login
login
Image header Agence Europe
Europe Daily Bulletin No. 7649
Contents Publication in full By article 33 / 45
GENERAL NEWS / (eu) eu/court of justice

Parties to a trial may not respond to the conclusions of the Advocate General

Luxembourg, 04/02/2000 (Agence Europe) - Regarding the "Emesa Sugar" case, the European Court of Justice has issued an order in which it rejects the request of a firm to submit observations in response to conclusions presented by Advocate General Colomer.

The Court states that the role and function of the Court's Advocates General are such that they cannot be compared to those of other magistrates working in courts or tribunals in Member States.

The company "Emesa Sugar based itself on a "Vermeulen vs/ Belgium" ruling, passed down in 1996 by the European Court of Human rights of Strasbourg. The latter had declared that Mr. Vermeulen had not had a fair trial (Art. 6 of the Convention on Human Rights) as he had not been able to respond to the conclusions of the Procureur Général's department at the Belgian Court of Cassation.

For the European Court of Justice, the "Vermeulen" case law cannot be transposed to its Advocates General: "Advocates General (…) are not public prosecutors nor are they subject to any authority, in contrast to the manner in which the administration of justice is organised in certain Member states. They are not entrusted with the defence in any particular interest in the exercise of their duties" says the order. It then adds "to confer on the parties the right to submit observations in response to the Opinion of the Advocate General, with the corresponding right for the other parties to reply to those observations, would cause serious difficulties and considerably extend the length of the procedure". The Court declares that it is not unaware of the fundamental right of the applicant to an adversarial procedures, as at the request of a party unhappy with the observations an Advocate General, they may order the reopening of the oral procedure (hearing), which, it recalls it has done in several cases since 1996.

It concludes in this case: "Emesa's application does not relate to the reopening of the oral procedure, nor does it rely on any specific factor indicating that it would be either useful or necessary to do so".

 

Contents

THE DAY IN POLITICS
GENERAL NEWS
TIMETABLE
ECONOMIC INTERPENETRATION