Brussels, 31/03/2003 (Agence Europe) - The president of the "discussion circle" at the Convention on the Court of Justice, European Commissioner Antonio Vitorino, presented his report concerning, among other things, the appointment of judges, their number and the duration of their term of office. Proposals which do not have unanimity but which do not provoke fierce opposition like some others, are mainly those on direct access by individuals to European justice. The members of the circle had heard the presidents of both jurisdictions - the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance - as well as the Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the EC (CCBE).
Number of judges. Most members of the discussion circle hope to maintain the current principle of "one Member State/one judge" for the Court. For the Court of First Instance, whose workload is increasing all the time, the report considers the solution of "at least" one judge per Member State as "satisfactory".
It should be noted that, for years now, the Council has promised the European Court of First Instance 6 extra judges who would be in addition to the current fifteen judges. Judges that have never materialised. The Council has never come to an agreement on their nationality, with the "large" countries considering they should be of their nationality.
Appointment of judges. The report proposes keeping the system whereby judges are appointed by their respective governments with the approval of other Member States.
The rapporteur acknowledges the fact that "the circle is divided" over the issue. His adversaries recommend the appointment of judges by the Council, possibly by qualified majority.
It should be noted that Gil Rodriguez Iglesias, President of the Court, believes the system in force satisfactorily ensures that justice can work in full independence. Bo Vesterdorf, President of the Court of First Instance, considers for his part that it is not essential to change the current system.
EUROPE recalls that, in practice, each Member State uses its own way of appointing judges. In most Member States, criteria are often "political" (in the more or less strict sense of the term). In practice, their choice is not challenged by the other Member States. Germany, for example, alternates between the two main political parties. France makes a distinction between the "categories" of magistrates. The British, it should be noted, had innovated when they put an advertisement in The Times for applicants to the post of judge at the Court of First Instance, later attributed to Nicolas Forwood (see EUROPE of 30 April 1999).
Creation of an assessment committee. The rapporteur foresees the creation of an assessment committee, a true "filtering mechanism" that would have the task of giving an opinion to the Member States (or to Council) on the profile of an applicant to the post of judge. It would thus strengthen the level of Member State requirements for candidates. The committee could be composed of former members of the Court, or representatives of national high courts. The Parliament could also be involved in the procedure. The report does not, however, foresee public discussions or hearings. The committee would have less weight if the judges were appointed by the Council, it specifies.
The CCBE had proposed that the appointment of judges should be examined by an advisory committee made up of "highly qualified" independent lawyers to assist the Member States. It rejected nonetheless the principle of public investiture hearings (as in the United States for High Court judges).
Duration of mandate. Antonio Vitorino points out that the future Constitution could differentiate between the Court and the Court of First Instance. The term of office of judges of the Court could be fixed at 12 years, not renewable, whereas that of the judges of the Court of First Instance would be kept at 6 years renewable as is the case at present for both jurisdictions.
The president of the Court and the Court of First Instance prefer the current system but pronounce they are "open" to extending the mandate of judges to 12 years.
The question raised by all participants is the following: If a judge dies or resigns, would his/her successor complete the twelve years left of his/her predecessor's term of office or begin a new mandate? The CCBE states it would be a shame if, at the end of the appointment at the Court of First Instance, a judge were ineligible for the Court of Justice (Ed.: At present, the "bridge" between the two courts is often used").