is that judgments are always unanimous, in the sense that just one opinion is
issued, though no one can know what the voting was in chambers. The second
is the role of the advocates general, who review the arguments of the parties
and issue their own opinion before the judges consider the matter. The judges
are not bound to follow, or even to take note of, the advocate generals’
opinions, but they are clearly very influential. Because there is no right of
appeal against a decision of the Court of Justice, this prior opinion acts almost
like, for example, a judgment of the English Court of Appeal prior to an
ultimate appeal to the House of Lords.
The two most important types of cases coming to the Court are those where
the European Commission acts against a member government for alleged
breach of some EUregulationordirective, or where one member state sues
another claiming to have suffered damage as a result of failure to comply with
EU law. However, individuals do have a way of involving the Court in their
disputes. If a citizen is suing their government, or a citizen of their own or
another state, and the case involves interpretation of an EC ruling, they may
ask their national court to refer the matter to the Court of Justice. Ordinary
courts have the discretion to grant or refuse such a request, but if the case goes
to the highest appeal court in the country, that court must make such a
reference. This route, known as the ‘Article 177 Procedure’ is becoming
increasingly common. (Technically, Article 177 of the Treaty of Rome has
become Article 234 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, but it is so well known by its
original numbering that it is best to continue referring to it that way, as many
legal text books have done.) National court systems vary in the extent they
welcome this intervention in their own processes; it certainly illustrates the
supremacy of EU law over national law. Some, Italy and Germany particularly,
have welcomed the extra appeal route, while France tried for a long time to
avoid it, but now all national court systems recognize the binding force of
Court of Justice rulings.
The Court of Justice is often likened to the US Supreme Court in its early
days, when it played a vital role in building the authority of the federal
government over the individual states. There is no doubt that the Court is
very ‘European minded’ and will try hard to find in favour of a wide
interpretation of a decision or treaty clause which furthers integration. It is
also anxious to broaden the range of matters which it considers, and aspects of
the Treaty of Rome dealing withcivil libertiesand other non-economic
matters are taken very seriously. One interesting feature of the relations
between the Court and other bodies is that the court has, of itself, only very
weak powers of enforcement. Nevertheless, although some countries have
been reluctant to comply on certain issues, the Court has never yet been
openly defied. The ECJ has undoubtedly strengthened the grip of European
legislation over member states in a series of wide ranging interpretations of
European Court of Justice (ECJ)