Introduction by Professors Alemanno & Pech
This blog post presents the English translation of a farewell address by Judge Franklin Dehousse, who served on the EU General Court from 2003 to 2016.
Unusually, no public ceremony was held for the departing EU judges, including Judge Dehousse. This is likely due to Dehousse’s vocal criticism of the EU court system reform, a reform he extensively analyzed in several research papers.
Dehousse’s address, shared here with his permission, provides valuable insights into the EU courts’ inner workings, including their challenges and sometimes strained relationships. He particularly focuses on the controversial expansion of the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal’s dissolution.
This address offers recommendations for future EU court system reforms and advises on improving the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) management and conduct to maintain its authority and legitimacy. This farewell address is a valuable resource for those interested in the EU courts.
Alberto Alemanno, Professor of Law, Jean Monnet Chair of EU Law and Risk Regulation at HEC Paris and Global Professor of Law, New York University School of Law (Twitter: @alemannoEU)
Laurent Pech, Professor of Law, Jean Monnet Chair of EU Public Law and Head of the Law and Politics Department at Middlesex University London (Twitter: @ProfPech)
Judge Dehousse’s Farewell Address to the Court of Justice of the European Union
Ladies and gentlemen,
Dear colleagues,
I believe anyone holding public office should present a report at their term’s end, especially when those years involved conflicts. This transparency is even more crucial in an institution tasked with ensuring transparency in others.
When I began 13 years ago, this was my seventh profession and fourth European institution, after the Parliament, Commission, and Council. My work, both public and private, national and international, legal and media-related, has centered around European affairs. I began with curiosity and enthusiasm, and while my curiosity has only grown, my enthusiasm has waned.
During my first three years, I focused on establishing a strong team, learning the ropes, and tackling a backlog of over 100 cases. Afterward, I looked for ways to contribute further, leveraging my experience in management, ICT, inter-institutional relations, and strategy.
I focused on improving the General Court’s struggling management. Having witnessed numerous corporate restructurings, I believed evaluating the cabinets’ and their units’ productivity was essential. I advocated for transparency and pushed for comprehensive backlog analysis and productivity measurement. Though initially met with resistance, these measures were ultimately implemented, leading to backlog elimination by 2011 without requiring additional resources.
However, my attempts to improve the institution’s management were met with resistance. My initiatives were perceived as interference by those in charge. I will highlight four significant instances that demonstrate this challenge.
First, shortly before the Lisbon Treaty signing in 2007, it came to light that the Court President had requested substantial changes to the treaty without proper consultation or transparency. These changes, presented as merely formal, aimed to increase the Court’s power. The lack of transparency and disregard for proper procedures were deeply concerning and significantly impacted my trust in the institution’s leadership.
Second, information technology (IT) became another point of contention. The institution’s approach to IT was fragmented and uncoordinated. My efforts to advocate for a more cohesive and strategic approach were ignored, resulting in wasted resources and an inefficient system. The lack of transparency and disregard for expertise in decision-making was deeply troubling.
Third, the 2011 legislative proposal to expand the General Court was also problematic. This process was marked by a lack of transparency, secret negotiations, and disregard for the General Court’s assessments. The resulting expansion, decided against expert advice, was disproportionate and raised serious concerns about the decision-making process. This experience motivated me to publish detailed reports to prevent similar occurrences in the future.
Lastly, the hasty creation of high-level administrative positions, driven by the Court President without proper justification or consultation, exemplified the questionable management practices within the institution.
Many other issues could be mentioned: imposed specialization and case allocation, unilateral decision-making on external representation, resource allocation, questionable external activities, limited staff and union rights, and restricted access to administrative documents.
You might ask why I am emphasizing administrative and legislative issues that are often disregarded. My answer is simple: these issues cannot be ignored. I firmly believe that judges must uphold the principles of their judgments within their institution.
The Court of Justice is meant to be a collegiate body, and even when Presidents have power, they should exercise it transparently and accountably. Our legitimacy relies on adhering to the same standards we impose on others, especially during times of uncertainty.
My efforts to address these issues were often met with resistance, citing hierarchy. However, this constant disregard for transparency and accountability only strengthened my resolve. I documented these events in detail to ensure transparency and inform future improvements, compiling them into two comprehensive volumes.
Despite resistance, some positive changes have occurred, such as excluding judges from appointment processes where there is a conflict of interest and acknowledging the need for IT system simplification. While these changes are encouraging, they highlight the potential for improvement with an open mind.
Furthermore, I am concerned about the limited access to legislative and administrative documents not directly related to judicial proceedings. Despite Article 15 TFEU guaranteeing citizen access, the institution has utilized secret documents and restricted information in crucial areas. This lack of transparency hinders accountability and undermines public trust.
Before concluding, I must acknowledge my own shortcomings. My frustration with the lack of transparency and accountability sometimes resulted in overly harsh criticism. While I regret any offense caused, these instances reflect my unwavering belief in the high ideals of this institution.
Fortunately, my time here wasn’t solely defined by these conflicts. There were positive aspects, particularly in our judicial work. I won’t delve into specifics, but I’m grateful for the collaborative spirit and diverse perspectives that enriched our deliberations.
I especially appreciate the General Court’s significant contributions to European law during my early years. Under Presidents Bo Vesterdorf and Jose Luis da Cruz Vilaca, the Court was a respected voice, confidently representing itself internally and externally. I hold deep respect and gratitude for their leadership and integrity.
My team achieved impressive judicial results, both in quantity and quality, but it was a collective effort. I am indebted to my dedicated cabinet members, colleagues from other cabinets who offered support and encouragement, the skilled and dedicated registry personnel, the administrative staff who often work under challenging conditions, and my fellow judges who tolerated and often embraced my unconventional yet transparent approach.
Although some may have seen my methods as disruptive, I believe that striving for transparency and accountability is essential, even if it challenges the status quo.
I depart with a sense of accomplishment. We’ve made significant strides in data transparency, process improvement, strategic planning, and raising awareness about crucial issues. Future analysts will have access to the documentation needed to understand the origins of these changes and their impact. This progress would not have been possible without everyone’s contributions.
I will miss our plenary deliberations the most. Though lengthy and challenging at times, they provided invaluable learning experiences. I am grateful for the opportunity to learn from each of you and for your contributions to the richness and diversity of this institution.
While improvements have been made, the institution’s governance remains outdated and lacking transparency. I hope that others will continue pushing for reforms to improve accountability and transparency.
My grandfather, Fernand Dehousse, instilled in me the importance of unwavering commitment to one’s ideals. He tirelessly advocated for his vision of a unified Europe, even when silenced by oppression. His lesson - that an idea persists as long as it has a champion - resonates deeply.
The European Treaties embody many valuable ideals, including the very existence of this institution. However, we must remember that the Court is merely an instrument of justice, not an end in itself. We, the judges, are servants of the law, not above it. This principle must guide our every action.
When judges possess significant power, our legitimacy depends on subjecting ourselves to the same standards we apply to others. We must avoid the dangerous belief that we are above scrutiny. Such a belief undermines the separation of powers and erodes public trust.
My hope is that you will continue advocating for transparency, accountability, and the fundamental principle that justice serves the people, not the other way around.
In closing, I wish everyone in this institution the best in their vital work. Your contributions are crucial for the future of Europe.
As for me, it is time to say farewell. I am deeply grateful to those who supported and challenged me throughout the years. Your contributions have enriched my experience and made it, though not always easy, a profoundly rewarding one. Thank you all sincerely.
Franklin Dehousse (19 September 2016)
Barnard & Peers: chapter 10
Photo credit: http://blog.mslgroup.com/eu-us-personal-data-transfer-after-the-european-court-ruling/