European Union Court of Justice

Establishment and constitution of The Court of justice

The Court of Justice of the European Communities (often referred to simply as ‘the Court’) was set up under the ECSC Treaty in 1952. It is based in Luxembourg.

Its job is to make sure that EU legislation is interpreted and applied in the same way in all EU countries, so that the law is equal for everyone. It ensures, for example, that national courts do not give different rulings on the same issue.

The Court also makes sure that EU member states and institutions do what the law requires. The Court has the power to settle legal disputes between EU member states, EU institutions, businesses and individuals.

The Court is composed of one judge per member state, so that all 27 of the EU’s national legal systems are represented. For the sake of efficiency, however, the Court rarely sits as the full court. It usually sits as a ‘Grand Chamber’ of just 13 judges or in chambers of five or three judges.

The Court is assisted by eight ‘advocates-general’. Their role is to present reasoned opinions on the cases brought before the Court. They must do so publicly and impartially.

The judges and advocates-general are people whose impartiality is beyond doubt. They have the qualifications or competence needed for appointment to the highest judicial positions in their home countries. They are appointed to the Court of Justice by joint agreement between the governments of the EU member states. Each is appointed for a term of six years, which may be renewed.

To help the Court of Justice cope with the large number of cases brought before it, and to offer citizens better legal protection, a ‘Court of First Instance’ was created in 1988. This Court (which is attached to the Court of Justice) is responsible for giving rulings on certain kinds of case, particularly actions brought by private individuals, companies and some organisations, and cases relating to competition law. This court also has one judge from each EU country.

The European Union Civil Service Tribunal adjudicates in disputes between the European Union and its civil service. This tribunal is composed of seven judges and is attached to the Court of First Instance.

The Court of Justice, the Court of First Instance and the Civil Service Tribunal each have a president chosen by their fellow judges to serve for a renewable term of three years. Vassilios Skouris was elected President of the Court of Justice in 2003. Marc Jaeger is the current President of the Court of First Instance. Paul J. Mahoney has been President of the Civil Service Tribunal since 2005.

What does the Court do?

The Court gives rulings on cases brought before it. The five most common types of case are:

1.       references for a preliminary ruling;

2.       actions for failure to fulfil an obligation;

3.       actions for annulment;

4.       actions for failure to act;

5.       actions for damages.

They are each described in greater detail below.

1. The preliminary ruling procedure

The national courts in each EU country are responsible for ensuring that EU law is properly applied in that country. But there is a risk that courts in different countries might interpret EU law in different ways.

To prevent this happening, there is a ‘preliminary ruling procedure’. This means that if a national court is in any doubt about the interpretation or validity of an EU law it may, and sometimes must, ask the Court of Justice for advice. This advice is given in the form of a ‘preliminary ruling’.

2. Proceedings for failure to fulfil an obligation

The Commission can start these proceedings if it has reason to believe that a member state is failing to fulfil its obligations under EU law. These proceedings may also be started by another EU country.

In either case, the Court investigates the allegations and gives its judgment. The accused member state, if it is indeed found to be at fault, must set things right at once. If the Court finds that the member state has not complied with its judgment, it may impose a fine on that country.

3. Actions for annulment

If any of the member states, the Council, the Commission or (under certain conditions) Parliament believes that a particular EU law is illegal they may ask the Court to annul it.

These ‘actions for annulment’ can also be used by private individuals who want the Court to cancel a particular law because it directly and adversely affects them as individuals.

If the Court finds that the law in question was not correctly adopted or is not correctly based on the Treaties, it may declare the law null and void.

4. Actions for failure to act

The Treaty requires the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission to make certain decisions under certain circumstances. If they fail to do so, the member states, the other Community institutions and (under certain conditions) individuals or companies can lodge a complaint with the Court so as to have this failure to act officially recorded.

5. Actions for damages

Any person or company who has suffered damage as a result of the action or inaction of the Community or its staff may bring an action seeking compensation before the Court of First Instance.

How is the Court's work organised?

Cases are submitted to the registry and a specific judge and advocate-general are assigned to each case.

The procedure that follows is in two stages: first a written and then an oral phase.

At the first stage, all the parties involved submit written statements and the judge assigned to the case draws up a report summarising these statements and the legal background to the case.

Then comes the second stage – the public hearing. Depending on the importance and complexity of the case, this hearing can take place before a chamber of three, five or 13 judges, or before the full Court. At the hearing, the parties’ lawyers put their case before the judges and the advocate-general, who can question them. The advocate-general then gives his or her opinion, after which the judges deliberate and deliver their judgment.

Since 2003, advocates general are required to give an opinion on a case only if the Court considers that this particular case raises a new point of law. Nor does the Court necessarily follow the advocate-general’s opinion.

Judgments of the Court are decided by a majority and pronounced at a public hearing. Dissenting opinions are not expressed. Decisions are published on the day of delivery.

The procedure in the Court of First Instance is similar, except that there is no opinion from an advocate-general.