Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:05:06.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Justice in Haste, Justice Denied? The European Court of Justice and the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2017

Allan Rosas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This chapter considers the ECJ procedure and, in particular, the length of time required for cases to be heard, especially in proceedings pertaining to the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, an area in which the saying ‘justice delayed, justice denied’ has particular force. It examines in particular the new urgent procedure, conceived in order to enable the Court to decide a case falling under the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice within an expedited time-frame. It concludes that, while undue haste should be avoided, lengthy time-frames for court proceedings are more often than not a sign of poor case management. The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice provides a special incentive for the ECJ to be vigilant as regards the length of court proceedings.

Type
Research Article
Information
Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies , Volume 11 , 2009 , pp. 1 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Arts 62a and 104a of the Rules of Procedure of the ECJ, as amended on 16 May 2000, Official Journal of the European Union (OJ) 2000 L122/43 and Naômé, C, Le renvoi prejudiciel en droit européen: Guide pratique (Brussels, Larcier, 2007) 159–67Google Scholar; Serre, E Barbier de La, ‘Accelerated and Expedited Procedures before the EC Courts: A Review of the Practice’ (2006) 43 Common Market Law Review 783 Google Scholar. It should be noted that, in the context of direct actions, the procedure is in the English version of the text termed an ‘expedited’ procedure, while the corresponding procedure applying to preliminary rulings is termed an ‘accelerated’ procedure. In the French text, both procedures are termed ‘procédure accélérée’. For the sake of expediency, the term accelerated procedure will be used in the following to cover both procedures.

2 See Art 104b of the Rules of Procedure of the ECJ, as amended on 15 January 2008, OJ 2008 L24/39. At the same time, a reference to the accelerated and urgent procedures was included in Art 23(b) added to the Statute of the Court of Justice, OJ 2008 L24/42.

3 See notably Barnard, C, ‘The PPU: Is It Worth the Candle? An Early Assessment’ (2009) 34 European Law Review 281 Google Scholar.

4 See eg, Case C-540/03 Parliament v Council [2006] ECR I-5769 (legality of Directive 2003/86/EC on family reunification); Case C-241/05 Bot v Préfet du Val-de-Marne [2006] ECR I-9627 (conditions of movement in the Schengen Area of third-country nationals not subject to a visa requirement); Case C-19/08 Migrationsverket v Petrosian, judgment of 29 January 2009 nyr (transfer of third-country nationals who have applied for asylum in one Member State to another Member State where their initial asylum application had been refused); Case C-465/07 Elgafaji v Staatssecretaris van Justitie, judgment of 17 February 2009 nyr (third-country nationals eligible for subsidiary protection; real risk of suffering serious harm in their country of origin).

5 Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ 2001 L12/1.

6 Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, OJ 2003 L338/1.

7 Concerning the rich case law on Brussels I, suffice it to cite here the recent judgments in Case C-185/07 Allianz v West Tankers, judgment of 10 February 2009 nyr, and Case C-420/07 Apostolides v Orams, judgment of 28 April 2009 nyr. Judgments relating to Brussels II bis include Case C-435/06 C [2007] ECR I-10141; Case C-68/07 Sundelind Lopez v Lopez Lizazo [2007] ECR I-10403; Case C-195/08 PPU Rinau, judgment of 11 July 2008 ECR I-5271; Case C-523/07 A, judgment of 2 April 2009 nyr.

8 See, for example, Case C-443/03 Leffler v Berlin Chemie [2005] ECR I-9611 (service of judicial documents); Case C-341/04 Eurofood IFSC [2006] ECR I-3813 (jurisdiction with respect to insolvency proceedings); Case C-339/07 Seagon v Deko Marty Belgium, judgment of 12 February 2009 nyr (jurisdiction with respect to insolvency proceedings); Case C-14/08 Roda Golf & Beach Resort, judgment of 25 June 2009 nyr (service of extra-judicial documents).

9 Unlike Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom have a right of opt-in with respect to measures adopted under Title IV EC, see Protocol No 4 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland (1997).

10 See, eg, Joined Cases C-187/01 and C-385/01 Gözütok and Brügge [2003] ECR I-1345 (ne bis in idem ); Case C-105/03 Pupino [2005] ECR I-5285 (protection of victims of crime); Case C-436/04 Van Esbroeck [2006] ECR I-2333 (ne bis in idem ); Case C-66/08 Kozlowski, judgment of 17 July 2008 nyr (European arrest warrant); Case C-296/08 PPU Santesteban Goicoechea, judgment of 12 August 2008 nyr (European arrest warrant); Case C-404/07 Katz, judgment of 9 October 2008 nyr (protection of victims of crime); Case C-388/08 PPU Leymann and Pustovarov, judgment of 1 December 2008 nyr (European arrest warrant).

11 See generally Lenaerts, K, ‘The Contribution of the Court of Justice to the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’ Paper presented at the International Conference: ‘Transnational Public Interest Litigation in Domestic Courts’, University of Cyprus, Department of Law, 31 October–1 November 2008, Nicosia, Cyprus (to be published)Google Scholar.

12 See the Annual Reports of the ECJ (Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities), available also on the Court’s http://website at: curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_7000/annual-report.

13 For recent contributions relating to the ECJ’s case law in the field of fundamental rights see, for example, Rosas, A, ‘The European Union [and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights]: In Search of Legitimacy’ in Jaichand, V and Suksi, M (eds), 60 Years of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Europe (Antwerp, Intersentia, 2009) 415 Google Scholar; Rosas, A, ‘The European Union and Fundamental Rights/Human Rights’ in Krause, C and Scheinin, M (eds), International Protection of Human Rights: A Textbook (Turku/Åbo, Institute for Human Rights, Åbo Akademi University, 2009) 443 Google Scholar.

14 Judges Arabadjiev, Kuūris, Levits, Lohmus and Makarczyk.

15 For the consolidated versions of the TEU, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which according to the Lisbon Treaty will replace the EC Treaty, see OJ 2008 C115/13 and 47.

16 See the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the Court of Justice of the European Communities, ‘Adaptation of the provisions of Title IV of the Treaty establishing the European Community relating to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice with a view of ensuring more effective judicial protection’, COM(2006) 346 final of 28 June 2006.

17 See an Information Note concerning the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, OJ 1999 L114/56.

18 On the accelerated and urgent procedures see nn 1 and 2 above. On the possibility of giving a reasoned order instead of a judgment in preliminary ruling proceedings see Art 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the ECJ and Naômé, above n 1, 190.

19 ECJ, Annual Report 2003 (Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2004) 222 Google ScholarPubMed.

20 In May 2008, the number of cases pending before the ECJ was around 720.

21 As was noted at n 1 above, the English version of the Rules of Procedure speaks of an ‘expedited’ procedure in case of direct actions instead of Article 234 references.

22 See Kozłowski, above n 10.

23 Case C-127/08 Metock e.a,. judgment of 25 July 2008 ECR I-6241.

24 Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, OJ 2004 C310/1.

25 See n 15 above.

26 European Council, Brussels 4–5 November 2004, Conclusions of the Presidency, s 3.1.

27 Letter addressed to the President of the Council of 25 September 2006, Council document 13272/06. See also Skouris, V, ‘L’urgence dans la procedure applicable aux renvois préjudiciels’ in Baudenbacher, C et al (eds), Liber Amicorum en l’honneur de/in honour of Bo Vesterdorf (Brussels, Bruylant, 2007) 59, 74–7Google Scholar.

28 Letter addressed to the President of the EU Council of 21 December 2006, Council document 17013/06.

29 See n 2 above. Cases accepted for the urgent procedure are marked with the acronym PPU (for ‘procedure préjudicielle d’urgence’) after the case number and the name of the case. See also the Supplement to the Information Note on references from national courts for a preliminary ruling published by the ECJ, OJ 2008 C64/1, also available on the Court’s website at: http://curia.europa.eu, and Baca, WM Kühn, ‘Grundzüge des neuen Eilverfahrens vor dem Gerichtshof der Europäischen Gemeinschaften im Rahmen von Vorabentscheidungersuchen’ (2008) 19 Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht Google Scholar; Chevalier, B, ‘Les nouveaux développements de la procedure préjudicielle dans le domaine de l’espace judiciaire européen: la procédure préjudicielle d’urgence et les réformes principales prévues par le traité de Lisbonne’ (2009) 9 ERA Forum 591 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barnard, above n 3.

30 This is the Kozlowski Case, which was instead handled under the accelerated procedure, see nn 10 and 21 above.

31 Case C-375/08 Pontini e.a., pending. By Order of the President of the Court of 29 September 2008, not reported, the request for an accelerated procedure was also rejected.

32 Cases C-123/08 Wolzenburg, pending, and C-261/08 Zurita Garcia, pending.

33 Case C-296/08 PPU Goicoechea, above n 10.

34 Case C-388/08 PPU Leymann and Pustovarov, above n 10.

35 Case C-195/08 PPU Rinau, above n 7.

36 Council Declaration published in OJ 2008 L24/44.

37 See Art 55:2 of the Rules of Procedure of the ECJ.

38 See Barnard, above n 3.

39 See the Declaration mentioned at n 36 above.

40 See, eg, European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), ‘Length of court proceedings in the member states of the Council of Europe based on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights’, Council of Europe, CEPEJ(2006)15 of 8 December 2006.