts since they were set up.

The Court of Justice of the European Union is a multilingual institution, meaning that hearings can take place in any of the languages of the Member States. This is a unique position that does not take place in any other court in the world.

The Court of Justice has 27 Judges and 8 Advocates General, who are appointed by the governments of the Member States. They are appointed to office for six years, which is renewable.

Personnel of the Court:

The Judges of the Court of Justice elect a President and a Vice-President for a term of three years which is also renewable. The President directs the work of the Court and presides at hearings and deliberations of the full Court or the Grand Chamber. The Vice-President assists the President in the exercise of his duties and takes his place when necessary.

The Advocates General are responsible for presenting, with complete impartiality and independence, an ‘opinion' in the cases assigned to them.

There is also a Registrar appointed who works as the institution's secretary general and manages the departments under the authority of the President.

Location of the Court of Justice:

The Court may sit as a full court, in a Grand Chamber of 15 Judges or in Chambers of three or five Judges. The Court sits as a full court in exceptional circumstances, such as proceedings to dismiss the European Ombudsman or a Member of the European Commission.

The Court takes place in a Grand Chamber when a Member State or an institution which is a party to the proceedings so requests, and in particularly complex or important cases. Other cases are heard by Chambers of three or five Judges. The Presidents of the Chambers of five Judges are elected for three years, and those of the Chambers of three Judges for one year.

1: Main Roles

The European Court of Justice has three main roles;

Role 1: The Court reviews the legality of the acts of the institutions of the European Union.

Role 2: The Court of Justice ensures that the Member States comply with obligations under the Treaties.

Role 3: The Court interprets European Union law at the request of the national courts and tribunals.

Co-Operation with other Institutions:

Although the Court of Justice has independence from the other institutions, it works closely with closely with certain institutions on matters of common importance.

The European Parliament has the ability to ask the Court to take action against the Commission or Council if it is believed they have acted in a way that is contrary to EU law.

The European Parliament, together with Council, can ask the Court of Justice to set up specialised courts.

Parliament elects the European Ombudsman who reports back to the European Parliament and presents an annual report to MEPs. The Ombudsman may be dismissed by the Court of Justice at the request of Parliament in exceptional circumstances. The Ombudsman has the power to start inquiries on his own initiative.

2: Decision Making Process

References for preliminary rulings

The Court of Justice cooperates with all the courts of the Member States, which are the ordinary courts in matters of European Union law.

To ensure the effective and uniform application of European Union legislation and to prevent divergent interpretations, the national courts may, and sometimes must, refer to the Court of Justice and ask it to clarify a point concerning the interpretation of EU law, so that they may ascertain, for example, whether their national legislation complies with that law.

A reference for a preliminary ruling may also seek the review of the validity of an act of EU law.

The Court of Justice's reply is not merely an opinion, but takes the form of a judgment or reasoned order.

The national court to which it is addressed is, in deciding the dispute before it, bound by the interpretation given.

The Court's judgment likewise binds other national courts before which the same problem is raised.

It is thus through references for preliminary rulings that any European citizen can seek clarification of the European Union rules which affect him.

Although such a reference can be made only by a national court, all the parties to the proceedings before that court, the Member States and the institutions of the European Union may take part in the proceedings before the Court of Justice. In that way, several important principles of EU law have been laid down by preliminary rulings, sometimes in reply to questions referred by national courts of first instance.

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

These actions enable the Court of Justice to determine whether a Member State has fulfilled its obligations under European Union law. Before bringing the case before the Court of Justice, the Commission conducts a preliminary procedure in which the Member State concerned is given the opportunity to reply to the complaints addressed to it.

If that procedure does not result in the Member State terminating the failure, an action for infringement of EU law may be brought before the Court of Justice.

The action may be brought by the Commission - as, in practice, is usually the case - or by a Member State.

If the Court finds that an obligation has not been fulfilled, the State must bring the failure to an end without delay. If, after a further action is brought by the Commission, the Court of Justice finds that the Member State concerned has not complied with its judgment, it may impose on it a fixed or periodic financial penalty.

However, if measures transposing a directive are not notified to the Commission, it may propose that the Court impose a pecuniary penalty on the Member State concerned, once the initial judgment establishing a failure to fulfil obligations has been delivered.

Actions for Anulment

By an action for annulment, the applicant seeks the annulment of a measure (in particular a regulation, directive or decision) adopted by an institution, body, office or agency of the European Union.

The Court of Justice has exclusive jurisdiction over actions brought by a Member State against the European Parliament and/or against the Council (apart from Council measures in respect of State aid, dumping and implementing powers) or brought by one European Union institution against another.

The General Court has jurisdiction, at first instance, in all other actions of this type and particularly in actions brought by individuals.

Actions for failure to act

These actions enable the lawfulness of the failure of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the European Union to act to be reviewed. However, such an action may be brought only after the institution concerned has been called on to act. Where the failure to act is held to be unlawful, it is for the institution concerned to put an end to the failure by appropriate measures. Jurisdiction to hear actions for failure to act is shared between the Court of Justice and the General Court according to the same criteria as for actions for annulment.

Appeals

Appeals on points of law only may be brought before the Court of Justice against judgments and orders of the General Court. If the appeal is admissible and well founded, the Court of Justice sets aside the judgment of the General Court. Where the state of the proceedings so permits, the Court of Justice may itself decide the case. Otherwise, it refers the case back to the General Court, which is bound by the decision given by the Court of Justice on the appeal.

Reviews

Decisions of the General Court on appeals against decisions of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal may, in exceptional circumstances, be reviewed by the Court of Justice as provided in the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

3: Changes in role of the Court of Justice since introduction of the Treaty of Lisbon

The main point in the Treaty of Lisbon in relation to the Court of Justice was the enlargement of the court to cover certain acts of the European Council. The previous three pillar structure was removed and this allowed the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to extend to Union Law as a whole and to other bodies other than institutions.

The Court of Justice, under Article 275 remains a monitor of compliance with Article 40 of the Treaty on European Union. It also ensures that the intergovernmental procedure for common security and foreign policy is not used to prejudice the application of the areas of Union competence.

The Treaty of Lisbon made some provisions on the Court of Justice. These provisions are found in Articles 19-24 of the Treaty on European Union and are supplemented by Articles 251-281 of the Treaty on the Foundation of the European Union.

The main point covered in Article 19 was the provision for a new denomination. This means that the court was split into the three sections we see today; the Court of Justice, the General Court and other specialised courts, such as the Civil Service Tribunal.

Another point covered was that the Statute of the Court of Justice was to be amended in the future on the bass of ‘ordinary legislative procedure’. This was a change from before the Treaty, where the Parliament was not involved. The changed meant that a proposal to amend the Statute would be required to be submitted to national parliaments, who then had eight weeks to draft a reasoned opinion if they considered ‘the principles of subsidiary have not been respected’.

Article 263 of the Treaty on the Foundation of the European Union outlines the Action for annulment. The standard for "a regulatory act which is of direct concern" and "does not entail implementing measures" has been relaxed to a limited degree.

The Lisbon Treaty changed the way members of the Court of Justice and the General Court were appointed. Under article 225 of the Treaty on the Foundation of the European Union, an advisory panel has to give an opinion on the suitability of the nominees to perform the duties of Judge and Advocate General.

Articles 258 and 260 of the Lisbon Treaty gave the Court new powers to impose fines and period penalties on Member States who fail to comply with a judgement by the Court of justice under Article 258.

The field of justice and home affairs (JHA), which directly affects the lives of European citizens, is probably the policy area where the Treaty of Lisbon has had most impact. Practically the whole field of JHA is subject to co-decision, with the exception of family law, operational police cooperation and a few other areas. In addition, matters which were previously dealt with under the third pillar, such as judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation, will be treated under the same kind of rules as those of the single market. As a result, EU and national measures in these areas will be subject to the judicial review of the Court of Justice.

4: Practical Example of a Decision Made by the Court of Justice

‘The Bosman Ruling’

A decision made by the Court of Justice that has had lasting effects is the case of Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association ASBL v Jean-Marc Bosman (1995) C-415/93. This case is also known as the Bosman Ruling and concerns freedom of movement of workers, direct effect of article 39 of the EC Treaty and freedom of association.

The ruling was made in a consolidation of three separate legal cases, all involving Belgian footballer Jean-Marc Bosman. Bosman was a professional footballer, playing for RFC Liège when his contract expired in 1990. He wished to transfer to a French club; however they refused to meet Liège’s demands, so the transfer did not proceed. During this period, Bosman’s wages were reduced as he was no longer playing with the first team. This led Bosman to take his case to the Court of Justice and he sued for restraint of trade.

In December 1995 the court ruled that the system placed a restriction on the free movement of workers. This was prohibited by Article 39(1) of the EC Treaty. Bosman and all other EU football players were given the right to a free transfer at the end of their contracts, with the provision that they were transferring from a club within one EU Association to a club within another EU Association.

The Bosman Ruling also prohibited domestic football leagues in the EU from imposing quotas on foreign players to the extent that they discriminated against nationals of EU states.