24 June 2021
Unpersuasive but Wise
On 16 June, by two parallel orders, the EU Court of Justice said the last word on the legality of advocate general Sharpston’s divestment. In the end, the Court did little more than reiterate the press statement it made in response to the member states’ declaration on the subject. The member states made a legitimate decision based on an old custom, and the Court could do nothing but oblige. Continue reading >>
3 
20 June 2021
Predictable and Unsatisfying
Most EU lawyers have already seen it looming on the horizon: On 16 June 2021, former Advocate General Eleanor Sharpston lost the legal dispute against her former employer, the European Court of Justice. Although the outcome in this regard was predictable, the decision is overall somewhat unsatisfying. The CJEU seems to be of that opinion in finding that Sharpston’s mandate ended automatically with the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU. The Court does so without revealing its legal considerations and interpretation of EU primary law in its reasoning. Continue reading >>
0
19 June 2021
CJEU’s Independence and Lawful Composition in Question (Part V)
The Sharpston Affair is over, at least as a matter of proceedings before the CJEU. The litigation had aimed at saving the CJEU’s dignity, but the opposite result has been achieved. At the critical juncture when the CJEU’s authority stands contested by the courts of established democracies, the phony panels of the ‘illiberal’ ones, as well as the immature in-betweens, the CJEU managed to pour oil into the fire and signed off its own lack of independence: when it is needed the most, its legitimacy is in the doghouse. Continue reading >>23 December 2020
CJEU’s Independence in Question, Part IV
In her much awaited appeal before the European Court of Justice, AG Sharpston is asking the right questions, that the Vice-President of the Court of Justice clearly got her Orders very wrong, and attempted to silence to ousted AG Sharpston through an abuse of ex parte procedure brought by the Member States. Continue reading >>20 September 2020
Lawful composition – the EFTA Court’s approach
On 10 September 2020, the British Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Union, Eleanor Sharpston, was replaced by the Greek lawyer Athanasios Rantos. Most of the commentators of the incident, which stirred up a great deal of dust, focus on the question whether the termination of Ms. Sharpston’s mandate on 10 September 2020 was lawful. The following considerations, on the other hand, examine the legal situation in the event that her expulsion from the ECJ was after Brexit in line with EU law. A precedent of the EFTA Court in 2016 may be relevant in this context. Continue reading >>06 September 2020
It’s Urgent II
On Friday 4 September 2020, Judge Anthony Collins of the General Court has ordered the suspension of operation and all consequential effects of the Decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, in so far as it purports to appoint Mr. Athanasios Rantos to the position of Advocate General of the Court of Justice. The significance of this development for the independence of the judiciary in the EU and the general articulation of the rule of law in Europe is difficult to overestimate. Continue reading >>03 September 2020
It’s Urgent
In a remarkable move, the Member States appointed, on 2 September 2020, an Advocate General put forward by Greece, who will enter into office on 7 September 2020 if Member States get their way. There is a ginormous problem with this move, as the office that this Advocate General will try to fill, as things stand, does not become vacant until October 2021. Eleanor Sharpston, the officeholder presently in situ, remains there until then. Any other reading of EU law is tantamount to the Member States sacking a member of the Court in direct violation of the primary law. This is a wholly unacceptable scenario in a Union grounded and predicated upon the rule of law. Urgent measures are thus necessary to save not only the legitimacy of the Court, but that of the EU. Continue reading >>29 June 2020
Frankenstein’s Court
Due to Brexit, the remaining 27 EU Member States would like to remove Eleanor Sharpston, an Advocate General nominated by the United Kingdom, from the CJEU. Many have criticized this idea, claiming that a removal would undermine the judicial independence of the Court. This post argues that the position taken by the EU 27 to remove Eleanor Sharpston from the Court is actually well-reasoned and lawful while leaving her in office would lead to strange consequences e.g. that the Judges of the Court are less protected than its Advocate Generals. Continue reading >>07 April 2020
Humiliating the Court?
The Member States, dismissing an Advocate General before the expiration of her term of office on the Court, have demonstrated that they are ready to humiliate the Court of Justice by allowing post-Brexit frustrations take the place of the Primary Law of the EU. The Rule of Law stands replaced with political whim. As AG Sharpston’s tenure is left in suspense, what is the worth of the core aspects of EU Rule of Law and judicial independence, when the Member States are willing to alter the composition of the Court by a political declaration? Continue reading >>23 February 2020