A former ECJ judge says the Chequers plan does not move things forwardby Franklin Dehousse / July 11, 2018 / Leave a comment
The relationship between the UK and the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has always been a tormented one. The British are not alone. In the 1960s, the ECJ was already sharply criticised by Michel Debré (Charles de Gaulle’s prime minister) and by the German Constitutional Court. Margaret Thatcher, however, was a quite persistent opponent. From experience, the author can attest, as a matter of fact, that heads of government do complain occasionally about the ECJ during the European Councils.
Most often, the Court is criticised for its judicial activism. This seems largely unwarranted. Generally, it has only applied in an integrationist way a treaty of an integrationist nature, designed to establish a central role for the rule of law.
The ECJ is certainly not beyond reproach. Some judgments are very weak in their explanations. Its administrative management remains strongly opaque. After the doubling of the General Court’s judges, the institution will comprehend 96 judges and advocate generals. This huge contribution to the European Union institutional system’s general obesity was only obtained because the ECJ possesses a half-monopoly of legislative initiative for the revision of its own statute (something that exists nowhere in the world, and should be abolished).