The European Court of Justice (ECJ) stands as the paramount judicial authority within the European Union, interpreting EU law to ensure uniformity across member states. Originating from the treaty that created the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952, the ECJ plays a vital role in the EU’s legal framework.
The Court of Justice of the European Union comprises both the ECJ and the General Court. Established in 1988, the General Court primarily deals with direct actions, many of which are initiated by corporations and individuals. These cases can then be appealed on points of law to the ECJ. The relationship between the ECJ and national courts involves a preliminary reference system, allowing national courts to refer to the ECJ questions of EU law that arise in domestic cases. Although the ECJ provides rulings on EU law, national courts must then apply these rulings to their cases.
The ECJ has a wide-ranging jurisdiction that extends to cases brought by or against member states and EU institutions and addresses issues brought from national courts. Its cases span areas such as economic law, environmental law, data privacy, and anti-discrimination law. Critics and scholars sometimes debate the hierarchical nature of the ECJ’s relationship with national courts, especially when prominent cases arise where national courts challenge an ECJ decision.
Judgment from the ECJ is delivered via a single collegiate judgment without dissents or concurrences. While this method emphasizes unity, it contrasts with the more discursive style of the US Supreme Court. Although the decision-making process remains private, it is believed that judges vote during deliberations. Cases are determined by varying numbers of judges, dependent on the chamber’s size, with the Grand Chamber comprising 15 judges.
The ECJ, staffed by 27 judges and 11 advocates general, maintains a reputation for its independence and pro-integration stance, often being criticized for advancing EU powers expansively. Judges are nominated for a six-year renewable term and are appointed by consensus of the member states. Recent notable cases highlight the ECJ’s influential role, such as its decision against Hungary for violating EU values with laws discriminating against LGBTI+ communities (LGBTI+ case) and clarification of Frontex’s liability in asylum-seeker pushbacks.
Though the ECJ does not have formal enforcement capabilities, it fosters compliance through clear rulings and diplomatic engagement with national courts. More explicit details can be found in the insightful interview with Professor Gráinne de Búrca, as reported on SCOTUSblog.