No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Advocate General: Bringing Clarity to CJEU Decisions? A Case-Study of Mangold and Kücükdeveci
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2017
Abstract
The question at the centre of focus in this chapter is whether the Advocate Generals’ (AGs’) Opinions contribute to the clarity of the Court’s decisions and thus increase its legitimacy. Methodologically, it analyses the cases of Mangold and Kücükdeveci and the pertaining AGs’ Opinions. It also looks at the Opinions of other AGs in other cases that commented upon either of these two judgments. It concludes that due to the lack of response by the Court to the arguments offered by its AGs, their Opinions have a very weak capacity to clarify unreasoned parts of the judgment to the general public beyond the Court. Thus the only real beneficiary of the Opinions is the academic community.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 2012
References
1 The term legitimacy is used to denote public acceptance of the Court’s rulings, whether one agrees or disagrees with them. Acceptance of individual rulings leads to the legitimisation of the Court as an institution. Thus, the term legitimacy is used in its sociological aspect, as described by Fallon, R in ‘Legitimacy and the Constitution’ (2005) 118 Harvard Law Review 1789 Google Scholar, 1828.
2 Eg, Lasser, M, Judicial Deliberations: A Comparative Analysis of Judicial Transparency and Legitimacy, (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004)Google Scholar. The author finds legitimacy of the French Cour de Cassation’s unreasoned decisions in, what he calls, the French Republican Model.
3 According to Art 35 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, the deliberations are and shall remain secret. The names of the judges who participated in deliberations are published (Art 36 Statute), but it is not revealed how a particular judge voted (if voting took place at all).
4 It suffices to mention the Citizenship case law that widened the scope of application of Citizenship provisions, but failed in a long line of cases to clarify the types of situations in which these rules do not apply. In that respect, see cases C-148/02 Carlos Garcia Avello v Belgian State [2003] ECR I-11613; C-200/02 Kunqian Catherine Zhu and Man Lavette Chen v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] ECR I-09925; C-34/09 Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEm), not yet reported—see Solanke, I., ‘Using the Citizen to Bring the Refugee In: Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEM)’ (2012) 75 Modern Law Review 101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; C–434/09 McCarthy v Secretary of State for the Home Department, not yet reported, C-256/11 Dereci and others v Bundesministerium für Inneres, not yet reported—see Shuibhne, Niamh Nic, ‘(Some Of) The Kids Are All Right: Comment on McCarthy and Dereci’ (2012) 49 Common Market Law Review 349 Google Scholar.
5 Eg, J Laffranque, ‘Dissenting Opinion in the European Court of Justice: Estonia’s Possible Contribution to the Democratisation of the European Union Juridical System’ www.juridicainternational.eu/dissenting-opinion-in-the-european-court-of-justice-estonias-possible-contribution-to-the-democratisation-of-the-european-union-juridcial-system.
6 The importance of this achievement for the Court is reflected in the foreword by Mr Skouris to the 2010 Annual Report, www.curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011–05/ra2010_preface_final_en.pdf.
7 Weiler, JHH, ‘The Judicial Après Nice’ in de Búrca, G and Weiler, JHH (eds), The European Court of Justice (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001) 225 Google Scholar. On the purpose of the dissenting opinions in the US legal order, see Ginsburg, R Bader, ‘The Obligation to Reason Why’ (1985) 37(2) University of Florida Law Review 205 Google Scholar; Ginsburg, R Bader, ‘Remarks on Writing Separately’ (1990) 65 Washington Law Review 133 Google Scholar. About separate opinions in the European Court on Human Rights, see, eg, G Letsas, ‘Judge Rozakis’s Separate Opinions and the Strasbourg Dilemma’: www.ssrn.com/abstract=1872384.
8 As shown by Burrows, N and Graves, R, The Advocate General and EC Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 Thus, for example, the Confédération fiscal européenne (CFE) opposed the trend of lowering the number of tax cases in which there is an Opinion of the Advocate General. It claimed that it is precisely the Opinion that explains to judges the attitudes developed in relation to certain issues in the literature. The Opinion Statement of the CFE on CJEU Advocate General Opinions in Tax Matters, Submitted to the European Institutions in October 2009 www.cfe-eutax.org/node/2210.
10 Draft Amendments to the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and to Annex I thereto, www.curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011–04/projet_en.pdf.
11 According to the newly proposed Article 27 of the Rules of procedure (www.curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011–05/en_rp_cjue.pdf), the Grand Chamber shall consist of 15 judges: President and Vice-President of the Court and an additional 13 judges to reach a total of 15 judges. Thirteen judges will be designated for each case from the list based on the order of seniority, previously published in the Official Journal. The new system, if accepted, will represent a considerable change to the present system in which six judges were permanent members of the Grand Chamber—the President of the Court and judges who preside over the five 5-judges Chambers.
12 Case C-144/04 Werner Mangold v Rüdiger Helm [2005] ECR I-9981.
13 To quote just a few: ‘Horizontal Direct Effect: A Law of Diminishing Coherence?’ Editorial to (2006) 43(1) Common Market Law Review 1–8; Schmidt, M, ‘The Principle of Non-discrimination in Respect of Age: Dimensions of the ECJ’s Mangold Judgment’ (2006) 7 German Law Journal 505 Google Scholar; Dashwood, A, ‘From Van Duyn to Mangold via Marshall: Reducing Direct Effect to Absurdity?’ (2006-2007) 9 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 81 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tobler, C., ‘Putting Mangold in Perspective: in Response to Editorial comments, Horizontal Direct Effect: A Law of Diminishing Coherence?’ (2007) 44 Common Market Law Review 1177 Google Scholar; Prechal, S, ‘Competence Creep and General Principles of Law’ (2010) 3 Review of European Administrative Law 5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘The Scope of Application of General Principles of Union Law: An Ever Expanding Union?’ Editorial to (2010) 47 Common Market Law Review 1589; de Mol, M ‘ Kücükdeveci: Mangold Revisited—Horizontal Direct Effect of a General Principle of EU Law’ (2010) 6 European Constitutional Law Review 293 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wiesbrock, A, ‘Case Note—Case C-555/07, Kücükdeveci v. Swedex, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber)’ (2010) 11(5) German Law Journal 539 Google Scholar; Muir, E, ‘Of Edges In—and Edges of—EU Law’ (2011) 48 Common Market Law Review 39 Google Scholar; Schiek, D, ‘Age Discrimination before the CJEU: Conceptual and Theoretical Issues’ (2011) 48 Common Market Law Review 777 Google Scholar; Fontanelli, F, ‘General Principles of the EU and a Glimpse of Solidarity in the Aftermath of Mangold and Kücükdeveci’ (2011) 17(2) European Public Law 225 Google Scholar.
14 R Herzog and L Gerken, Stop the European Court of Justice, available at www.cep.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Pressemappe/CEP_in_den_Medien/Herzog-EuGH-Webseite_eng.pdf.
15 Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, [2000] OJ L303/16.
16 Even if the general transposition deadline for the Directive was 2 December 2003, Member States could ask for an additional period for implementation. Germany requested an extension, such that its transposition period expired on 2 December 2006. The case reached the CJEU in 2004.
17 Mangold (n 12) para 74.
18 Mangold (n 12) paras 55–65.
19 Mangold (n 12) para 77.
20 Case 106/77 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal SpA [1978] ECR 629.
21 Mangold (n 12) para 77.
22 See eg Gardbaum, S, ‘The “Horizontal Effect” of Constitutional Rights’ (2003) 102 Michigan Law Review 387 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kumm, M, ‘Who is Afraid of the Total Constitution? Constitutional Rights as Principles and the Constitutionalization of Private Law’ (2006) German Law Journal 341 Google Scholar; DeWitte, B, ‘The Crumbling Public/Private Divide: Horizontality in European Anti-discrimination Law’ (2009) 13(5) Citizenship Studies 515 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
23 Apart from the case law which granted horizontal effect to the prohibition of discrimination on the ground of nationality as expressed in the fundamental freedoms provisions of the Treaty (such as Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch v Association Union Cycliste Internationale [1974] ECR 1405; Case C-415/93 Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL v Jean-Marc Bosman, Royal club liégeois SA v Jean-Marc Bosman and others and Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) v Jean-Marc Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921; Case C-438/05 International Transport Workers’ Federation and Finnish Seamen’s Union v Viking Line ABP and OÜ Viking Line Eesti [2007] ECR I-779), and the case law admitting horizontal application of the principle of equal pay for equal work for men and women (Case 43/75 Gabrielle Defrenne v Sabena, [1976] ECR 455), there is no case law discussing or even just applying the general principle of law directly in a horizontal situation. In relation to the horizontal application of the fundamental freedoms, see, eg, Wyatt, D, ‘Horizontal Effect of Fundamental Freedoms and the Right to Equality after Viking and Mangold and the Implications for Community Competence’ (2008) 4 Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy 1 Google Scholar.
24 This question emerged in relation to Directives—see the judgment in case C-194/94 CIA Security International SA v Signalson SA and Securitel SPRL [1996] ECR I-2201.
25 See, eg, Lenaerts, K and Gutiérrez-Fons, JA, ‘The Constitutional Allocation of Powers and General Principles of Law’ (2010) 47 Common Market Law Review 1629 Google Scholar. See also the Editorial in the same issue of Common Market Law Review 589.
26 C-555/07 Seda Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co KG, not yet reported.
27 Kücükdeveci (n 26) paras 27, 32, 51, 53 and 55.
28 Eg, Prechal, ‘Competence Creep’ (n 13).
29 Joined cases C-297/10 Sabine Hennigs v Eisenbahn-Bundesamt and C-298/10 Land Berlin v Alexander Mai, not yet reported.
30 Hennings (n 29) para 78.
31 But see the Opinion of AG Trstenjak in case C-282/10 Maribel Dominguez v Centre informatique du Centre Ouest Atlantique contre Préfet de la région Centre, not yet reported.
32 Case C-282/10 Maribel Dominguez v Centre informatique du Centre Ouest Atlantique, Préfet da la région Centre, not yet reported.
33 Opinion of AG Tizzano in case C-144/04 Werner Mangold v Rüdiger Helm [2005] ECR I-9981, para 84.
34 In his Opinion in case C-411/05 Félix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA [2007] ECR I-8531, AG Mazák, gives his assessment that the Court followed a suggestion made by AG Tizzano (see para 80).
35 Opinion of AG Tizzano in Mangold (n 33) para 83.
36 Opinion of AG Tizzano in Mangold (n 33) para 83.
37 Opinion of AG Tizzano in Mangold (n 33) para 101.
38 Opinion of AG Tizzano in Mangold (n 33) para 84.
39 Opinion of AG Tizzano in Mangold (n 33) para 83.
40 Case C-411/05 Félix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA [2007] ECR I-8531.
41 Opinion of AG Mazák in Pallacios de la Villa (n 34) para 88.
42 Opinion of AG Mazák in Pallacios de la Villa (n 34) para 89.
43 Opinion of AG Mazák in Pallacios de la Villa (n 34) para 91.
44 Opinion of AG Mazák in Pallacios de la Villa (n 34) para 95.
45 Opinion of AG Jacobs in case C-227/04 P Maria-Luise Lindorfer v Council of the European Union [2007] ECR I-6767, paras 87–93.
46 Opinion of AG Sharpston in Maria-Luise Lindorfer v Council of the European Union (n 45) para 55. In paras 56 and 57 she admitted, though, that the wording of the Mangold judgment, alternating between the use of reference to the general principle of equality and the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, does make such a reading difficult, but not impossible.
47 Opinion of AG Sharpston in case C-427/06 Birgit Bartsch v Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte (BSH) Altersfürsorge GmbH [2008] ECR I-7245, para 58.
48 Opinion of AG Sharpston in BSH (n 47) para 57.
49 Opinion of AG Sharpston in BSH (n 47) paras 50 and 59.
50 Opinion of AG Bot in case C-555/07 Seda Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co KG, not yet reported, para 77.
51 Kücükdeveci (n 26) para 20.
52 Opinion of AG Bot in Kücükdeveci (n 50) para 77.
53 Kücükdeveci (n 26) para 22.
54 See, eg, Fontanelli (n 13) 231.
55 Kücükdeveci (n 26) para 20.
56 Kücükdeveci (n 26) para 20.
57 Mangold (n 12) para 74 (words in brackets added by the author).
58 Kücükdeveci (n 26) para 21.
59 Pallacios de la Villa (n 40).
60 Mazák, Pallacios de la Villa (n 34) para 134.
61 Ibid, paras 136 and 137.
62 Ibid, para 138.
63 Opinion of AG Colomer in joined Cases 55–56/07 Othmar Michaeler, Subito GmbH and Ruth Volgger v Amt für sozialen Arbeitsschutz and Autonome Provinz Bozen [2008] ECR I-3135.
64 Ibid, para 22.
65 Opinion of AG Geelhoed in Case C-13/05 Sonia Chacón Navas v Eurest Colectividades SA [2006] ECR I-6467, paras 54–56.
66 Opinion of AG Kokott in case C-499/08 Ingeniørforenningen i Danmark v region Syddanmark, not yet reported, para 23.
67 Opinion of AG Sharpston in Bartsch (n 47) para 69.
68 Opinion of AG Sharpston in Bartsch (n 47) paras 70–72.
69 Opinion of AG Sharpston in Bartsch (n 47) para 85.
70 For a discussion of this difference, see, eg, AG Léger in case C-287/98 State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Berthe Linster, Aloyse Linster, Yvonne Linster [2000] ECR I-6917.
71 Opinion of AG Sharpston in Bartsch (n 47) paras 88–89.
72 Opinion of AG Sharpston in Bartsch (n 47) para 90.
73 This is precisely what the Court concluded in Kücükdeveci. But see the problematisation of this point of view in the Editorial to the (2010) 47 Common Market Law Review 1589. It warns that if the notion of national measures implementing EU law embraces all national measures which fall within the scope ratione materiae of EU rules, and not only those national measures adopted specifically for the purpose of the implementation of some EU rule, this would potentially open too widely the jurisdiction of the Court to control national law in relation to the general principles of EU law. The problem of expanding the application of general principles would also arise in relation to the application of the Charter.
74 Kücükdeveci (n 26) para 25.
75 See the text related to n 62.
76 Opinion of AG Mazák in Pallacios de la Villa (n 34) paras 131–32.
77 Opinion of AG Sharpston in Bartsch (n 47) para 92.
78 Opinion of AG Bot in Kücükdeveci (n 50) paras 87–89.
79 Kücükdeveci (n 26) paras 46–48.
80 AG Bot was not the only AG to comment on the distinction between substitution and exclusion in relation to the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age and its horizontal application. Thus, for instance, AG Mazák rejected such a distinction in his Opinion in Pallacios de la Villa (n 34) paras 123–32, either as an acceptable explanation of the Mangold ruling, or as a solution for future situations.
81 While it seemed that case C-443/98 Unilever Italia SpA v Central Food SpA [2000] ECR I-7535 confirmed the exclusionary effect of Directives even in horizontal situations, the joined cases C-397/01 to C-403/01 Bernhard Pfeiffer, Wilhelm Roith, Albert Süβ, Michael Winter, Klaus Nestvogel, Roswitha Zeller and Matthias Döbele v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV [2004] ECR I-8835 created doubt about this. Namely, despite AG Colomer’s suggestion to apply the distinction to the facts of the case, the Court repeated the no horizontal effects doctrine, and suggested the interpretive effect as a solution.
82 Kokott, J and Sobotta, C, ‘The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union after Lisbon’ (2010) 6 EUI Working Papers 15 Google Scholar.
83 Art 3(1) of the Dir 2000/78 (n 15).
84 As explained by the Court on numerous occasions, starting with the case 14/83 Sabine von Colson and Elisabeth Kamman v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen [1984] ECR 1891.
85 As clearly explained by the Court in Dominguez (n 32) para 23.
86 Case C-447/09 Reinhard Prigge, Michael Fromm and Volker Lambach v Deutsche Lufthansa AG, not yet reported. Both the Court (in paras 38, 48 and 49) and AG Villalon (in paras 26 and 27) mentioned that the Directive is the embodiment of the general principle prohibiting age discrimination.
87 Dominguez (n 32).
88 Art 31/2 of the Charter.
89 Dir 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time [2003] OJ L299/9.
90 Opinion of AG Trstenjak in Dominguez (n 31).
91 Opinion of AG Trstenjak in Dominguez (n 31) para 147.
92 Opinion of AG Trstenjak in Dominguez (n 31) para 146.
93 Opinion of AG Trstenjak in Dominguez (n 31) para 126.
94 Opinion of AG Trstenjak in Dominguez (n 31) paras 127–30.
95 Opinion of AG Trstenjak in Dominguez (n 31) paras 80–83.
96 Case Dominguez (n 32). The Court responded to the questions asked by the French Conseil d’État solely on the basis of the possible application of Directives, repeating that the national court has to try to find a conforming interpretation and direct application if the case is vertical, and if not, it pointed to state liability for breach of EU law. Despite the submissions of the participating Governments, the Commission and the AG, the Court did not enter into discussion on the possible existence and application of a general principle.
97 Kokott and Sobotta, ‘The Charter of Fundamental Rights’ (n 82).
98 Of course, the usefulness of the Opinion will differ from one to another, depending on the content of the Opinion itself.
99 Some AGs even felt the need to participate in clarifying Mangold in Opinions in cases having nothing to do with the issue: eg AG Trstenjak, in her Opinion in Case C-80/06 Carp Snc di L Moleri e V Corsi v Ecorad Srl [2007] ECR I-4473, paras 67–70.
100 AG Sharpston Opinion in Bartsch (n 47) para 37.
101 The informal discussions that go on by the referendaires of both Judges and the Advocate General involved in the case certainly reveal much more information for the AG than an academic has access to.
102 See on this Barnard, C, ‘The PPU: Is it Worth the Candle? An Early Assessment’ (2009) 34 European Law Review 281 Google Scholar.