You were familiar with the Court of Justice about twenty years ago. Have you found your feet, despite the changes it has undergone in the meantime?

I needed some time. This concerns the role of the judge, which is different to that of a magistrate, as well as the development of areas in which the court intervenes. On the one hand, the court must deal with increasingly technical subjects (telecommunications, environment) and on the other hand it has new competences in the field of external relations, security and justice, in which the differences in legal systems and conceptions are profound. Learning about the subject was easier 20 years ago.

What was the impact of enlargement from 15 to 25 and then 27 on the court’s way of working ?

Obviously, the fact that there are more of us has resulted in more points of view, which must be taken into consideration, and a greater number of different legal systems. This does not make our work any easier. But the impact of enlargement has been less than you could imagine. I am amazed at the institution’s capacity of integration and the fact that we do not have any real problems in settling disputes; we are able to stay on course in terms of case law, despite the number of states. This is due notably to the fact that there are chambers of five judges with presidents elected for three years, which is a structural factor of the court’s work. It is also due to the fact that, while we are very different, we are working on the same subject and are confronted with the same problems. First we were on a bicycle, then a tandem, then on a four-seater bike, but we continue to pedal in the same direction.

What is the status on the court’s relations with member states? Some states feel that the court’s decisions erode their supremacy.

If the states have this impression, it is because the Community system is structured so that, little by little, it restricts their margin of manoeuvre. It is, however, they who make the legislation and afterwards they are surprised that they must respect it. I think they should better evaluate the constraints that they impose upon themselves. I think about the timeframe for the transposition of directives, which is sometimes unrealistic; it would be better to take an extra year than to risk proceedings for failure to fulfil an obligation.

We can discuss certain rulings, but the general trend in case law is very balanced, it naturally draws consequences from Community law. In the area of health, for example, it has been said that the court, through its Watts ruling, went very far by authorising patients, under certain circumstances, to be treated in another member state. Now, if we consider the subject as a whole, case law in this sensitive area is very cautious. The Hartlauer ruling on the Austrian system for health care organisation above all validates health card systems and systems for the distribution of health care provision in member states. In a ruling issued on pharmacies, the court validated cardinal rules in pharmaceutical law for a number of member states: the distribution of pharmacies according to needs and the fact that a pharmacy is run by a pharmacist. This is essential. Without these rules, there would be no more possibilities for regulating health care expenditure. One cannot say that these rulings are eroding the competences of member states.

Is the court sensitive to criticism?

Yes, absolutely. We are not cut off from society, judges must listen to society. Firstly, we are very well informed of what is going on in all member states, through the exchange of information between us, either general information or information on case law in our respective member states. We discuss criticisms made of the court’s case law. We are all used to discussion and therefore criticism. This is normal.

How does the court prepare for the aspirations expressed, sometimes latently, by civil society?

The court is a jurisdictional institution, it is not self-starting. Judges respond to the issues referred to them. These issues come through different channels. Half of them reach us via a preliminary ruling, which presents an explanation by the judge of the dismissal of the national context, the applicable law and by means of this we very closely handle societal issues: civil rights, child custody or rights of foreigners. In other types of cases, breaches or other matters, we also tackle societal issues: we saw this on GMOs, with the Khadi case, at the heart of one of the most serious problems of society, daily security, or even in the field of the environment with the sinking of the Erika… We prepare for it via different means. Firstly, all judges have a course through which they have been faced with societal problems. Social studies is our subject. Next, we remain up-to-date by taking part in scientific or legal meetings on the most diverse subjects, among other things. Each year, for example, we meet with the European Court of Human Rights.