The Court of First Instance has turned 20. What are the leitmotifs of its evolution so far?

The court has evolved on the basis of three key ideas. First, the increase in its competences has altered its functioning. Set up to deal with technically complex and voluminous cases mainly in the field of competition, today it has become a general tribunal for all direct actions (annulment, failure to act, damages). The second is our ongoing priority of maintaining the quality of our decisions. Quality has not suffered from the expansion of our competences. Third, we make a point of never going beyond the framework of reviewing lawfulness. We are not a substitute for the administrative authority that has taken the decision and whose lawfulness we review. For example: the Commission penalises a company, which is unhappy with the decision and challenges it before us. Our role is to review whether the disputed decision is in conformity with the regulatory and legal framework in which it was adopted. This review is strictly legal and technical.

2008 was a year of change in the court’s working methods. Are the results equal to the effort invested?

Absolutely. The reforms put in place since my election have produced concrete results. First, we carried out internal restructuring. The number of chambers was increased to eight (plus an appeals chamber). We scheduled additional hearings, synthesised our documents more and streamlined case assignment. Internal management instruments allow real-time monitoring of cases. We modified our rules of procedure, in particular to be able to rule in trademark cases without holding a hearing unless the parties submit a reasoned request. In 2008, we handled 52% more cases than the previous year and the number of hearings doubled.

This is not enough, however, because litigation is undergoing a systemic increase. There is a risk that it may soon exceed our internal capacity.

How can you foresee such growth in litigation and when will it reach the critical stage?

It will be very significant over the medium term, and the institutions or bodies that adopt decisions that can be challenged in actions before the court are already or will soon be producing more decisions.

The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market is increasing the number of internal actions, the European Chemical Agency is entering a growth phase and will thus be adopting new decisions, the Commission is starting to analyse the situation of state monopolies and enterprises in new member states. All such decisions may be challenged before the court and will lead to an increase in litigation. Recently, for instance, there was the case of measures for the reduction of greenhouse gas quotas and the prohibition on market release of certain plant protection substances.

We are also seeing growing awareness of EU law in the member states that joined in 2004 and 2007, which are going to rely on this law increasingly.

The Lisbon Treaty eases the rules for lodging an action for annulment so we are expecting more people to turn to us as a result.

Lastly, the Court of Justice is also confronted with an increase in actions and has reached the limits of its working capacity. It will try to hand over certain cases to the Court of First Instance. We are not particularly seeking this but it is in the nature of things. In the light of these factors, our working capacity will not improve as much as in 2008 in the coming years: there will necessarily be a phase difference. The waiting room will fill up and litigants will be faced with longer procedures.

Considering this context and the complexity of the cases submitted to the court, could the specialisation of judges represent a solution?

The very creation of the Court of First Instance is an illustration of this since it was placed in charge of a specific type of litigation. Ditto for the Civil Service Tribunal. Specialisation makes it possible to achieve economies of scale, so by creating other specialised courts in specific areas (such as the Community trademark, for example) we could become more effective. On the other hand, for internal specialisation that would concern the different types of litigation brought before the CFI, the answer is 'no'. Judges are appointed for their ability to deal with a variety of cases, an element that enriches debates. In addition, certain legal problems have repercussions in a number of areas. A highly specialised judge cannot necessarily grasp this aspect in its entirety. You could say that judges are meant to be 'all-around men', ready to address all problems (competition, public procurement or terrorism) using the same method, being capable of both mastering the technical aspects of the issue and getting a more complete view drawn from reasoning processes specific to other areas.

Policy makers will have to take structural measures either by creating specialised judicial chambers or by increasing the number of judges at the Court of First Instance. In any case, we need more judges. We do not have a right of initiative. It is up to the Court of Justice or the Council to act. It is my responsibility to sound the alarm.

How do the three courts work to ensure the uniformity of EU law?

The answer is inherent to the hierarchy of the courts. The Civil Service Tribunal’s decisions may be appealed before us and, as need be, we try to restore the uniformity of the law. The same happens between us and the Court of Justice. When we are faced with a new legal problem, there can be a period of wavering, but the Court of Justice quickly restores order. That is why, for civil service disputes and potentially for any dispute transferred to a specialised court, the Court of Justice also has the possibility to review judgements handed down by the tribunal on appeal, in case of serious risk of an adverse effect on the unity or coherence of EU law.