No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Advocate General: Assisting the CJEU of Article 13 TEU to Secure Trust and Democracy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2017
Abstract
The Advocate General (AG) has been a permanent feature of the European Union judicial order since 1957. From two Advocates General (AGs) in a Community of six Member States and Court of seven judges, their number has risen to eight in a Union of 27 Member States, three courts and 61 judges. Their task under the Treaty has remained the same, as has their mode of recruitment. The Lisbon Treaty has, however, assigned a new task to the collective judiciary of the Union—under Article 13 TEU, it is to ‘serve’ the citizens of the EU. What does this mean, and in particular what does it mean for the AG—has the task of these non-decision making officers also changed? This chapter suggests that the objective of this new duty is to manufacture trust in the Court of Justice and argues that this requires more transparency at the CJEU and thus a new role for the Advocate General.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 2012
References
1 Takis Tridimas, ‘The Role of the Advocate General in the Development of Community Law: Some Reflections’ (1997) Common Market Law Review 1349, 1362; Mortelmans, Kamiel, ‘The Court under the Influence of its Advocates General: An Analysis of the Case Law on the Functioning of the Internal Market’ (2005) 24 Yearbook of European Law 127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ritter, Cyril, ‘The Role and Impact of the Advocate General: Collectively and Individually’ (2006) 12 Columbian Journal of European Law 751 Google Scholar.
2 Weinstein, JB, ‘The Role of Judges in a Government of, by, and for the People: Notes for the Fifty-Eighth Cardozo Lecture’ (2008) 30 Cardozo Law Review 1 Google Scholar, 32.
3 Burrows, N and Greaves, R, The Advocate General in EC Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4 Lavranos, N, ‘The New Specialised Courts within the European Judicial System’ (2005) 30 European Law Review 261 Google Scholar.
5 See, eg, Opinion 1/09 of the Court (Full Court) on the creation of a European and Community Patents Court, 8 March 2011.
6 See de Witte, B, ‘Democratic Adjudication in Europe. Is the European Court of Justice Responsive to the Citizens?’ in Dougan, Michael, Shuibhne, Niamh Nic and Spaventa, Eleanor (eds), Empowerment and Disempowerment of the European Citizen (Oxford, Hart Publishing 2012)Google Scholar.
7 On passive and active institutional postures, see Heisse, M, ‘Preliminary Thoughts on the Virtues of Passive Dialogue’ (2000) 34 Akron Law Review 73 Google Scholar.
8 For example the right to access court records and documents. These are laid out in Common Practice Rules (CPR). See CVB v MGN [2012] EWHC 1148 (QB) 3 May 2012.
9 D Hart, ‘Common-Law Open Justice Lets in the Light; Strasbourg Not the Key’, 10 April 2012: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/04/10/common-law-open-justice-lets-in-the-light-strasbourg-not-the-key; J Wilson, ‘Law Reporting in the New Media Age’ 26. April 2012: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/law-reporting-in-the-new-media-age; N Morris, ‘Ban on Filming in British Courts to be Lifted’ (28 March 2012): www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ban-on-filming-in-british-courts-to-be-lifted-7593582.html; N Morris, ‘Courtroom Cameras “risk turning trials into a circus”‘ (29 March 2012): www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/courtroom-cameras-risk-turning-trials-into-a-circus-7595013. html; W Gant, ‘Slowly and Unsurely, the Courts are Opening up’ (27 April 2012): www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/apr/26/courts-opening-up. Plans to open courts to cameras were unveiled in the Queen’s Speech, May 2012: www.justice.gov.uk/news/features/cameras-in-court-plans-revealed; Ministry of Justice (2012) ‘Proposals to Allow the Broadcasting, Filming, and Recording of Selected Court Proceedings’ at www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/policy/moj/broadcasting-filming-recording-courts.pdf.
10 Arts 9–12 TEU.
11 D Gambetta cited in Susan Rose-Ackerman, ‘Trust, Honesty, and Corruption: Reflection on the State-Building Process’: www.digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/lepp papers/255, fn 3.
12 The Commission Consumer Policy Strategy hopes to make consumers and retailers as confident shopping cross border as in their home countries by 2013. www.ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/greenpaper_en.pdf, p 3.
13 P Stephens, ‘A Transatlantic Tale of Paralysis’ Financial Times (20 April 2012) p 11.
14 Gearty refers to a point made by Erin Pizzey, the founder of the women’s shelter movement, that so few children she had come across in her work had been able to swim. Swimming required trust: trust in themselves, trust in others, and this was a trust that these children— many of whom had been abused by their fathers—did not have. C Gearty, ‘Are Judges Now Out of their Depth?’ (2007) Justice Tom Seargent Memorial Annual Lecture.
15 S Rose-Ackerman, ‘Trust, Honesty, and Corruption: Reflection on the State-Building Process’ at www.digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/lepp papers/255.
16 Judt, T, Ill Fares the Land: A Treatise on our Present Discontents (London, Allen Lane, 2010) 67 Google Scholar.
17 Zemer, L and Pardo, S, ‘Justice & Foreign Affairs: Taking The European Neighbourhood Partner Countries to The European Court Of Justice’ (2006) 14 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 1 Google Scholar.
18 Special Eurobarometer 308 / Wave 71.1 ‘The Europeans in 2009’—TNS Opinion & Social, pp 102–113.
19 Bingham, T, The Rule of Law (London, Allen Lane, 2010)Google Scholar.
20 It has been asserted that the ‘ECJ operates within a predetermined political mandate and may not be comparable with a court of general jurisdiction the primary loyalty of which is to justice.’ Alder, J, ‘Dissents in Courts of Last Resort: Tragic Choices?’ (2000) 20 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 234.
21 HM Magis Cts Serv Inspectorate (UK),’A Review Of Race Issues In The Magistrates’ Courts Service’ (2002) at www.hmica.gov.uk/files/Race_linked.pdf.
22 Johnson, AM, ‘The Under-Representation of Minorities in the Legal Profession: A Critical Race Theorist’s Perspective’ (1997) 95 Michigan Law Review 1005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
23 Blancero et al argue that ‘interactional justice’ or communication is critical to whether a system is seen as fair. Blancero, DM, Del Campo, RG and Marron, GF, ‘Just Tell Me! Making Alternative Dispute Resolution Systems Fair’ (2010) 49(4) Industrial Relations 524 Google Scholar.
24 Equal Justice Initiative, Illegal Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection: A Continuing Legacy (Montgomery, Ala, EJI, 2010) at www.eji.org.
25 Toulson LJ in The Queen (On The Application of Guardian News and Media Limited) and City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2012] EWCA Civ 420, 1.
26 As quoted by Lord Shaw of Dunfermline in Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417, 477.
27 Guarnieri, C and Pederzolli, P, The Power of Judges: A Comparative Study of Courts and Democracy (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Hirschl, R, Towards Juristocracy: The Origin and Consequences of the New Constitution (Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press, 2004)Google Scholar and Malleson, K and Russell, P Appointing Judges in an Age of Judicial Power (Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2006)Google Scholar.
28 Klug, F, Values for a Godless Age (London, Penguin, 1998)Google Scholar. See M Beckford, ‘Human Rights Debate: Suffering ‘democratic deficit’ on the Idea that Protection of Human Rights is a ‘shared responsibility’: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9207685/Human-rights-debate-suffering-democratic-deficit.html.
29 Council of Europe, ‘Judicial Power and Public Liability for Judicial Acts’: Proceedings of 15th Colloquy on European Law, Bordeaux (Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 1985) 8 Google Scholar.
30 Recent book titles illustrate that the idea of judicial accountability is no longer an oxymoron: Yusuf, HO, Transitional Justice, Judicial Accountability and the Rule of Law (Abingdon, Routledge, 2010)Google Scholar and Piana, D, Judicial Accountabilities in New Europe: From Rule of Law to Quality of Justice (Farnham, UK, Ashgate, 2010)Google Scholar.
31 Television cameras are likely to be allowed into the criminal courts: R Brown, ‘On Camera: What Impact Will Televised Court Proceedings Have on Justice?’: www.legalweek.com/legal-week/blog-post/2168952/camera-impact-televised-court-proceedings-justice?WT.rss_f=&WT.rss_a=On+camera+-+what+impact+will+televised+court+proceedings+have+on+justice%3F. But photographing proceedings remains unlawful: ‘Man Jailed for Photographing Defendants in Truro Court’: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-17786138.
32 ‘Virtual Courts Brings Swifter Justice’: ‘By spring 2012, the entire criminal justice system is required to go digital, with secure electronic transfer of case files between the police, pros ecutors and courts becoming the norm rather than the exception’ (3 December 2011: www.justice.gov.uk/news/features/feature281111.htm).
33 A trial of the paperless court called ‘Transforming Through Technology’ has begun in Norwich Cown Court. See www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/dec/02/lawyers-tablet-computers-paperless-courts (accessed December 3 2011).
34 Bratza, N, ‘The Relationship between the UK Courts and Strasbourg’ (2011) European Human Rights Law Review 505 Google Scholar; ‘“An Obscurantist and Absurd Judgment”: Comment on the Advocate General Opinion in Case C-34/10 Brustle v Greenpeace on Stem Cells’ The Independent (29 April 2011), 2.
35 Baroness Hale of Richmond, ‘A Minority Opinion?’, Maccabaen Lecture in Jurisprudence, (2008) Proceedings of the British Academy 319, 330.
36 For summary and analysis see Bingham, Rule of Law (n 19).
37 Forsyth, C et al, Effective Judicial Review: A Cornerstone of Good Governance (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010)Google Scholar. See review by T O Neill at www.lpbr.net/2011/07/effective-judicial-review-cornerstone.html.
38 Mak, E, ‘The European Judicial Organisation in a New Paradigm: The Influence of Principles of “New Public Management” on the Organisation of the European Courts’ (2008) 14(6) European Law Journal 718 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
39 A recent example is Case C-34/09 Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEM) 8 March 2011.
40 Guidance for the use of the new PPU procedures appeared only after it had been in use.
41 J Lee, ‘A Defence of Concurring Speeches’ (2009) Public Law 305, 306–7.
42 Oellers-Frahm, K, ‘Multiplication of International Courts and Tribunals and Conflicting Jurisdiction: Problems and Possible Solutions’(2010) 5 Max Planck Yearbook of the United Nations 67, 72Google Scholar.
43 Hepple, B and Barnard, C, ‘Indirect Discrimination: Interpreting Seymour Smith’ (1999) Cambridge Law Journal 399 Google Scholar.
44 Lord Mance in Lee, ‘A Defence of Concurring Speeches’ (n 41) 325–26.
45 Stack, KM, ‘The Practice of Dissent in the Supreme Court’ (1996) 105 Yale Law Journal 2235 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
46 Gearty, , ‘Are Judges Now Out of their Depth?’ (n 14) 9 Google Scholar.
47 US Supreme Court Chief Justice from 1801–1835.
48 US Supreme Court Chief Justice from 1921–1930.
49 O’Connor, S Day, The Majesty of the Law (New York, Random House, 2003) 71 Google Scholar.
50 Ibid, 71.
51 Nonetheless Marshall’s voice lingers in some State supreme courts: in Mississipi State Veterans Board v Kraft, the Supreme Court justices in the majority issued an order forbidding the dissenting judge from publishing his dissenting opinion in the case. See R Munday, ‘Suppressing Dissent’ (2008) Criminal Law and Justice Weekly, www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/index.php?/Analysis/suppressing-dissent.html.
52 O’Connor, Day, The Majesty of the Law (n 49) 120 Google Scholar.
53 O’Connor, Day, The Majesty of the Law (n 49) 121 Google Scholar.
54 Alder, ‘Dissents’ (n 20) fn 8.
55 O’Connor, Day, The Majesty of the Law (n 49) 121 Google Scholar.
56 Stack, , ‘The Practice of Dissent’ (n 45) 2257 Google Scholar.
57 Stack, , ‘The Practice of Dissent’ (n 45) 2259 Google Scholar.
58 Kirby, M, ‘Judicial Dissent: Common Law and Civil Law Traditions’ (2007) 123 Law Quarterly Review 379 Google Scholar, 399.
59 Kirby, , ‘Judicial Dissent’ (n 58) 399 Google Scholar.
60 The CJEU appeared to accept the use of separate opinions in the European and Communities Patent Court. Art 31 of the first draft provided for both concurring and dissenting opinions: ‘Any member of the panel may express his opinion separately in the decision, whether that opinion be concurring or dissenting’. This was limited in the later draft to provide that ‘in exceptional circumstances any judge of the panel may express his dissenting opinion separately from the decision of the Court.’ (Art 51(2), Draft Agreement on the European and Community Patents Court and Draft Statute Brussels, (23 March 2009/ 7928/09/ PI 23 COUR 29). The proposed new court was initially found to be incompatible with the Treaty (Opinion 1/09 of the Court (Full Court) on the creation of a European and Community Patents Court (8 March 2011). For comment see Thorsten Bausch, Hoffmann Eitle, ‘8 March 2011 European Court of Justice Trashes Planned Unified Patent Litigation System’ at www.kluwerpatentblog.com/2011/03/08/european-court-of-justice-trashes-planned-unified-patent-litigation-system/; ‘Unitary Patent on track! 11 March 2011’ at www.blog.epo.org/politics/unitary-patent-on-track/—(‘the EU Council, with a group of 25 Member States, took a landmark decision pushing the enhanced cooperation for the Unitary Patent, on 10 March’).
61 In favour: Germany, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, UK, Ireland, Greece, Portugal; Against: France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria. See Laffranque, J, ‘Dissenting Opinions in the European Court of Justice: Estonia’s possible contribution to the democratisation of the European Judicial System’ (2004) Juridica International IX, fn 29 Google Scholar.
62 Laffranque, , ‘Dissenting Opinions’ (n 61) 21 Google Scholar.
63 Stack, ‘The Practice of Dissent’ (n 45).
64 Lock, T, ‘Walking on a Tightrope: The Draft ECHR Accession Agreement and the Autonomy of the EU Legal Order’ (2011) 48 Common Market Law Review 1025 Google Scholar.
65 Council of Europe, ‘Judicial Power’ (n 29) 8.
66 O’Connor, Day, The Majesty of the Law (n 49) 74 Google Scholar.
67 Lord MacDonald, Interview, Today Programme, BBC Radio 4, 18 August 2011.
68 See chapters by M Bobek, T Ćapeta and L Clément-Wilz in this volume.
69 I Solanke, EUI Working Paper (forthcoming).
70 Although, as shown by Capeta, ‘The Advocate General: Bringing Clarity to CJEU Decisions?’ (ch 21 of this volume), some AGs do use their Opinions to comment upon previous decisions of the Court.
71 White, R and Boussiakou, I, ‘Separate Opinions in the European Court of Human Rights’ (2009) 9 Human Rights Law Review 56 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
72 White, and Boussiakou, , ‘Separate Opinions’ (n 71) 48 Google Scholar.
73 T Capeta, ‘The Advocate General: Bringing Clarity to CJEU Decisions?’ (ch 21 of this volume) 00.
74 Laffranque, , ‘Dissenting Opinions’ (n 61) fn 30 Google Scholar.
75 Lee, , ‘A Defence of Concurring Speeches’ (n 41) 314 Google Scholar.
76 Munday, R, ‘Judicial Configurations: Permutations of the Court and Properties of Judgement’ (2002) 61 Cambridge Law Journal 612, 641CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
77 As a result, the Court of Appeal has moved towards issuance of joint opinions which it hopes will reduce the volume of reading material and increase the clarity of the decision. Lee, ‘A Defence of Concurring Speeches’ (n 41) 306–07. Munday, ‘Judicial Configurations’ (n 76) is highly critical of this trend to ‘streamline rationality’ which he argues can ‘promote inefficiency and loss of confidence with and within the institution’.
78 For representations of these views see: Alder, , ‘Dissents’ (n 20) 238-44Google Scholar; Rivers, J, ‘Proportionality and Variable Intensity of Review’ (2006) 65(1) Cambridge Law Journal 174 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Henderson, M Todd,’From Seriatim to Consensus and Back Again: A Theory of Dissent’, John M Olin Law and Economics Working Paper No 363 (Chicago, University of Chicago Law School, 2007) 1–2 Google Scholar, available at http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/363.pdf; Harpaz, G, ‘The Israeli Supreme Court in Search of Universal Legitimacy’ (2006) 65(1) Cambridge Law Journal 7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
79 See M Flinn, ‘When their Lordships Open their Mouths Extra-judicially’ at www.ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/03/23/when-their-lordships-open-their-mouths-extra-judicially.
80 Lord Neuberger discusses the Kilmuir Rules in ‘Where Angels Fear to Tread’, Presidential address to the Holdsworth Club, 2 March 2012.
81 Calver, R (on the application of) v The Adjudication Panel for Wales [2012] EWHC 1172 (Admin) (3 May 2012). For comment see M Beckford, ‘Politicians Should Have Thick Skins, Judge Rules in “Bitchy” Councillor Case’ at www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/lawreports/9243915/Politicians-should-have-thick-skins-judge-rules-in-bitchy-councillor-case.html.
82 O Bowcott, ‘Senior Judge Cautions Colleagues Over Courting Publicity’ 16 March 2012 at www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/mar/16/judge-courting-publicity.
83 Kirby, ‘Judicial Dissent’ (n 58).
84 Solanke, I, ‘Diversity and Independence in the European Court of Justice’ (2009) 15 Columbia Journal of European Law 1, 89 Google Scholar.
85 Art 3(4) of Annex I to Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice.
86 Council Decision of 22 July 2005 on appointing Judges of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal [2005] OJ L197/28; Council Decision of 18 January 2005 concerning the conditions and arrangements governing the submission and processing of applications for appointment as a judge of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal [2005] OJ L50/9.
87 Art 3(4) of Annex I to Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice.
88 Art 2, Annex, Council Decision of 18 January [2005] OJ L50/7.
89 OJ L50/9. The first members included one former AG, Giuseppe Tesauro, and Leif Sevón (President), Christopher Bellamy, Yves Galmot, Peter Grilc, Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer and Miroslaw Wyrzykowski. [2005] OJ L197/29. [1] Art 2 Council Decision of 18 January 2005 concerning the conditions and arrangements governing the submission and processing of applications for appointment as a judge of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal [2005] OJ L50/7.
90 Art 5, Annex, Council Decision of 18 January [2005] OJ L50/7.
91 Sir Christopher Bellamy in House of Lords EU Committee (2006–07) ‘An EU Competition Court’ House of Lords EU Committee Fifteenth Report, para 97.
92 A lesson could be taken in the long term from the African Court of Justice (ACJ): although the African Union has 53 Member States, the ACJ has only 11 judges. Each Member State of the African Union may nominate one candidate from any of the Member States. See Magliveras, K and Naldi, G, ‘The African Court of Justice’ (2006) 66 Heidelberg Journal of International Law/ ZaöRV 187 Google Scholar.
93 Feldman, D, ‘Deporting Suspected Terrorists to Face Torture’ (2008) 67(2) Cambridge Law Journal 225 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gibson, N, ‘Faith in the courts: religious dress and human rights’ (2007) 66(3) Cambridge Law Journal 657 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
94 Cole, D, ‘Agon at Agora: Creative Misreadings in the First Amendment Tradition’ (1986) 95 Yale Law Journal 857 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
95 N Burrows, unpublished paper.
96 Council of Europe, ‘Judicial Power’ (n 29) 8.
97 See Skeel, DA, ‘ The Unanimity Norm in Delaware Corporate Law’ (1997) 83 Virginia Law Review 127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially fn 6 where Richard Kluger, Simple Justice: The History of Brown v Board of Education and Black America’s Struggle for Equality (1975) 679–99 is mentioned. I am grateful to colleagues at Wake Forest Law School for this point.
98 Henderson, , ‘From Seriatim to Consensus and Back Again’ (n 78), 2 Google Scholar.
99 Although there may be an alternative way to use television to democratise adjudication in the CJEU: see www.houstonpbs.org/shows/localproductions/rwb/1114-supreme-court-rulings.html.
100 Bennis, W, Goleman, D, O’Toole, J and Biederman, P Ward, Transparency: How leaders Create a Culture of Candor (San Francisco, Calif, Jossey-Bass, 2008)Google Scholar.
101 According to research comparing agreement in the highest courts, unanimity was most common in the South African Supreme Court and least common in the American Supreme Court Between 1970 and 2000, rates of unanimity were as follows: USA 42.9%; Australia 58.9%; Canada 75.6%; UK 81.2%; South Africa 90.9%. See blog by C Hanratty at www.ukscblog.com/dissenting-opinons-in-the-uksc.
102 The Treaties contain no provisions similar to those in the British Criminal Justice Act 1925.
103 A Alemanno, ‘Lets Make the European Court of Justice tweet’ at www.eutopialaw.com/2012/03/12/lets-make-the-european-courts-tweet-why-the-court-of-justice-should-embrace-social-media/#more-1068. Interestingly, given its status as a model constitutional court, the US Supreme Court has not adopted ‘tweeting’ or introduced cameras. It continues to publish only delayed recording of hearings and transcripts. I am grateful to Professor Craig Jackson at the Thurgood Marshall School of Law, Texas Southern University, for this insight.