Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 1 – uploaded by Tomas Dumbrovsky

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
° Therefore we have omitted first two years for the countries in the first round of the Eastern enlargement in our calculation of the mean. For BG and RO the mean is calculated for the years 2007-2009. Table 2: Preliminary References from new MS (2004-2009)

Table 2 ° Therefore we have omitted first two years for the countries in the first round of the Eastern enlargement in our calculation of the mean. For BG and RO the mean is calculated for the years 2007-2009. Table 2: Preliminary References from new MS (2004-2009)

Related Figures (10)

1.2 Does More Potential Individual Litigators Mean More Preliminary References? Figure 1: The Court of Justice — Proceedings 2000-2009 Preliminary references are still the most common procedure brought before the European Court
1.2 Does More Potential Individual Litigators Mean More Preliminary References? Figure 1: The Court of Justice — Proceedings 2000-2009 Preliminary references are still the most common procedure brought before the European Court
Table 1: Correlation between EU population and initiated preliminary references (2001-2009) Table 1 shows an almost perfect match. The increase in number of potential individual
Table 1: Correlation between EU population and initiated preliminary references (2001-2009) Table 1 shows an almost perfect match. The increase in number of potential individual
Mean 2001-03 Mean 2007-09 Increase [%] Table 3: Correlation between number of EU Member States and initiated infringement actions (2001- I0N2\)
Mean 2001-03 Mean 2007-09 Increase [%] Table 3: Correlation between number of EU Member States and initiated infringement actions (2001- I0N2\)
Table 4: Ratio in infringement actions b/n new and old MS in 2007-2009 While new Member States have represented 44.4 % of all the EU Member States, they were subject to only 14.86 % of all infringement actions started by the Commission in the period (Falkner, Treib 2008: 310; Falkner, Treib & Holzleithner 2008: 158).
Table 4: Ratio in infringement actions b/n new and old MS in 2007-2009 While new Member States have represented 44.4 % of all the EU Member States, they were subject to only 14.86 % of all infringement actions started by the Commission in the period (Falkner, Treib 2008: 310; Falkner, Treib & Holzleithner 2008: 158).
Table 5: Correlation between increased capacity of the Court and completed cases 2001-2009 ° For Bulgaria see COM (2007) 377 final (June 27, 2007); COM (2008) 63 final (Feb. 4, 2008); COM (2008) 495 final (July 23, 2008); COM (2009) 69 final (Feb. 12. 2009); COM (2009) 402 final (July 22, 2009); COM (2010) 112 final (March 23, 2010); COM (2010) 400 final (July 20, 2010); COM (2011) 81 final (Feb. 18, 2011). For Romania see COM (2007) 378 final (June 27, 2007); COM (2008) 62 final (Feb. 4, 2008); COM (2008) 494 final (July 23, 2008); COM (2009) 70 final (Feb. 12. 2009); COM (2009) 401 final (July 22, 2009); COM (2010) 113 final (March 23, 2010); COM (2010) 401 final (July 20, 2010); COM (2011) 80 final (Feb. 18, 2011). 7 Court of Justice of the European Communities (2010) Annual Report 2009, Luxembourg: Publication Office of the Biuiranean TIJnion &45 judge chambers and in the Grand Chamber (composed of eleven to thirteen judges).
Table 5: Correlation between increased capacity of the Court and completed cases 2001-2009 ° For Bulgaria see COM (2007) 377 final (June 27, 2007); COM (2008) 63 final (Feb. 4, 2008); COM (2008) 495 final (July 23, 2008); COM (2009) 69 final (Feb. 12. 2009); COM (2009) 402 final (July 22, 2009); COM (2010) 112 final (March 23, 2010); COM (2010) 400 final (July 20, 2010); COM (2011) 81 final (Feb. 18, 2011). For Romania see COM (2007) 378 final (June 27, 2007); COM (2008) 62 final (Feb. 4, 2008); COM (2008) 494 final (July 23, 2008); COM (2009) 70 final (Feb. 12. 2009); COM (2009) 401 final (July 22, 2009); COM (2010) 113 final (March 23, 2010); COM (2010) 401 final (July 20, 2010); COM (2011) 80 final (Feb. 18, 2011). 7 Court of Justice of the European Communities (2010) Annual Report 2009, Luxembourg: Publication Office of the Biuiranean TIJnion &45 judge chambers and in the Grand Chamber (composed of eleven to thirteen judges).
international judicial bodies becomes only a mean to that aim; therefore, often more high profile
international judicial bodies becomes only a mean to that aim; therefore, often more high profile
As the Juge-Rapporteur presents a first draft of the judgment and administers the case from the
As the Juge-Rapporteur presents a first draft of the judgment and administers the case from the
3.2. The legal culture of ‘newcomers’ vis-a-vis the legal culture at the Court Figure 3: Nomination of judges as Juge-Rapporteur in Grand Chamber formations 2004-2011“
3.2. The legal culture of ‘newcomers’ vis-a-vis the legal culture at the Court Figure 3: Nomination of judges as Juge-Rapporteur in Grand Chamber formations 2004-2011“
Table 7: Expertise of new and old MS Judges at the ECJ (as of March, 1, 2010)” *° We have observed three areas of expertise, which determine a judge’s ability to perform well at the ECJ: judicial experience (whether a judge was sitting at a national court and/or international court, each given either 0 (no) or 0.2 (yes) points). The most important factor is knowledge of EU law (0.4 points). Knowledge of French was given 0.2 points. The overall expertise of a judge is measured on a scale from 0 to 1. Further research needs to be done in order to refine the separate components of the overall expertise of a judge (for instance, based on how many years a judge served at a national/international court; how good is his knowledge of EU law based on whether he obtained a specialised degree in the area or published in peer review journals in the area; what level of proficiency in French he achieved etc. So far we have gathered the data about individual judges from publicly available sources (e.g. their CVs).
Table 7: Expertise of new and old MS Judges at the ECJ (as of March, 1, 2010)” *° We have observed three areas of expertise, which determine a judge’s ability to perform well at the ECJ: judicial experience (whether a judge was sitting at a national court and/or international court, each given either 0 (no) or 0.2 (yes) points). The most important factor is knowledge of EU law (0.4 points). Knowledge of French was given 0.2 points. The overall expertise of a judge is measured on a scale from 0 to 1. Further research needs to be done in order to refine the separate components of the overall expertise of a judge (for instance, based on how many years a judge served at a national/international court; how good is his knowledge of EU law based on whether he obtained a specialised degree in the area or published in peer review journals in the area; what level of proficiency in French he achieved etc. So far we have gathered the data about individual judges from publicly available sources (e.g. their CVs).
List of Interviewees by position, date and place of interview ANNEX Verlag, 257-265, at http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/10/st05/st05932.en10.pdf
List of Interviewees by position, date and place of interview ANNEX Verlag, 257-265, at http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/10/st05/st05932.en10.pdf
Related topics:
European StudiesConstitutional LawEuropean LawJudicial PoliticsEuropean Court of Justice
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved