An in-depth study, originally published in 2006, of the careers and roles of judges in France, Germany, Spain, Sweden and England, this book is based on original language materials and investigations of judges and judicial institutions in each country. On the basis of these detailed case studies, the book suggests factors that shape the character of the judiciary in different countries, focusing on issues such as women's careers and the relationship between judicial careers and politics. Bell's investigations offer lessons on issues which the English judiciary was having to confront in the period of reform at the time of this book's publication.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has started to implement what is arguably the most signi cant set of reforms since the Nice Treaty, with notably the doubling of the number of judges at the General Court and the disappearance of the Civil Service Tribunal. Controversies surrounding the process and outcomes of the reforms called for a broader re ection on the European Courts and the way they cope with old and new challenges. To this end, this volume brings together junior and seasoned academics and practitioners to take stock of the various aspects of these reforms and the overall functioning of the EU Judiciary, from comparative, ‘insider’, and ‘outsider’ perspectives. Broadening and deepening our understanding of the reorganisation of the EU Judiciary, the contributors offer incisive analyses of reforms and evolutions, including: – a critical appraisal of the reform process and the role and powers of the CJEU; – implications of the reforms for the Court of Justice and the General Court; – lessons from the practice of the now dismantled Civil Service Tribunal; – a re ection on the future Uni ed Patent Court; – an evaluation of the role of the CJEU’s members and staffs and their selection; – an insider’s perspective into the workings of the repeat players (Legal Services of the European Commission and of the European Parliament) and the parties’ lawyers; – an assessment of the procedural reforms before the Court of Justice and the General Court with a speci c focus on the PPU; – the unfolding and impact of the digital revolution (e-Curia) on the CJEU; – the challenges of the languages regime and legal reasoning before the CJEU. Comparative perspectives elucidate speci c judiciary reforms across Europe, including detailed analyses of developments at the European Court of Human Rights, the French Conseil Constitutionnel, and the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. As a timely assessment of the effects of recent reforms on the EU Courts’ decision-making practices, roles, and identities, and more broadly on the legitimacy of the EU and its institutions as a whole, this book is unparalleled. It will be of great value to practitioners engaged in EU litigation, scholars of European law and policymakers at EU institutions, and all those interested in judicial process and reform.

This open access book is about the perception of the independence of the judiciary in Europe. Do citizens and judges see its independence in the same way? Do judges feel that their independence is respected by the users of the courts, by the leadership of the courts and by politicians? Does the population trust the judiciary more than other public institutions, or less? How does independence of the judiciary work at the national level and at the level of the European Union? These interrelated questions are particularly relevant in times when the independence of the judiciary is under political pressure in several countries in the European Union, giving way to illiberal democracy. Revealing surveys among judges, lay judges and lawyers - in addition to regular surveys of the European Commission - provide a wealth of information to answer these questions. While the answers will not please everyone, they are of interest to a wide audience, in particular court leaders, judges, lawyers, politicians and civil servants.

The European Union is often depicted as a cradle of judicial activism and a polity built by courts. Tommaso Pavone shows how this judge-centric narrative conceals a crucial arena for political action. Beneath the radar, Europe's political development unfolded as a struggle between judges who resisted European law and lawyers who pushed them to embrace change. Under the sheepskin of rights-conscious litigants and activist courts, these “Euro-lawyers” sought clients willing to break state laws conflicting with European law, lobbied national judges to uphold European rules, and propelled them to submit noncompliance cases to the European Union's supreme court – the European Court of Justice – by ghostwriting their referrals. By shadowing lawyers who encourage deliberate law-breaking and mobilize courts against their own governments, The Ghostwriters overturns the conventional wisdom regarding the judicial construction of Europe and illuminates how the politics of lawyers can profoundly impact institutional change and transnational governance.

At head of title: Europa Instituut, University of Leiden.

Do EU institutions have an influence on the implementation of the rule of law in potential candidate countries and, if so, of what kind? During the compliance monitoring process related to the effective rule of law and democracy the EU Commission tests and criticizes the effectiveness of the judiciary and strengthens the rule of law in preparation for accession. In the Western Balkans this was a process fraught with difficulties. Despite the fact that academic scholarship and democratic politics agree on rule of law as a legitimizing principle for the exercise of state authority, there is no uniform European standard for institution-building or monitoring activities by the EU in this area. With focus on the reform of the judiciary in five case study countries of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia, this empirical research investigates the EU's transformative power with regard to the effectiveness of rule of law and judicial sector reform in its infancy. It analyses the depth and limitations of EU rule of law promotion in the Western Balkans and presents policy recommendations intended to address the shortcomings in judiciary reform. This book aims to fill the gap in the existing academic scholarship of EU politics, law and Western Balkans literature.

Recent confrontations between constitutional courts and parliamentary majorities, for example in Poland and Hungary, have attracted international interest in the relationship between the judiciary and the legislature in Central and Eastern European countries. Several political actors have argued that courts have assumed too much power after the democratic transformation process in 1989/1990. These claims are explicitly or implicitly connected to the charge that courts have constrained the room for manoeuvre of the legislatures too heavily and that they have entered the field of politics. Nevertheless, the question to what extent has this aggregation of power constrained the dominant political actors has never been examined accurately and systematically in the literature. The present volume fills this gap by applying an innovative research methodology to quantify the impact and effect of court's decisions on legislation and legislators, and measure the strength of judicial decisions in six CEE countries.