tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post5718517209655127254..comments2024-03-29T12:23:31.959+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Amicus briefs and consultation in CJEU cases: a constructive commentVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-69655444447037762932016-02-20T17:23:18.693+00:002016-02-20T17:23:18.693+00:00Dear All,
Although interesting - very interesting...Dear All,<br /><br />Although interesting - very interesting - in the context of arguments to be made concerning the unduly short time permitted for comments to be received, and therefore heard, I am afraid I do not agree that such observations are made by Member States qua amici curiae, and nor do they fall within the ambit of the normal amicus curiae rules.<br /><br />They are instead comments/observations from designated interested parties, namely members states of the EU, who have a particular interest (whether they pay attention or not), in the outcome of the proceedings.<br /><br />A different approach needs to be adopted to the issue of amicus curiae, and whether the CJEU should or does accept briefs of such a nature, bearing in mind the importance of, inter alia, equality of arms, and of being a mere "friend of the court". <br /><br />The ECHR does admit of, in certain cases, an amicus role, but this is because its rules specifically provide for the Court either to invite comment/observations, or in the alternative, to entertain an application to make comment as amicus curiae. The is not surprising given that its main role is to pronounce on fundamental human rights, and they may well engage or affect parties other than the parties to the particular proceedings. In those case in which this has occurred, the Commission has filed its comments or observations in the form of an amicus brief.<br /><br />The CJEU on the other hand, is very strict about who can appear before it, and who might have standing to do so, and has been reluctant to alter its long standing approach to hear any party outside those within the ambit of the rights granted by the Treaty(ies), or by its Charter, or by its Rules. It grants to MS, as designated interested parties, an entitlement to make observations when they wish, and only when they wish, but not as amici curiae.<br /><br />I am not certain we should mix up the role of a MS when it responds - as a named interested party (along with the Commission) - to a reference from another MS, with the role of parties who might wish to be admitted to proceedings as amici curiae, and the extent to which they might be so admitted.<br /><br />FM<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-7233057995301209942013-06-06T14:28:00.226+01:002013-06-06T14:28:00.226+01:00Dear all,
I have done research on member states&#...Dear all,<br /><br />I have done research on member states' observations and am now interested in making an argument, for expanding amicus briefs to the ECJ and GC. The pattern of countries intervention which you identified is not unsual, as you have in EU litigation a number of repeat-players (UK, France, Netherlands, Poland, etc). See my article Granger, Marie-Pierre. 2005. “When Governments Go to Luxembourg: The Influence of. Governments on the court of Justice.” European Law Review 29: 3- 31Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-72146468738857237322012-11-20T20:00:47.631+00:002012-11-20T20:00:47.631+00:00Hi Richard,
Would it be possible for you to let me...Hi Richard,<br />Would it be possible for you to let me know the method you used to find the information in the table? I am hoping to put together similar table, but for copyright cases.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com