Learning to talk: Preliminary rulings, the courts of the new member States and the Court of Justice

Common Market Law Review

Volumn 45, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 1611-1643

  Bobek, Michal ^a  

^a EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 60449114625     PISSN: 01650750     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (122)

1. Case C-328/04, Criminal proceedings against Attila Vajnai, [2005] ECR I-8577.
2. Case C-302/06, František Koval'ský v. Mesto Prešov, [2007] ECR I-11.
3. Ibid., para 20.
4. Case C-291/96, Criminal proceedings against Martino Grado and Shahid Bashir, [1997] ECR I-5531.
5. Joined Cases C-297/88 and C-197/89, Massam Dzodzi v. Belgian State, [1990] ECR I-3763.
6. Case C-226/97, Criminal proceedings against Johannes Martinus Lemmens, [1998] ECR I-3711.
7. See e.g. Weiler, "Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Boundaries: On the Conflict of Standards and Values in the Protection of Human Rights in the European Legal Space", in Weiler, The Constitution of Europe (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 102-129, at 119 et seq.
8. Most recently see the helpful summary by A.G. Poiares Maduro in Case C-380/05, Centro Europa 7 Srl v. Ministero delle Comunicazioni e Autorità per le garanzie nelle comunicazioni, judgment of 31 Jan., 2008, nyr, Opinion of 12 Sept. 2007, at paras. 14-23.
9. Somewhat artificial as this argument may sound, the views might be different if one considers for instance the case law of the Court relating to so-called "golden shares". The owner of these golden shares is typically entitled to exercise special voting rights with respect to some key decisions in the administration of a company. In a series of direct actions (e.g. Case C-483/99, Commission v. France (Elf-Acquitaine), [2002] ECR I-4781;
10. Case C-503/99, Commission v. Belgium (SNTC), [2002] ECR I-4809;
11. Case C-98/01, Commission v. United Kingdom (BAA), [2003] ECR I-4641), the Court came to the conclusion that golden shares constitute a barrier to the free movement of capital and the freedom of establishment: investors from another Member State might be put off by the existence of golden shares in a company, as they would never be able to take it over. If golden shares are declared to be a barrier to freedom of establishment, why should a burden on a property, which may deter a potential buyer from another Member State from acquiring it, be considered any different?
12. The above-mentioned recent case Centro Europa (supra note 8) actually provides yet another demonstration of this: the original question by the Italian court concerning the interpretation of the scope of the right to the freedom of information in Art. 10 ECHR in the context of the access to the radio frequencies was rephrased so as to deal substantively with the same question under Art. 49 EC (freedom to provide services).
13. For instance, the first ever Austrian request for a preliminary ruling, Case C-299/95, Friedrich Kremzow v. Republik Österreich, [1997] ECR I-2629.
14. For a general introduction see e.g. Procházka, Mission Accomplished: On Founding Constitutional Adjudication in Central Europe (Central European University Press, 2002) or Sadurski, Rights Before Courts : A Study of Constitutional Courts in Post-Communist States of Central and Eastern Europe (Springer, 2005).
15. Case C-302/04, Ynos kft v. János Varga, [2006] ECR I-371.
16. O.J. 1993, L 95/29.
17. Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, O.J. 2003, L 236/33.
18. The Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the other part, O.J. 1993, L 347/2.
19. Case C-261/05, Lakép kft, Pár-Bau kft andRottelma kft v. Komáron-Esztergom Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal, [2006] ECR I-20.
20. Case C-168/06, Ceramika Paradyż sp. z oo v. Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi, [2007] ECR I-29.
21. Case C-64/06, Telefónica 02 Czech Republic a.s. v. Czech On Line a.s, [2007] ECR I-4887, paras. 17-24.
22. A comprehensive and compelling critique of the Ynos line of case law is offered by Póltorak, "Ratione Temporis Application of the Preliminary Rulings Procedure", 45 CML Rev. (2008), 1357-1381.
23. See e.g. decisions in a Swedish post-accession case, Case C-43/95, Delecta Aktiebolag and Ronny Forsberg v. MSL Dynamics Ltd., [1996] ECR I-4661 or the Austrian Case C-122/96, Stephen Austin Saldanha and MTS Securities Corporation v. Hiross Holding AG, [1997] ECR I-5325.
24. The critique raised by Póltorak (op. cit. supra note 20) is thus fully justified; one may only add that the courts in the new Member States did not follow the restrictive view on the limited temporal aspects of Community law and used Community law extensively in adjudicating on facts before the accession - further see Bobek "Thou Shalt Have Two Masters; The Application of European Law by Administrative Authorities in the New Member States", 1 Review of European Administrative Law (2008), 51-63.
25. Joined Cases C-297/88 & C-197/89, Massam Dzodzi, [1990] ECR I-3763.
26. Opinion of A.G. Tizzano in Ynos, supra note 13, at para 47. The A.G. later (para 50) argues, however, that this would stretch the Dzodzi decision too far. He suggested to the ECJ not to rely on this line of authority.
27. Council Directive 77/91/EEC of 13 Dec. 1976, O.J. 1977, L 26/1.
28. Order of 26 Jun. 2007, 29 Odo 984/2005. See also order of 27 Feb. 2007, 29 Odo 780/2006, www.nsoud.cz.
29. It would be, however, admissible under the old case law - cf. Delecta Aktiebolag, supra note 21, which, as far as the timeline of the case is concerned, identical to the case at hand.
30. See, amongst the tens of cases, e.g. decisions of the Supreme Court 29 Odo 1613/2005, 29 Odo 1332/2005, 29 Odo 242/2006, 29 Odo 1613/2005, 29 Odo 1128/2005, www.nsoud.cz; decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court 4 As 36/2006 -151, 6 As 55/2005 - 158, 7 Afs 38/2005 - 99, 7 Afs 197/2006 - 80, www.nssoud.cz; but also, for instance, constitutional review, before the CCC (order of 11 Mar. 2008, IV.ÚS 2435/07, nalus.usoud.cz).
31. See, e.g. order of the SCC of 29 May 2007, III. US 151/07, www.concourt.sk.
32. See, e.g. judgment of the Polish Supreme Administrative Court of 8 Feb. 2006, II GSK 54/05, published in the Collection of the Decisions of Supreme and Regional Administrative Courts, (2006) vol. 4 No. 96, accessible also online at orzeczenia.nsa.gov.pl.
33. See, e.g. decision of 22 Feb. 2007, SKA-45/2007, summary available at www.juradmin. eu.
34. Further on this see Półtorak, op. cit. supra note 20, point 3.
35. Bobek, "The Binding Force of Babel: The Enforcement of EC Law Unpublished in the Languages of the New Member States" 9 CYELS (2007), 43-80.
36. Case C-161/06, Skoma-Lux sro v. Celní ředitelství Olomouc, nyr and Case C-273/04 Republic of Poland v. Council of the European Union, [2007] ECR I-8925. Further on the implications of the Skoma-Lux decision, see Lasiñki-Sulecki and Morawski, "Late Publication of EC Law in Languages of New Member States and Its Effects: Obligations on Individuals Following the Court's Judgment in Skoma-Lux", 45 CML Rev. (2008), 705-725.
37. Skoma Lux, cited previous footnote, para 74.
38. Ibid., para 71.
39. Ibid., para 73.
40. Judgment of the Krajský soud v. Ostravě [Regional Court in Ostrava] of 10 Jan. 2008, 22 Ca 69/2005-217, published as No. 1548/2008 Coll. SAC. The decision was concise and straight-forward; the court, following the guidance by the ECJ, annulled the challenged customs decision.
41. Judgment of 18 Mar. 2008, 5 Sžf 59/2007, accessible via the JuriFast database at www. juradmin.eu.
42. Judgment of the SAC of 18 Jun. 2008, 1 Afs 21/2008, www.nssoud.cz.
43. Skoma Lux, cited supra note 34, para 72.
44. See judgment of the SAC of 24 Jan. 2008, 9 As 36/2007, published as No 1533/2008 Coll. SAC, where the SAC addressed similar issues with respect to the absence of the Czech publication of the Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 Dec. 1985 on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road transport, O.J. 1985, L 370/1, on the basis of which a lorry driver was fined for not respecting the compulsory rest periods.
45. Case C-63/06, UAB Profisa v. Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansu̧ ministerijos, [2007] ECR I-3239.
46. O.J. 1992, L316/21.
47. Further see Bobek, "On the Application of European Law in (Not Only) the Courts of the New Member States: 'Don't Do As I Say'?" 10 CYELS (2007-2008, forthcoming).
48. Joined Cases C-290/05 & C-333/05, Ákos Nádasdi and Ilona Németh, [2006] ECR I-10115.
49. Case C-313/05, Maciej Brzeziński v. Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Warszawie, [2007] ECR I-513.
50. For a more detailed regulation on the national level, cf. e.g. in England and Wales, Part 68 of the Civil Procedure Rules (and the annexed Practice Directions), 46th update (Feb. 2008), accessible online at www.justice.gov.uk/ civil/procrules-fin/menus/rules.htm or, in the case of France, "Circulaire sur l'application du droit communautaire par les juridictions françaises" of 25 Mar. 1997, published in Bulletin officiel du Ministère de la justice, No. 65 du 1er janv. au 31 mars 1997, p. 318-322, reproduced in Pertek, La pratique du renvoi préjudiciel en droit communautaire (Litec, 2001), pp. 211-214.
51. The example with no corresponding provisions in national law would be the area of Dutch administrative law, where there are no national procedural provisions for submitting requests for preliminary rulings to the ECJ - see Prechal and Widdershoven, "The Dutch General Administrative Law Act: Europe-proof?", 14 European Public Law (2008), 81-98, at 97.
52. Law No. 99/1963 Coll., Code of Civil Justice [Zákon č. 99/1963 Sb., občanský soudní řád].
53. Law No. 150/2002 Coll., Code of Administrative Justice [Zákon č. 150/2002 Sb., soudní řád správní ].
54. Law No. 141/1961 Coll., Code of Criminal Justice [Zákon č. 141/1961 Sb., o trestním řízeni soudním].
55. § 109 (1) (c) of the Law No. 99/1963 Coll., Code of Civil Procedure [Zákon č. 99/1963 Zb., Občiansky súdny poriadok].
56. § 7 (3), § 241 (3) and § 244 (3) of the Law No. 301/2005 Coll., Code of Criminal Procedure [Zákon č. 301/2005 Z.z., Trestný poriadok].
57. Bobek et al. Předběžná otázka v komunitárním právu [Preliminary Ruling in Community Law] (Linde, 2005), p. 172 and seq.;
58. Grygar and Grygar, "Česká procesní úprava ve vztahu k řízení o předbě žné otázce před Soudním dvorem Evropských společenství" [Czech Procedural Framework in Respect of the Preliminary Ruling Procedure before the Court of Justice of the European Communities], Právní rozhledy, vol. 2005, No. 8., pp.276 - 283;
59. Petrlik "Slučitelnost přezkumu rozhodnutí o předložení předběžné otázky Soudnímu dvoru ES s komunitárním právem" [The Compatibility of the Review of a Decision to Submit a Request for a Preliminary Ruling to the Court of Justice with Community Law], Právní rozhledy, vol. 2005, No.. 18, pp. 673-679.
60. E.g. order of the District Court for Prague 3 [Obvodní soud pro Prahu 3] of 24 Nov. 2005, 18 C 140/2005-118, which became the reference in Telefónica 02, supra note 19.
61. Orders of the District Court in Český Krumlov [Okresní soud v Českém Krumlově] of 28 Nov. 2005, 6 C 296/2005-99 and 6 C 296/2005-101 respectively, which became Case C-437/05, Vorel v. Nemocnice Český Krumlov, [2007] ECR I-331.
62. Order and a letter of the Regional Court in Ostrava [Krajský soud v Ostravě] of 10 Mar. 2006, 22 Ca 69/2005, which became Case C-161/06, Skoma-Lux, cited supra note 34.
63. As the ECJ highlights in its "Information Note on References by National Courts for Preliminary Rulings", O.J. 2005, C 143/01, point 20, it is quite benevolent as far as the procedural form of the reference is concerned. The Note basically leaves the issue to the domestic procedure.
64. nd Ed., (Sweet & Maxwell, 2002), pp. 215-216.
65. nd Ed. (Manzsche Verlag & C. H. Beck, 2004), pp. 51-55.
66. The issue of appeals against an order to refer is actually being freshly addressed by the Court in a pending case from Hungary, Case C-210/06, Cartesio Oktató és Szolgáltató bt. In his Opinion of 22 May 2008, A.G. Poiares Maduro suggested that Art. 234 EC provides for a direct interaction between the Court and the lower national judges and that appeals against an order to refer should not be possible under national law (paras. 11-21 of the Opinion).
67. Plenary order of 21 Feb. 2006, Pl. US 19/04, published in Soudní rozhledy, vol. 2006, No. 5, pp. 173-177.
68. Second Council Directive 77/91/EEC of 13 Dec. 1976 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent O.J. 1977, L 26/1.
69. See notably Case 106/77, Amministrazione detteFinanze dello Stato v SimmenthalSpA., [1978] ECR 629, paras. 22 and 24.
70. Order of 19 Dec. 2006, P 37/05, OTK Z.U. 2006/11A, No. 176, an English translation of the judgment is available in [2007] 3 CMLR 48.
71. Case C-313/05, Maciej Brzeziňski v. Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Warszawie, [2007] ECR I-513.
72. For a greater detail (and critique), see case note by Lazowski in 4 EuConst (2008), 187-197, at 193 et seq.
73. E.g. order of the Supreme Court of 28 Apr. 2005, 28 Cdo 810/2005; order of 3 Aug. 2005, 28 Cdo 1347/2005; order of 23 Nov. 2005, 28 Cdo 2420/2005; all decisions available at www.nsoud.cz.
74. Decision of 25 Jan. 2006, II. ÚS 14/04, published as No. 22 in vol. 40, p. 169 Coll. CCC and many other unpublished orders.
75. Order of 10 May 2007, IV.ÚS 887/07, and decisions in cases IV.ÚS 416/05, I.ÚS 9/06, and II.ÚS 347/07, nalus.usoud.cz.
76. Order of 25 Jul. 2007, III. ÚS 868/06, nalus.usoud.cz.
77. E.g. order of 9 Mar. 2007, III. ÚS 346/07; order of 29 Apr. 2008, IV.ÚS 238/08, nalus. usoud.cz.
78. Judgment of 21 Nov. 2005, 1 Sž-o-NS 87/2005, unpublished.
79. Case 283/81, Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v. Ministry of Health, [1982] ECR 3415, paras. 17-20;
80. see also Case C-495/03, Intermodal Transports BV v. Staatssecretaris van Financien, [2005] ECR I-8151.
81. The court referred to the CILFIT decision in about 15 cases - see e.g. cases 29 Odo 1128/2005; 29 Odo 1332/2005; 29 Odo 242/2006; 28 Cdo 2711/2005; 28 Cdo 1324/2006; 28 Cdo 2508/2005; 28 Cdo 2420/2005; 28 Cdo 372/2005; 28 Cdo 2882/2004; 28 Cdo 2348/2005; 28 Cdo 2102/2005; 28 Cdo 2051/2005; 28 Cdo 2020/2005; 28 Cdo 1347/2005, www.nsoud.cz. The most detailed analysis of the CILFIT conditions can be found in a recent order of 31. Jan. 2008, 29 Odo 164/2006, published as No. 48/2008 Collection of Case Law of the Czech Courts.
82. The SAC used the CILFIT decision and the acte clair doctrine in more than 10 cases already, e.g. cases 5 Azs 56/2004; 6 As 44/2005; 6 As 55/2005; 4 As 36/2006; 6 As 24/2006; 5 As 53/2006; 6 As 57/2006; 4 As 70/2006; 1 As 39/2006, www.nssoud.cz.
83. Plenary decision of 8 Mar. 2006, Pl. ÚS 50/04, No. 154/2006 Coll.; judgment of 25 Jan. 2006, II. ÚS 14/04, published as No. 22 in vol. 40, p. 169 of the Collection of Decisions of the CCC.
84. See, e.g. the decision of 18 Dec. 2006 in Re Polish Law on Employers' Insolvency (Case II PK 17/06), published in English translation in [2008] 1 CMLR. 41.
85. Especially the decision of the Polish Supreme Court, quoted previous footnote and the order of the Czech Supreme Court of 31. Jan. 2008, 29 Odo 164/2006, published as No. 48/2008 Collection of Case Law of the Czech Courts. In both decisions, the courts were honestly trying to deal with the case law of the ECJ, with the specific terminology of EC law as well as the multilingual character of it. With what success, is a different question - for instance, the CSC approached the task of considering the various language versions by simply listing the 21 various language versions of the interpreted regulation and then concluding, in one sentence, that they have all the same meaning.
86. For example Spain; see Mayer, "The European Constitution and the Courts. Adjudicating European Constitutional Law in a Multilevel System." Jean Monnet Working Paper No. 9/03.
87. As is the case of the German Federal Constitutional Tribunal [Bundesverfassungsgericht] - see BVerfGE 52, 187 (201) - "Vielleicht-Beschluss".
88. Examples of this sort include the Belgian Constitutional Court [Cour constitutionnelle] and the Austrian Constitutional Court [Verfassungsgerichtshof]. For an explanation of the very open approach of the Belgian Constitutional Court to the preliminary rulings procedure, see Vandamme "Prochain Arrêt: La Belgique! Explaining Recent Preliminary References of the Belgian Constitutional Court." 4 EuConst (2008), 127-148.
89. The exceptions being Cyprus, Malta and Estonia (where constitutional review is carried out by a specialized chamber within the Supreme Court). Generally see Sadurski (Ed.), Constitutional Justice, East and West: Democratic Legitimacy and Constitutional Courts in Post-Communist Europe in a Comparative Perspective. (Kluwer Law, 2003) or Luchterhandt, Starek and Weber (Eds.), Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit in Mittel- und Osteuropa. (Nomos, 2007).
90. Decision of 11 May 2005, K 18/04 (Re: the Accession Treaty), published in the Polish Collection of Law as Dz.U. 2005.86.744 of 17 May 2005, an English summary is accessible at www.trybunal.gov.pl.
91. See the plenary decision of 18 Oct. 2005, PL. ÚS 8/04-202, published as No. 539/2005 Slovak Coll. of Laws.
92. Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 Jun. 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, O.J. 2000, L 180/22.
93. Order of 12 May 2005, PL ÚS 8/04-196, www.concourt.sk.
94. This reading of the decision is supported by the views expressed by the then Chief Justice of the court, Mr Jan Mazák, writing extra-judicially in: "The Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic and its Contribution to the Enforcement of Rights and Obligations Created at the Community Level" EIF Working Paper Series-1 Jahr EU Mitgliedschaft: Erste Bilanz aus der Sicht der slowakischen Höchstgerichte, Working Paper No.: 18 (Vienna, Austrian Academy of Science, 2005).
95. Plenary decision of 8 Mar. 2006, Pl. US 50/04, published as No. 154/2006 Czech Coll. of Laws.
96. However, this fact has already been recognized by some of the justices of the court writing extra-judicially - see e.g. Mucha, "The Presentation of the Czech Experiences". In Proceedings of the International Conference: The Position of the Constitutional Courts Following Integration into the European Union (Bled, Slovenia, 30 Sept.- 2 Oct. 2004), pp. 163-170, at pp. 166-168.
97. For Germany, see e.g. BVerfGE 82, 159 or BVerfG of 9.1. 2001, 1 BvR 1036/99 (=NJW 2001, 1267). With respect to Austria, see the finding of the Austrian Constitutional Court of 11 Dec. 1995, B 2300/95, WB1 1996, 24; finding of 30 Sept. 1996, B 3067/95, WB1 1997, 86 and finding of 26 Jun. 1997, B 3486/96, WB1 1997, 444. Generally see Solar, Vorlagepflichtverletzung mitgliedstaatlicher Gerichte und ihre Sanierung (Neuer Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, 2004).
98. Order of 29 May 2007, III. ÚS 151/07, www.concourt.sk.
99. Ynos, cited supra note 13.
100. Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, O.J. 1985, L 175/40, as amended.
101. Order of 30 Jun. 2008, IV. ÚS 154/08. The same result but with different reasoning was reached in the order of 24 Jul. 2008, III. ÚS 2738/07, nalus.usoud.cz.
102. Rasmussen, "Present and Future European Judicial Problems After Enlargement and the Post-2005 Ideological Revolt", 44 CML Rev. (2007), 1661-1687, at 1665.
103. For an overview, see Johnston "Judicial Reform and the Treaty of Nice", 38 CML Rev. (2001), 499-523.
104. Further see Jacobs, "Recent and Ongoing Measures to Improve the Efficiency of the European Court of Justice", 29 EL Rev. (2004), 823-830.
105. Rasmussen, op. cit. supra, note 95, at 1670-1675.
106. Further see an excellent comparative study on this subject in Yessiou-Faltsi (Ed.) The Role of the Supreme Courts at the National and International Level. Reports for the Thessaloniki International Colloquium (21-25 May 1997) (Thessaloniki/Athens, 1998), especially the typology introduced by Jolowicz in the general report - "The Role of the Supreme Court at the National and International Level" (pp. 37-63).
107. For a comparative assessment of these models, see Bobek, "Quantity or Quality? ReAssessing the Role of Supreme Jurisdictions in Central Europe", EUI LAW Working Paper No. 2007/36 (online at cadmus.iue.it).
108. Art. 44 (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, in the version of the Amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 23 Jun. 2008 (O.J. 2008, L 200/20). A case will also be assigned to the Grand Chamber if a Community institution or a Member State, intervening in the proceedings before the ECJ, so request. Such possibility is, however, not open to individual parties, which may have interesting consequences for equality of arms before the ECJ in preliminary rulings, where Member States are often a party to the original proceedings before a Member State court.
109. Ibid., Art. 44 (2).
110. Skouris, "Self-Conception, Challenges and Perspectives of the EU Courts", in Pernice, Kokott, Saunders (Eds.), The Future of the European Judicial System in a Comparative Perspective (Nomos Verlag, 2006), pp. 19-31, at p. 29.
111. Pivot (or relay) translation means interpreting from language A into language B via language C.
112. Cf. e.g. the critique toward the "cryptic, Cartesian style" of the ECJ, raised, among others, by Weiler in "Epilogue: The Judicial Après Nice" in De Burea and Weiler (Eds.), The European Court of Justice (Oxford, 2001), at p. 225.
113. Komárek, '"In the Court(s) We Trust?' On the need for hierarchy and differentiation in the preliminary ruling procedure" 32 EL Rev. (2007), 467, at 482-3.
114. Komárek mentions as the example of the former Joined Cases C-392/04 & C-422/04, i-21 Germany GmbH (C-392/04) and Arcor AG & Co. KG (C-422/04) v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, [2006] ECR I-8559, as an example of the latter the Case C-475/03, Bancapopolare di Cremona Soc. coop, arl v. Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Cremona, [2006] ECR I-9373.
115. [2007] ECR I-8925.
116. Cited supra note 13.
117. Information for the press No. 14/08 of 7 March 2008, accessible online at curia.europa. eu/en/actu/communiques/cp08/info/cp080014en.pdf.
118. Information for the press No. 27/07 of 21 March 2007, accessible at curia.europa.eu/en/ actu/communiques/cp07/info/cp070027en.pdf.
119. The extracts from the Annual Reports concerning also the "Statistics of judicial activity of the Court of Justice", on which the calculations contained in the following text are based, are available at the site of the Court of Justice at curia.europa.eu/en/ instiťpresentationfr/index. htm.
120. Years 2004 and 2005 are deliberately left out of the calculation, in order to allow for the time of basic adaptation following the enlargement.
121. A very rough and basic calculation of this sort would include the number of finished cases per judge-rapporteur. If calculated on the basis of the data displayed in the main text, then the first introduced variable would be the case/judge-rapporteur quotient (C-JR), which was 33 cases (16 preliminary rulings) in 2003, 22 cases (11 preliminary rulings) in 2006 and 21 cases (9 preliminary rulings) in 2007. If one now divides the average length of procedure for preliminary rulings for the respective year by the case/judge rapporteur quotient, one gets another variable which reflects the average time the judge-rapporteur spent on one decision on preliminary ruling (AT-1PR). This value amounts to 1.59 months for the year 2003, to 1.8 months in 2006 and to 2.14 months in 2007. This AT-1PR figure already sheds a different light on the alleged "speeding-up" of the procedure in delivering decisions on preliminary rulings before the ECJ. This trend becomes even more visible if one uses the AT-1PR figure from 2003 for calculating the average speed which an enlarged ECJ should have if it wished to keep up with the speed it had in 2003: for 2006, the corresponding average length of procedure for preliminary rulings should have been 17.49 months and for 2007, the same value should have been 14.31. The real numbers for these two years differ by 2.4 and 5 months.
122. Timmermans, "The European Union's Judicial System", 41 CML Rev. (2004), 393-405, at 403.