Reporting from Strasbourg
To say that progress is being made in getting the reform of the EU Court of Justice (ECJ) underway would be a stretch. In fact, the in camera hearing held on 28 April at the EP in Strasbourg did nothing to resolve the petty squabbling and fundamental political problems. If anything, the differences are more entrenched than ever.
Unusual meeting
Participation in the meeting is evidence enough of just how controversial this dossier is. Rapporteur António Marinho…
Background
In order to manage the increasing workload, the president of the court asked, on March 2011, to be allowed to name 12 more judges. The institutions approved on principle. Except that if the number of judges is not equal to the number of member states, the case will never fly in Council since every member state is intent on having its own judge and the decision has to be unanimous. Faced with this cul-de-sac, the court submitted a new text in October 2014, in which it proposed to progressively increase numbers to 56 judges, so that every member state would have two judges in court. In 2015, 12 new judges would join the General Court. Estimated cost: €11.6 million for a typical year (for the judge, his cabinet, staff, property costs and IT costs) and €3.4 million to cover setup costs in the year of creation. In 2016, they would be joined by the seven civil service judges, who would be reinstated in this way. This at an estimated cost of €2.4 million per annum (the private office of a General Court judge is larger than that of a European Union Civil Service Tribunal judge) and €1.3 million in the setup year. In 2019, nine new judges would be added to the General Court’s team, thus making it complete. Ultimately, the General Court would be made up of 56 judges – ie two per member state. At a cost of €8.9 million in a typical year and €2.2 million in the setup year.Court’s argumentsThe ECJ is keen to put the cost of the reform into perspective: €22.9 million represents 6.6% of the ECJ’s budget and 0.34% of the overall administrative budget of the EU’s institutions. The ECJ has also highlighted just how much not reforming would cost. Indeed, the ECJ is now faced with proceedings for damages for exceeding the reasonable time delay and has been asked to pay €23 million in compensation. The ECJ is hoping that if it moves forward quickly, it can recover €7.1 billion – ie the fines for infringing competition rules, which it cannot contest as long as there are appeals pending at the General Court.
