Abstract
The EU Charter provides that each person whose rights and freedoms have been violated has the right to an effective remedy. Courts and tribunals have to be independent and impartial, and their hearings fair, public and within reasonable time. In most Member States, this is guaranteed by the principle of the trias politica. One of the biggest problems at the European level is the workload of the Courts. In 1989 the Court of First Instance was created with certain competencies. In 2001, this became a General Court and the possibility for specialised courts was created. The three jurisdictions of the Court now exist: The Court of Justice, the General Court and the specialised courts. Furthermore, both the Court of Justice and the General Court have tried to address their huge workload, for example through internal organisational measures and through new rules of procedure. The ECJ is also faced with budgetary constraints so all resources must be shared over the jurisdictions. Since the Court of Justice requires most of the resources, this jurisdiction has a huge responsibility. According to the author, neutral decision making cannot always be guaranteed because of these constraints. As the ECJ is a large institution with many employees, it must keep administrative and jurisdictional powers strictly separate.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Groupe Gascogne, Case C-58/12, 23 November 2013.
- 2.
See for an overview of the discussions concerning this proposal: European Union Committee of House of Lords, 16th Report on the Workload of the Court of Justice 2013, http://www.parliament.uk.
- 3.
See for example, Procola v. Luxembourg, Case 14570/89, 28 September 1995: “That doubt in itself, however slight its justification, is sufficient vitiate the impartiality of the tribunal in question” (ground 45).
- 4.
Wim Voermans and Pim Albers, Report for the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, Council of Europe, March 2003.
- 5.
Rule 22 of the Recommendation.
- 6.
http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/JudicialConference.aspx. Accessed 20 December 2014.
- 7.
See for example Rosas 2012.
- 8.
Judgments of the Court of Justice of 22 October 1987, Case C-314/85, Foto Frost and 22 October 2002, Case C-9400, Roquette Frères.
- 9.
ACA-Europe. http://www.aca-europe.eu/index.php/en/. Accessed 4 March 2015.
and the Network http://www.network-presidents.eu. Accessed 20 December 2014.
- 10.
See for example the judicial impact assessment opinions by the Raad voor de Rechtspraak in the Netherlands: ‘wetgevings en beleidsadvisering’ on www.rechtspraak.nl. Accessed 4 March 2015.
- 11.
See Van der Woude 2012.
- 12.
European Network for Councils of the Judiciary. www.encj.eu. Accessed 4 March 2015.
References
Rosas A (2012) The national judge as EU judge: opinion 1/09. In: Cardonnel P, Rosas A, Wahl N (eds) Constitutionalising the EU judicial system: essays in honour of Pernilla Lindh. Hart Publishing, London, pp 105–122
Van der Woude M (2012) Judicial Reform and Reasonable Delay. J Eur Compet Law Pract 3(2):123–125
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van der Woude, M. (2016). Towards a European Council of the Judiciary: Some Reflections on the Administration of the EU Courts. In: Goudappel, F., Hirsch Ballin, E. (eds) Democracy and Rule of Law in the European Union. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-066-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-066-4_6
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-065-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-066-4
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)