Then, we will talk about the Court of Justice of the European Union. We will first focus on the origin and importance of this institution, then we will talk about the composition of the Tribunal, and we will end by explaining the main functions of this institution. That is to say, the main appeals that are heard before the European Court of Justice. We are facing one of the main institutions of the European Union, which was created at the origins of the communities. The Member States thought that they needed a judicial body to protect them and their nationals, from the powers and competences of the European institutions. But, over the years, and especially in the decade of the 60s and in the late 70s, what we saw was that the Court not only interpreted and applied the law, but it truly created law, solving the legal loopholes that the constituent treaties had. In doing so, the Court became one of the main engines of European integration together with the Commission. When talking about the composition of this institution, we have to bear in mind that in reality the Court of Justice of the European Union is actually made up of two courts. A Court that we properly call, the Court of Justice, and another Court that we call the General Court, which was created later in 1987 to relieve the original Court of Justice from work. The Court of Justice is made up of a judge for each Member State, and the Treaties say that it is the Member States that by mutual agreement appoint the judges, although in practice, it is each government that proposes its judge national. The terms of office are six years and can be renewed, and the judges are chosen from among persons trained to serve in the highest judicial instances of their countries, or among renowned jurists, whose independence is unquestionable.
32
00:02:18.660 --> 00:02:21.620
Furthermore, a very important
figure that must be highlighted within the Court of Justice, which is not in the General Court, are the so-called Advocates General. There are currently 11 Advocates General. These people, who are experts in European Union law, play a fundamental role. After a whole process is substantiated before the Court of Justice, and before the judges leave to deliberate and issue a sentence, the Advocate General, who does not represent the interests of any of the parties in the process, but represents the public interest, issues an opinion based on law on what the Court's response should be in that specific case. These opinions are not binding, therefore the judges can separate from them and can decide freely. However, practice tells us that in most cases the judges heed the opinions of the Advocates General. That is why it is common for the European press to report the opinion of the Advocate General when the cases are very relevant, because their opinion, on most occasions, anticipates the Court's response. As regards the General Court, it must be said that the composition is different. Since September 2019, the General Court has been made up of two judges from each Member State, therefore, it is a larger Court, and within the General Court, there are no Advocates General However, if the case is especially relevant, if the judges who are hearing it consider it, they can request another judge of the General Court to act as Advocate General, and therefore to provide an opinion based on the law that guides the action of the judges. When we think of the main functions or main tasks of this institution, we mainly think of three procedures. The first would be the infringement procedure. This is a procedure that is intended to ensure compliance with European law by the Member States. It is a process that consists of two phases. A first administrative phase, led by the European Commission, and a second judicial phase. The European Commission is, therefore, the one who initiates this process when it suspects that a Member State is violating the law of the Union. Then, the Commission begins a series of conversations and dialogue with the allegedly offending State to gather information. If after these negotiations the European Commission is satisfied and sees that the infringement does not continue, or that in reality there was no such infringement, the process ends. But if the Commission is not satisfied, hen it has the possibility of going to the Court of Justice denouncing that State. And what begins then is the judicial phase of this procedure, which will have two parts, the European Commission denouncing the State, and the Member State, supposedly offender that will try to defend itself. The Court of Justice will ultimately have to decide whether or not the State was in breach of European Union law. A second fundamental procedure that has been of great importance in the evolution and consolidation of European Union law is the so-called preliminary ruling question. This is a dialogue procedure between courts and it is carried out when in a national process, that is, before national courts of any Member State the judge has doubts about the interpretation or validity of a rule of European law, most of the damaging questions are judicial questions of interpretation. When a judge has doubts about how to interpret a rule of European law which is necessary for the resolution of the case, he paralyzes and suspends the national process, and asks a question, raises the issue, to the Court of Justice. Then, a judicial process begins in the Court of Justice in which the parties to the national process go to defend their arguments before the Court in Luxembourg. At the end, the Court of Justice issues a judgment, where it explains in its opinion what is the correct interpretation of this rule of European law. The national judge, taking into account the judgment of the Court of Justice, will decide the national case. What is relevant to highlight is that this ruling of the Court of Justice is not only binding on the judge who raised the issue, but it is binding on everyone. This explains why this process has been so important in ensuring a uniform interpretation of European Union law in all Member States. The third procedure to highlight, is the appeal for annulment. If so far we have seen what happens when there are doubts in the interpretation or what happens when a Member State violates the law of the European Union, the appeal for annulment is intended o ensure that the European institutions also, comply with the law of the European Union, because they are also subject to the law. As we have seen, the law of the European Union is basically divided into two large blocks: primary and secondary law. The Primary law is formed above all by the treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and they constitute the constitutional paradigm of the law of the European Union. Therefore, all the rules of law of the European Union, all the acts and decisions adopted by the institutions must comply with and must be subordinate to the founding treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If this does not happen, or if we suspect that this is not the case, natural and legal persons can go through the appeal for annulment o the General Court, and raise this appeal for the Court to decide on the validity of the rule or of the act of the European institutions. In the event that it is the Member States or the institutions that have doubts about the validity of the act, they will generally be able to go to the Court of Justice. And with these three major procedures, we have seen what are the main functions of the Court of Justice of the European Union.