A Fourth in the Court: Why are there Advocates-General in the Court of Justice?

Michal Bobek 

University of Oxford, Institute of European and Comparative Law
August 1, 2012

Forthcoming in 14 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies (2011 - 2012) 
Abstract:      
This contribution searches for ideological, systemic justification for the role of Advocates-General in the Court of Justice. It does so by carrying out a historical and comparative study concerning their origins and systemic justification from the vantage point of a national lawyer coming from a Member State that does not know any type of a “fourth in the court”. It first explains, in point 1, which factors have considerably eroded the position of Advocates-General in the course of the last decade and why questions concerning their role and its justification became topical. Second, in points 2 and 3, the commonly invoked reference to the French inspiration for introducing Advocates-General is critically examined. It is suggested that justifications once provided with respect to the office of commissaire du gouvernement in the Conseil d´État can hardly be used on the European level with respect to Advocates-General. Third, possibilities of internal justification of the role of Advocates-General are examined in point 4: are Advocates-General providing any unique assistance to the Court of Justice, which could not be provided for in different ways? With a negative answer to the latter question, the last, part of the argument presented in point 5 offers a simple yet solid overreaching justification as to why there should be Advocates-General in the Court of Justice.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 26

Full text available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2119932