No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2017
It is argued that the Advocate Generals have helped to create a distinct and identifiable body of EU law. In the context of increasingly complex legislation and legal structures, the Advocate Generals have also contributed to improving the coherence of legislation and case law. It is also argued that the legal texts and practice firmly place the Advocate General at the same time within the CJEU and yet outside the Court. The institutional and functional rules governing the role of the Advocate General do have an impact on the judicial decision-making process. Some suggestions for reforming the role of the Advocate General in order to integrate the Advocate General more fully within the Court and to strengthen the role are also made.
1 See, Clément-Wilz, L, La fonction de l’avocat général près la Cour de justice (Brussels, Bruylant, 2011)Google Scholar. This chapter is directly inspired by this book. It can be referred to for more details on some points or cases in this chapter. A substantive literature exists on the general aspects of the statute and the role of the Advocate General at the European Court of Justice. See Barav, A, ‘Le commissaire du gouvernement près le Conseil d’État français et l’avocat général près la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes’ (1974) Revue international du droit comparé 809 Google Scholar; Darmon, M, ‘La fonction de l’avocat général à la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes’ in Nouveaux juges, nouveaux pouvoirs?: Mélanges en l’honneur de Roger Perrot (Paris, Dalloz, 1996) 75 Google Scholar; Dashwood, A, ‘The Advocate General in the Court of Justice of the European Communities’ (1982: July) Legal Studies 202 Google Scholar; Gori, P, ‘L’avocat général à la CJCE’ (1976) Cahiers du droit européen 376 Google Scholar; Jacobs, F, ‘Advocate General and Judges in the European Court of Justice: Some Personal Reflections’ in Judicial Review in European Law: Liber Amicorum in honor of Lord Slynn of Hadley, vol 1 (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2000) 17 Google Scholar; Tridimas, T, ‘The Role of the Advocate General in the Development of Community Law: Some Reflections’ (1997) 34 Common Market Law Review 1349 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Léger, P, ‘De la nature de l’avocat général à la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes’ in L’honnête homme et le droit: Mélanges en l’honneur de Jean-Claude Soyer (Paris, LGDJ, 2000) 261 Google Scholar; Colomer, D Ruiz-Jarabo and Escudero, M López, ‘L’institution de l’avocat général à la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes’ in Mélanges en l’hommage de Fernand Schockweiler (Baden-Baden, Nomos Verlagsgesellshaft, 1999) 523 Google Scholar; Colomer, D Ruiz-Jarabo, ‘La función del abogado general del tribunal de justicia de las comunidades europeas’ in Problèmes d’interprétation à la mémoire de Constantinos N. Kakouris (Brussels, AN Sakkoulas-Bruylant, 2004) 321 Google Scholar; Kokott, J, ‘Die Institution des Generalanwalts im Wandel-Auswirkungen der Rechtsprechung des EGMR zu ähnlichen Organen der Rechtspflege in den Mitgliedstaaten’ in Festschrift für Georg Ress (Cologne, Carl Heymanns Verlag, 2005) 577 Google Scholar; Sharpston, E, ‘The Changing Role of the Advocate General’ in Arnull, A, Eeckhout, P and Tridimas, T (eds), Continuity and Change in EU Law: Essays in Honour of Sir Francis Jacobs (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008)Google Scholar; Greaves, R, ‘Reforming the Scope of the Role of the Advocates General’ in A Constitutional Order of States? Essays in EU Law in Honour of Alan Dashwood (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2011)Google Scholar.
2 Art 252 TFUE.
3 For literature on the AGs and EC Law, see also Vranken, M, ‘Role of the Advocate General in the Law-making process of the European Community’ (1996) Anglo-American Law Review 39 Google Scholar; Tridimas, T, ‘The Role of the Advocate General in the Development of Community Law: Some Reflections’ (1997) Common Market Law Review 34, 1349 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ritter, C, ‘A New Look at the Role and Impact of Advocate General: Collectively and Individually’ (2006) Columbia Journal of European Law 3, 751 Google Scholar; Burrows, N and Greaves, R, The Advocate General and European Community Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4 Before the 1990s, some Advocate Generals were already discussing some solutions given by the Court, but this was quite rare and they were not actually questioning the case law foundations. Regarding standing to seek judicial review, see, AG Lagrange’s opinion in Case 8/55 Fédéchar v High Authority [1956] ECR 138.
5 M Lagrange, ‘La Cour de justice des Communautés européennes: Du Plan Schuman à l’Union européenne’ (1978) Revue trimestrielle de droit européen 2, 9; M Lagrange, ‘Entretien avec Antoine Marès’ (1980) Archives Monnet; Lagrange, M, ‘L’organisation, le fonctionnement et le rôle de la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes’ (1963) 13–14 Bulletin. de l’association des juristes européens 5 Google Scholar, 12.
6 For a more detailed view on the ‘commissaire du gouvernement’, see Rainaud, N, Le com missaire du gouvernement près le Conseil d’État (Paris, LGDJ, 1996)Google Scholar.
7 TC, 8 fev. 1873, Blanco, Rec. 1er suppl., concl. David. This case is considered to be the founding case of French Administrative Law. The opinion of the ‘commissaire du gouvernement’ paved the way for finding a criteria of administrative law.
8 CE, 6 fév. 1903, Terrier, Rec. 94, concl. Romieu. With the ‘commissaire du gouvernement’s opinion, emerged the idea that administrative law applies only when an administration uses powers other than the norm (‘procédés exhorbitants du droit commun’).
9 CE, 4 mars 1910, Thérond, Rec. 193, concl. Pichat.
10 Case 6/54 Netherland v High Authority [1955] ECR 113.
11 Case 8/55 Fédération charbonnière de Belgique v Haute Autorité [1956] ECR 292.
12 Ibid.
13 Case 75/63 Hoekstra [1964] ECR 347; Case 92/63 HE Moebs [1964] ECR 557; Case 100/63 J Kalsbeek [1964] ECR 1105.
14 Case 26/62 NV Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration [1963] ECR 1.
15 Case 6/64 Flaminio Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 585.
16 Case 22/70 Commission v Council (ERTA ) [1971] ECR 263, 291.
17 Joined Cases 7/54 and 9/54 Groupement industries sidérurgiques luxembourgeoises v High Authority [1956] ECR 175.
18 Opinion of AG Lagrange in Case 8/55 Fédération Charbonnière de Belgique v High Authority [1956] ECR 201.
19 Case 30/59 De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen in Limburg [1961] ECR 1.
20 Opinion of AG Roemer in Case 36, 37, 40, 41/58 SIMET Meroni v High Authority [1959] ECR 331.
21 Opinion of AG Lagrange in Case 6/64 Flaminio Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 585.
22 Opinion of AG Dutheillet de Lamothe’s opinion in Case 4/69 Alfons Lütticke v Commission [1971] ECR 325.
23 Opinion of AG Reischl in Case 106/77 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal SpA [1978] ECR 629, 651.
24 Case 106/77 Simmenthal [1977] ECR 629, para 14.
25 Simmenthal (n 24) para 16.
26 Opinion of AG Tesauro in Case C-213/89 The Queen c/ Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte: Factortame [1990] ECR I-2433, para 13 (emphasis added).
27 Opinion of AG Van Gerven in Case C-70/80 European Parlement v Council (Tchernobyl) [1991] ECR I-4529.
28 Opinion of AG Darmon in Case 222/84 Marguerite Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [1986] ECR 1651. See also Opinion of AG Van Themaat in Case 147/83 Münchener Import-Weinkellerei Herold Binderer GmbH v Commission [1985] ECR 257; Opinion of AG Tesauro in Case C-244/88 Usines coopératives de déshydratation du Vexin v Commission [1989] ECR 3811, para 8; Opinion of AG Jacobs in Case C-358/89 Extramet Industrie v Council [1991] ECR I-2501, para 30.
29 Opinion of AG Slynn in Case 8/81 Ursula Becker v Finanzamt Münster-Innenstadt [1982] ECR 53.
30 Opinion of AG Trabucchi in Joined Cases 3/76, 4/76 and 6/76 Cornelis Kramer and others [1976] ECR 1279.
31 Case C-50/00P Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council [2002] ECR I-6677. Former Art 230(4) reads that Any natural or legal person may … institute proceedings against a decision addressed to that person or against a decision which, although in the form of a regulation or a decision addressed to another person, is of direct and individual concern to the former.
32 And they did so with the Lisbon Treaty. Art 267(4) now stipulates that Any natural or legal person may … institute proceedings against an act addressed to that person or which is of direct and individual concern to them, and against a regulatory act which is of direct concern to them and does not entail implementing measures. (emphasis added)
33 Case C-271/91 Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (‘Marshall II’) [1993] ECR I-8835; Case C-316/93 Nicole Vaneetveld v Le Foyer SA and Le Foyer SA v Fédération des Mutualités Socialistes et Syndicales de la Province de Liège [1994] ECR I-763; Case C-91/92 Paola Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl [1994] ECR I-3325.
34 Opinion of AG Darmon in Case C-297/88 Massam Dzodzi v Belgian State [1991] ECR I-3763, para 8.
35 Opinion of AG Mancini in Case 166/84 Thomasdünger GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Frankfurt am Main [1985] ECR 3001, 3003
36 Ibid.
37 Opinion of AG Tesauro in Case C-346/93 Kleinwort Benson Ltd v City of Glasgow District Council [1995] ECR I-615, para 20.
38 Opinion of AG Jacobs in Case C-28/95 A.Leur-Bloem [1997] ECR I-4161 and in Case C-130/95 Bernrd Giloy [1997] ECR I-4291, para 47; see also the Opinion of AG Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer in Case C-1/99 Kofisa Italia [2000] ECR I-207, para 37.
39 Opinion of AG Trabucchi in Case 7/75 Mr and Mrs F v Belgian State [1975] ECR 679, para 5; Opinion of AG Jacobs in Case 344/87 I Bettray v Staatssecretaris van Justitie [1989] ECR 1621, para 29.
40 Opinion of AG Darmon in Case C-308/89 Carmina di Leo v Land Berlin [1990] ECR I-4185, para 14.
41 Case C-85/96 María Martínez Sala v Freistaat Bayern [1997] ECR I-2691.
42 Opinion of AG Lenz in Case C-91/92 Paola Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl [1994] ECR I-3325, para 53.
43 Opinion of AG Léger in Case C-214/94 Ingrid Boukhalfa v Bundesrepublik Deutschland [1996] ECR I-2253, para 29.
44 Opinion of AG Ruiz-Jarabo in Joined Cases C-65/95 and C-111/95 The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Mann Singh Shingara and ex parte Abbas Radiom [1997] ECR I-3343, para 34.
45 Opinion of AG La Pergola in Joined Cases C-4/95 and C-5/95 Fritz Stöber and José Manuel Piosa Pereira v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit [1997] ECR I-511, para 50. Opinion of AG Jacobs in Case C-274/96 Criminal proceedings against Horst Otto Bickel and Ulrich Franz [1998] ECR I-7632, para 22.
46 Opinion of AG La Pergola in Case C-85/96 Maria Martinez Sala [1998] ECR I-2691, para 18.
47 Ibid. See also Opinion of AG Tesauro in Case C-171/96 Rui Alberto Pereira Roque [1997] ECR I-4607, para 48.
48 O’Leary, S, ‘Putting on the Bones of European Union Citizenship’ (1999) 24 European Law Review 68–79 Google Scholar.
49 See the analysis of Advocate Generals’ opinions on this issue in Burrows and Greaves, The Advocate General (n 4) 271.
50 Opinion of AG Cosmas in Case C-378/97 Criminal proceedings against Florus Ariël Wijsenbeek [1999] ECR I-6207, paras 25 and others.
51 Case C-413/99 Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] ECR I-7091, para 94.
52 Opinion of AG Poiares Maduro in Case C-160/03 Kingdom of Spain v Eurojust [2005] ECR I-2077.
53 Opinion of AG Kokott in Case C-105/03 Maria Pupino [2005] ECR I-5285.
54 Joined Cases C-402/05P and C-415/05P Yassin Abdullah Kadi et autre v Council and Commission [2008] ECR I-6351.
55 Opinion of AG Kokott in Case C-105/03 Maria Pupino (n 53) paras 59 and 69; Opinion of AG Mengozzi in Case C-355/04P Segi and others v Council [2007] ECR I-1657, para 79; Opinion of AG Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer in Case C-303/05 Advocaten voor de Wereld [2007] ECR I-3633, para 6.
56 Eg AG Tizzano in Case C-173/99 The Queen v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex parte Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematographic and Theatre Union (BECTU) [2001] ECR I-4881, para 27; Opinion of AG Léger in Case C-353/99 P Council v Heidi Hautal [2001] ECR I-9565, para 82; Opinion of AG Léger in Case C-317/04 Parliament v Council [2006] ECR I-4721; Opinion of AG Poiares Maduro in Case C-181/03 Albert Nardone [2005] ECR I-199, para 51; Opinion of AG Poiares Maduro in Case C-303/05 Ordre des Barreaux francophones et germanophones [2006] ECR I-5305, para 48; Opinion of AG Kokott in Cases C-387/02, C-391/02 and C-402/02 Criminal proceedings v Silvio Berlusconi and others [2005] ECR I-3565; below n 83.
57 See also the case law on justification of direct discrimination, see below section IV.
58 Case C-145/88 Torfaen Borough Council v B&Q [1989] ECR 3851; Case C-312/89 Union départementale des syndicats CGT de l’Aisne v SIDEF Conforama [1991] ECR I-997; Case C-332/89 André Marchandise and others [1991] ECR I-1027.
59 Case C-292/92 Ruth Hünermund [1993] ECR I-6787.
60 Opinion of AG Van Gerven in Case C-332/89 André Marchandise and others, para 6.
61 Opinion of AG Van Gerven in Case C-145/88 Torfaen Borough Council v B&Q, para 23.
62 Opinion of AG Tesauro in Case C-292/92 Ruth Hünermund, para 1.
63 Joined Cases C-267/91 and C-268/91 Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097.
64 Opinion of AG Jacobs in Case C-412/93 Société d’Importation Edouard Leclerc-Siplec [1995] ECR I-179, para 26.
65 Opinion of AG Jacobs in Case C-412/93 Société d’Importation Edouard Leclerc-Siplec [1995] ECR I-179, para 41.
66 Ibid.
67 Opinion of AG Geelhoed in Case C-239/02 Douwe Egverts [2004] ECR I-7007, para 73. See Oliver, P and Enchelmaeir, S, ‘Free Movment of Goods: Recent Developments of the Case Law’ (2007) Common Market Law Review 649 Google Scholar.
68 Opinion of AG Poiares Maduro in Joined Cases C-158/04 and 159/04 Alfa Vista Vassilopoulos and Carrefour Marinopoulos [2006] ECR I-8135.
69 Barnard, C, The Substantive Law of the EU: The Four Freedoms, 3rd edn (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010) 139 Google Scholar; see Opinion of AG Kokott in Case C-142/05 Åklagaren v Percy Mickelsson and Joakim Roos [2009] ECR I-4273, para 45.
70 Barnard, , The Substantive Law of the EU (n 69) 130 Google Scholar; see Opinion of AG Bot in Case C-110/05 Commission v Italy (trailers) [2009] ECR I-519, para 91.
71 Case C-110/05 Commission v Italy (trailers) [2009] ECR I-519, para 37.
72 Ex Art 222 TEC (ex Art 166 TEEC, ex Art 11 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice attached to the Treaty ECSC:
It shall be the duty of the Advocate-General, acting with complete impartiality and independence, to make, in open court, reasoned submissions on cases brought before the Court of Justice, in order to assist the Court in the performance of the task assigned to it in Article 220.
73 Art 19, para 1 TEU.
74 See Art 19 TEU and 253 TFEU. The features of the General Court’s judges are slightly different. Art 254(2) reads that ‘The members of the General Court shall be chosen from per sons whose independence is beyond doubt and who possess the ability required for appoint ment to high judicial office’.
75 Art 255 TFEU.
76 Art 10(5) RP.
77 P Gori, ‘L’avocat général à la CJCE’ (1976) Cahier du droit européen 375, 377.
78 Colomer, D Ruiz-Jarabo and Escudero, M Lüpez, ‘L’institution de l’avocat général à la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes’ in Mélanges en l’hommage de Fernand Schockweiler (Baden-Baden, Nomos Verlagsgesellshaft, 1999) 523 Google Scholar. See also Mortelmans, K, ‘The Court under the Influence of its Advocate General: An Analysis of the Case Law on the Functioning of the Internal Market’ (2005) Yearbook of European Law 127 Google Scholar.
79 Art 34-1 of the 1953 Rules of Procedure.
80 Art 38, para 7 Rules of Procedure (RP).
81 Art 42, para 2 RP.
82 Art 44 bis RP.
83 Art 44, para 2 RP.
84 D Edward (interview with), Judge Edward Oral History, Session IV, Years on the Courts: Part I—1989–2004, How the Courts Operated (2005) 7. Available on www.law.du.edu.
85 See Art 45, para 3 RP; Art 45, para 2 RP; Art 47, para 1 RP; Art 47, para 4 RP; Art 76, para 3 RP; Art 82 bis, para 1 RP, Art 85, para 3 RP; Art 91, para 4 RP.
86 Art 54 RP. See also Art 104, para 5 RP.
87 Art 57 RP.
88 See below, section I V.
89 Opinion of AG Lagrange in Case 8/55 Fédération charbonnière de Belgique v Haute Autorité (n 18) 248; Opinion of AG Lagrange in Case 30/59 De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen in Limburg v High Authority [1961] ECR 1, 66.
90 Opinion of AG Dutheillet de Lamothe in Case 22/70 Commission v Council (ERTA) (n 16).
91 Opinion of AG Tesauro in Case C-118/96 Jessica Safir v Skattemyndigheten i Dalarnas Län, formerly Skattemyndigheten i Kopparbergs Län [1998] ECR I-1897, paras 30 and 32.
92 Opinion of AG Mancini in Case 314/85 Foto-Frost v Hauptzollamt Lübeck-Ost [1987] ECR 4199.
93 Opinion of AG Darmon in Case 222/84 Marguerite Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (n 28); Opinion of AG Mayras in Case 140/79 Chemial Farmaceutici SpA v DAF SpA [1980] ECR 1.
94 Even if one can ask if by doing so, Advocates General do give ‘reasoned submissions’ as mentioned in Art 252-2 TFEU.
95 On the evolution of the oral presentation of the Opinions, see Due, O, ‘Looking Backwards and Forwards’ in Amicale des référendaires et anciens référendaires de la CJCE et du TPI, La Cour de justice des Communautés européennes 1952–2002: bilan et perspectives. Actes de la conférence organisée dans le cadre du cinquantième anniversaire de la Cour de justice (Brussels, Bruylant, 2004) 25 Google Scholar.
96 From one ‘attaché’ (as mentioned in the Rules of Procedure of 1953), to a second ‘référendaires’ in 1979, a third one in 1987 and a forth one in 2008. Since 1957, the référendaire is not mentioned in the Rules of Procedure.
97 See below, part IV.
98 See L Clément-Wilz (n 2) 530.
99 Nationality can have an indirect influence. It certainly matters whether you have been an AG for a longer period, which is only possible if you come from certain Member States.
100 As R Odent said about the Commissaire du gouvernement, it is ‘a function that gives to those who are called to exercise it the best opportunities to put their personality forward’ ( Odent, R, Contentieux administratif (Paris, Dalloz, 1980 reprint in 2007Google Scholar) 974.
101 Fauconnier, G, Mappings in Thought and Language (New-York, Cambridge University Press, 1997) 7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
102 Ibid.
103 On non-traditional skills and attributes of the Advocates General, see Solanke, I, ‘Diversity and Independence and the European Court of Justice’ (2008/2009) Columbia Journal of European Law 109 Google Scholar.
104 Lecourt, R, Allocution prononcée à l’occasion du départ de K Roemer (Luxembourg, Publication de la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes, 1973) 5 Google Scholar.
105 Art 252-2 TFEU.
106 Art 3, para 1 and 27 RP.
107 Art 253 TFEU.
108 Case C-17/98 (ord) Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v Aruba [2000] ECR I-665, para 14.
109 Lambert, F, ‘Faut-il maintenir le commissaire du gouvernement?’ (2007) Actualité Juridique Droit Administratif 15, 778 Google Scholar.
110 Jacobs, F, ‘The Judicial Process in the European Court and the Role of the Advocate General’ The Dominik Lasok lecture in the European law (University of Exeter Faculty of Law, 1990)Google Scholar.
111 See Vauchez, A and Cohen, A, ‘Law, Lawyers and Transnational Politics in the Production of Europe’ (2006) 3 Law and Social Inquiry 1 Google Scholar, 3.
112 Léger, , ‘De la nature de l’avocat général à la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes’ (n 1) 270 Google Scholar.
113 Opinion of AG Jacobs in Case C-338/95 Wiener SI GmbH v Hauptzollamt Emmerich [1997] ECR 6495.
114 Opinion of AG Capotorti in Case 115 and 116/81 Rezguia Adoui v Belgian State and City of Liège; Dominique Cornuaille v Belgian State [1982] ECR 1665, para 29; See also the Opinion of AG Slynn in 227/81 Francis Aubin v Union nationale interprofessionnelle pour l’emploi dans l’industrie et le commerce (UNEDIC) [1982] ECR 1991, where the Advocate General considered that the national court did not sufficiently explain the facts of the case; See also the Opinion of AG Jacobs in Case C-316/93 Nicole Vaneetveld v Le Foyer SA and Le Foyer SA v Fédération des Mutualités Socialistes et Syndicales de la Province de Liège [1994] ECR I-763, para 7, where the Advocate General considered, on the contrary, that the reference was too long; see also the Opinion of Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer in Joined Cases C-397/01 to 403/01 Bernhard Pfeiffer and others v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV [2004] ECR I-8835, para 47.
115 Eg, Opinion of AG Roemer in Case 7/54 and 9/54 Groupement des industries sidérurgiques luxembourgeoises v High Authority [1956] ECR 53, 115.
116 Eg, Opinion of AG Poiares Maduro in Case C-438/05 International Transport Workers’ Federation and Finnish Seamen’s Union v Viking Line ABP and OÜ Viking Line Eesti [2007] ECR I-10779, para 1; Opinion of AG Mengozzi in Case C-341/05 Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet and others [2007] ECR I-11767, para 2.
117 Opinion of AG Geelhoed in Case C-170/05 Denkavit Internationaal BV and Denkavit France SARL v Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie [2006] ECR I-11949.
118 Opinion of AG Léger in Case C-196/04 Cadbury Schweppes plc and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue [2006] ECR I-7995, para 62; Opinion of AG Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer in Case C-138/02 Brian Francis Collins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2004] ECR I-2703, para 75.
119 See, eg, Joined Cases C-321/94, C-322/94, C-323/94 and C-324/94 Criminal Proceedings against Jacques Pistre and a [1997] ECR I-2343, para 4; Case C-168/98 Grand Duchy of Luxemburg v European Parliament and Council of the European Union [2000] ECR I-9131, para 22; Case C-355/00 Freskot AE v Elliniko Dimosio [2003] ECR I-5263, para 36.
120 Case C-104/08 (ord.) Marc André Kurt v Bürgermeister der Stadt Wels [2008] para 22). See also, in the gender discrimination area, Joined Cases C-231/06 to C-233/06 Office national des pensions v Emilienne Jonkman and others v Office national des pensions [2007] ECR I-5149, para 25.
121 See eg Opinion of AG Mischo in Joined Cases 80/85 and 159/85 Nederlandse Bakkerij Stichting and others v Edah BV. [1986] ECR 3359; Opinion of AG Darmon in Case C-297/88 Massam Dzodzi v Belgian State [1990] ECR I-3763, para 2; Opinion of AG Fennelly in Joined Cases C-64/96 and C-65/96 Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Kari Uecker and Vera Jacquet v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen [1997] ECR I-3171, para 1; Opinion of AG Stix-Hackl in Case C-60/00 Mary Carpenter v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] ERC I-6279, paras 57 and 58 or Opinion of AG Sharpston in Case C-212/06 Government of Communauté française and Gouvernement wallon v Gouvernement flamand [2008] ECR I-1683 para 148.
122 See above, B.
123 Arnull, A, The European Union and its Court of Justice, 2nd edn (Oxford, Oxford EC Law Library, 2006)Google Scholar.
124 Ritter, , ‘A New Look at the Role’ (n 3) 771 Google Scholar.
125 For an opposite view, see Sharpston, ‘The Changing Role of the Advocate General’ (n 1).
126 See above, section II.
127 Opinion of AG Léger in Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans ECR I-7747.
128 See above, section II.
129 Case 113/80 Commission v Ireland (Irish Souvenirs) [1981] ECR 1625, para 11; Case 177/83 Ringelhan [1984] ECR 3651, para 19; Case C-42/02 Peter Svensson and Lena Gustavsson [1995] ECR I-13519, para 15; Joined Cases C-321/94 and C-324/94 Pistre [1997] ECR I-2343, para 52.
130 Barnard, , The Substantive Law of the EU (n 69) 166 Google Scholar. See Case C-2/90 Commision v Belgium (Walloon wastes) [1992] ECR I-4431; Case C-524/07 Commission v Austria (road-worthiness of cars) [2008] ECR I-187, para 54.
131 Opinion of AG Tesauro in Case C-118/96 Jessica Safir ECR I-1897, para 34.
132 Ibid, para 36.
133 Opinion of AG Tesauro in Joined Cases C-120/95 and C-158/96 Nicolas Decker and Raymond Kohll ECR I-1831, para 50. The Advocate General urges the Court ‘to dispel the aforementioned ambiguities in the case-law’ but then does not help judges in doing so (para 50):
[T]he Court should either follow Svensson and rule that discriminatory measures include those which indirectly give rise to unequal treatment as between providers of services established in a given Member State and those not so established or, alternatively, confirm the approach which appears to have been adopted in Bachmann, namely that measures which do not formally lay down different rules for providers of services not established in the Member State are still deemed to be indistinctly applicable. I would merely add that the latter approach would appear at present to be more in keeping with the case-law in this area considered as a whole. This does not of course alter the fact that a reappraisal would be timely.
134 See above, section II.
135 Brawn, N Candorelli, Commissaires et juges dans les Communautés européennes (Paris, LGDJ, 1972) 96 Google Scholar.
136 Act concerning the conditions of accession and the adjustments to the Treaties [1972] OJ L73, 14, art 18.
137 Council Decision increasing the number of Advocates-General [1973] OJ L2/29.
138 It is only a hypothetical explanation, as Trabuchi’s nomination decision cannot be found. It is however the explanation given by one author ( Borgsmidt, K, ‘The Advocate General at the European Court of Justice: A Comparative Study’ (1988) 3 European Law Review 106, 206Google Scholar).
139 Brown, L Neville and Kennedy, T, The Court of Justice of the European Communities, 5th edn (London, Sweet and Maxwell, 2000) 71 Google Scholar. See also Charpentier, J, ‘A propos d’une récente augmentation du nombre de magistrats de la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes’ in Études de droit des Communautés européennes: Mélanges offerts à Pierre-Henri Teitgen (Paris, Pedone, 1984) 67 Google Scholar, 77.
140 Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties [1972] OJ L302, 23.
141 Treaty between the Member States of the European Union and Norway, Austria, Finland and Sweden [1994] OJ C 241, 9, art 157.
142 ‘Joint Declaration on Article 157 (4) of the Act of Accession’ in Treaty between the Member States of the European Union and Norway, Austria, Finland and Sweden [1994] OJ C 241, 9, 381. This Joint Declaration provides that:
The new Member States will take part in a system involving the rotation of three Advocates-General in the alphabetical order applied at present, it being understood that Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom will not take part in that system, as they will have a permanent Advocate-General each.
143 Declaration on Article 252 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union regarding the number of Advocates-General in the Court of Justice:
The Conference declares that if, in accordance with Article 252, first paragraph, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Court of Justice requests that the number of Advocates- General be increased by three (eleven instead of eight), the Council will, acting unanimously, agree on such an increase. In that case, the Conference agrees that Poland will, as is already the case for Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom, have a permanent Advocate-General and no longer take part in the rotation system, while the existing rotation system will involve the rotation of five Advocates-General instead of three.
144 Vermeulen v Belgium [1996] EHRR 224.