BACK TO HOME
PAGE BACK TO HOME
PAGE EUROPEAN REVIEW
Reports based on decisions of the European Court of Justice often find their way into the British media but there is very little information available on the place itself and its procedures. The European Review was lucky enough to visit recently and we give an account below of our impressions.
The European Court of Justice is based in Luxembourg, together with Strasbourg and Brussels one of the three centres for the EU institutions. It was set up in 1952 to hear cases relating to the new laws to be created by the fledgling European Union. Housed in a modern building that is being expanded due to the accession of 10 new Member States, there are a number of court rooms which are used for preliminary hearings and judgements.
Before a preliminary hearing a document is prepared giving a summary of the applicable EU and national law and setting out the facts and arguments of the parties. In exceptional cases all 25 judges (one from each country) may sit but generally chambers of 3 or 5 at a time convene with at least 1 of the 8 advocates general. The judge-rapporteur goes over the precedent cases and the others may intervene in their own language (translated into French and English). Lawyers for each of the parties then make their pleas. The judges question the lawyers and when they have replied the advocate general sets a date for the delivery of his opinion on the case. This is given to the court and published on the Internet on the same day. Finally a judgement hearing is convened where the case is considered in the light of the opinion (which is usually upheld) and the decision published in all the official languages of the EU.
In case C-39/04, whose hearing we attended, a French pharmaceuticals company was challenging the right of the French government to withold a research subsidy on the grounds that the work had been carried out in another EU Member State. Lawyers for the company and the European Commission argued that to restrict the tax credit to one country infringed EU rules encouraging scientific research throughout the Community. Both the Advocate General and the final judgement found in favour of the company.
|
European Court of Justice - Front page: |
||
|
- Cases search form: |
||
The old issue of equal treatment for part time workers has been raised again in the case of Hilda Schönheit, a social worker employed by Frankfurt city council. Ms. Schönheit had originally worked full time but had switched to part-time in the early nineties. When she came to retire in 1999 she found that she would only receive 65.8% of her final pensionable salary instead of the 70.79% to which she believed she was entitled. The difference was explained by the employer as being due to a measure to reduce public expenditure and to make sure that part-time workers were not advantaged. However the fact that far more part-time workers were women than men made the ECJ conclude that indirect discrimination had taken place. Though neither reason given for this was valid the employer was at liberty to justify it in another way if it could
...and one from nearer home:
Working time breaks include railway workers
Railway workers were excluded from the the EU's Working Time Directive for some years but now it seems that their inclusion in an extended law is actually having an effect in the work place. A Mrs.Holland, employed by Heathrow Express, was told that her statutory 20 minute break had to be taken while she was still on call and contactable by radio. The London Central Employment Tribunal found that the company had not discharged its responsibility under the 1998 Working Time Regulations and awarded £3,360 to Mrs. Holland.
|
Back to |
Forward to |
Up to |
Back to |
