The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is the 'Court of Justice of the European Communities', i.e. the court of the European Union (EU). It is based in Luxembourg, unlike most of the rest of the European Union governance, which is based in Brussels and Strasbourg.
The ECJ is the supreme court of the European Union. It adjudicates on matters of interpretation of European law, most commonly:
Claims by the European Commission that a member state has not implemented a European Union Directive or other legal requirement.
Claims by member states that the European Commission has exceeded its authority.
References from national courts in the EU member states asking the ECJ what a particular piece of EC law means. The Union has many languages and competing political interests, and so local courts often have difficulty deciding what a particular piece of legislation means in any given context. The ECJ will give its opinion, which may or may not clarify the point, and return the case to the national court to be disposed of. The ECJ is only permitted to aid in interpretation of the law, not decide the facts of the case itself.
Individuals cannot bring cases to the ECJ. Employees of the European Commission and related EU bodies used to be able to sue their employer in the ECJ. However, there is now a lower court called the Court of First Instance which deals with these cases.
The ECJ is frequently confused with the European Court of Human Rights, which is based in Strasbourg. However, while the ECJ is part of the European Union, the European Court of Human Rights is not.
The ECJ is the Supreme Court of the European Union (EU); it should not be mistaken for the European Court of Human Rights, a Council of Europe institution.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ), formally known as the Court of Justice of the European Communities, is the court of the European Union (EU).
The ECJ is feared by some Eurosceptics, due to its ruling in 2001 that parts of the German Constitution were illegal as being incompatible with the EU treaties.
The ECJ has accordingly held in this case that organisation of working time is a health and safety matter, and has given a broad interpretation as to what constitutes the health and safety of workers; it is not confined to solely physical issues, but also comprises of the mental and social well-being of the worker.
The ECJ held that art 2(c) did not simply refer to the rules in force in the Member States on the designation of employee representatives, but it required Member States to establish a system to ensure that all employees to whom the Directive applied were covered.
The case law of the ECJ is well settled, and therefore the ECJ will answer the first part of question 2 in the negative and that: "Spain's national practice could have the effect of excluding periods of time which come within the scope of "working time" within the meaning of art 2(1) of the Directive".
Feeds |
Contact