MEPs judge staff scheme

Date: 19/02/1998

By Rory Watson

ATTEMPTS by the Court of First Instance in Luxembourg to speed up its work by allowing one judge, instead of three, to preside over certain cases has run into opposition from the European Parliament.

The CFI, the junior of the two European Courts, made the proposal a year ago, suggesting that the new procedure could be applied when "neither the questions of law or fact ... nor the importance of that case nor any other special circumstances" justified the presence of a trio of judges.

The reduced presence on the bench would not apply to cases involving the Union's competition rules, state aids or measures to protect trade, but could possibly be applied to legal disputes involving EU officials, the field of non-contractual liability and possibly Community trade marks.

Justifying the idea, the CFI noted: "By reducing the number of judges called upon to sit in a case, two other judges are released from attending the hearing and taking part in the deliberations. They can therefore devote the time saved to other cases."

UK Socialist MEP David Martin, who is examining the idea on behalf of the Parliament's legal affairs committee, believes that other ways should be found to handle the Court's growing workload.

"I hope the Parliament will reject the proposal to go to a single judge. It breaks down the multinational character of the European institutions. i also feel it would not sort out the Court's problems. What it needs are more staff and more judges," he said this week.

According to a working paper prepared by Martin, "the existing Community judicial system with chambers, in which at least three legal cultures are represented, reinforces the legitimacy and credibility of the judgements given by the CFI, even in simple cases".

No one doubts that CFI working procedures need an overhaul. This is largely because of successive decisions by EU governments to extend the Court's authority. In the mid-Nineties, it was given jurisdiction in new areas of merger control, Community trade mark and plant variety rights. The Maastricht Treaty further enlarged its competence.

As a result, the number of cases lodged with the CFI has steadily increased, from 55 in 1990 to 115 by 1992. Last year, the figure rose to 624, partly due to 295 cases involving customs agents.

The sheer volume of work has had a direct impact on the length of time it takes to process a case. In 1993, the average duration was 23.4 months. By last year it had risen to 29.3 months.

Now, the CFI is bracing itself for an influx of litigation sparked by the new Community trade mark. This could lead to as many as 400 actions per year as appeals are lodged against decisions of the EU's Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, which will be responsible for registering pan-European trade marks.

Martin believes these estimates "are manifestly inaccurate and outdated" and insists that switching to a single judge would not solve current problems. Instead, he is likely to recommend other solutions to the Parliament after Easter. These are expected to include limiting simple cases to a written procedure and creating specialised chambers to handle specific issues such as intellectual property rights.

Feature looks at proposals to amend the working procedures of the European Court of First Instance.