Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Judicial Protection in the European Communities pp 398–453Cite as

Structure and Operation of the Court of Justice

  • Chapter

  • 65 Accesses

Abstract

Originally the Court consisted of seven Judges. Since January 1973 this has been increased to nine,1 since January 1981 to ten2 and since March 1981 to eleven.3 The deliberations of the Court must be held with an uneven number of its members.4 If one Judge is unable to attend, the Judge most junior in office must also abstain from taking part in the deliberations of the Court.5 Several issues may be decided by a Chamber of the Court, (see below § 649, 650), but issues which may not be delegated to a Chamber cannot be validly decided by less than seven Judges.6 Until the oral procedure (see below, § 695) an additional Judge can be attracted if the quorum would be lost. He then has to read the prior documents. If after the oral procedure the number falls below the required minimum, the Court will then have to re-open the oral procedure in the presence of a sufficient number of Judges. The Advocate-General may have to deliver a new opinion.7

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Valerio Grementieri, Le statut de la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes, 3 RTDE (1967), pp. 818–822.

    Google Scholar 

  2. II Ro Suh, Voting Behaviour of National Judges in International Courts, 63 AJIL (1969), p. 228, which covers the International Court’s case law until September 1967. After that date, up to January 1981, there were eight contentious cases. In none of them did a judge vote against his government’s position.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Between 26 June 1958 and 4 Feb. 1959 no cases were decided. For a survey of the distribution of functions between the nationals of Member States see Werner Feld, The Court of the European Communities: New dimension in international adjudication, Nijhoff, The Hague 1964, pp. 16–18.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. See Ami Barav, Le Commissaire du Gouvernement près le Conseil d’Etat français et l’Avocat Général près la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes, 26 RIDC (1974), pp. 809–826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Paolo Gori, L’avocat-général à la Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes, 12 CDE 1976, pp. 375–393; Alan Dashwood, The Advocate-General in the Court of Justice of the European Communities, Legal Studies 1982, No. 2, pp. 202-216.

    Google Scholar 

  6. On the Chambers of Five, see Hans Jung, Änderungen der Verfahrensordnung des Gerichtshofs der Europäischen Gemeinschaften, 15 EuR (1980), pp. 372–382, in particular pp. 374-377; Francis A. Jacobs, The Member States, the Judges and the Procedure in La Cour de justice et les Etats Membres, Brussels 1981, pp. 17-19.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Idem, Art. 95(1). See also Erich Bülow, Uberlegungen für eine Weiterentwicklung des Rechts der Gemeinschaftsgerichtsbarkeit, 15 EuR (1980), pp. 307–328.

    Google Scholar 

  8. See also Brown and Jacobs (op. cit., note 1), pp. 159-178; Hans Jung, Änderungen der Verfahrensordnung des Gerichtshofs der Europäischen Gemeinschaften, 15 EuR (1980), pp. 372–382.

    Google Scholar 

  9. On the position of barristers and solicitors in relation to the Court of Justice see Valerio Grementieri and Joseph Golden jr. The United Kingdom and the European Court of Justice: an Encounter Between Common and Civil Law Traditions, 21 AJCL (1973), in particular pp. 675–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. The Treaty of Rome and the English Legal Professions: Proposed Solutions, 68 Law Society Gazette (1971) p. 194, but see also Valentine, The Court of Justice of the European Communities, Stevens, London 1965, Vol. I, p. 48, note 47, who suggests that solicitors could represent the British Government or the Commission, but not a private party.

    Google Scholar 

  11. See Karl Wolf, Kostenrecht und Kostenpraxis des Gerichtshofs der Europäischen Gemeinschaften, 11 EuR (1976), pp. 26–28.

    Google Scholar 

  12. John Temple Lang, A Referral to Luxembourg: Legal Aid, 75 The Law Society’s Gazette (1978), p. 37.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lisbeth Stevens, The principle of linguistic equality in judicial proceedings and in the interpretation of plurilingual legal instruments: the régime linguistic in the Court of Justice of the European Communities, 62 Northwestern University Law Review (1967) pp. 701–734.

    Google Scholar 

  14. See Peter Oliver, Limitation of Actions before the European Court, 3 ELRev. (1978) pp. 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  15. See Christine Gray, Interim Measures of Protection in the European Court, 4 ELRev. (1979), pp. 80–102.

    Google Scholar 

  16. J.P. Warner, The evolution of the work of the Court of Justice, Report to the Judicial and Academic Conference, Luxembourg 28 Sept. 1976, p. 17.

    Google Scholar 

  17. See thereon John E. Ferry, Interim Relief under the Rome Treaty — The European Commission’s Powers, EIPR 1980, pp. 330-336; Andrew Farmiloe, Obtaining Interlocutory Relief in EEC Competition Cases, 1 ECLR (1980), pp. 393–401.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mario Berri, The Special Procedures before the Court of Justice of the European Communities, 8 CMLRev. (1971), p. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  19. K.J.M. Mortelmans, Observations in the cases governed by Article 177 of the EEC Treaty: Procedure and Practice, 16 CMLRev. (1979), pp. 557–590.

    Google Scholar 

  20. For further details see C.A. Chrisham and K. Mortelmans, Observations of Member States in the preliminary rulings procedure before the Court of Justice of the European Communities, in O’Keeffe-Schermers (ed.), Essays in European Law and Integration to mast the Silver Jubilee of the Europa Institute Leiden, Kluwer 1982, pp. 43–69.

    Google Scholar 

  21. See Berri (op. cit., note 181), pp. 5-15; George Vandersanden, Le recours en intervention devant la Cour de Justice des Communautés Européenes, 5 RTDE (1969) pp. 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Dietrich Ehle and Volker Schiller, Das Streithilfeverfahren vor dem Europäischen Gerichtshof, 17 EuR (1982), pp. 48–59.

    Google Scholar 

  23. See Liliane Plouvier, Le Recours en revision devant la Cour de Justice des Communautés Européennes, 7 CDE (1971), pp. 428–444.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Leiden, Netherlands

    Henry G. Schermers (Professor of Law)

Authors
  1. Henry G. Schermers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1983 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schermers, H.G. (1983). Structure and Operation of the Court of Justice. In: Judicial Protection in the European Communities. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-4412-6_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-4412-6_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-6544-051-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-4412-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation