Advertisement

Towards a European Council of the Judiciary: Some Reflections on the Administration of the EU Courts

  • Marc van der WoudeEmail author
Chapter

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.

Keywords

National Court Legislative Proposal Organisational Provision Specialise Court Judicial Organisation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 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 105–122Google Scholar
  2. Van der Woude M (2012) Judicial Reform and Reasonable Delay. J Eur Compet Law Pract 3(2):123–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.General Court of the European UnionErasmus School of LawRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations