Luxembourg City

I arrived in Brussels on time without any problems, a nice change from my last trip to Europe. The member of the programs met in the airport and were to take a bus from Brussels to Luxembourg City. I was quite tired, but could not help but notice the landscape along the highway. It was remarkably similar to New England, with a nice mix of hardwood trees and pines among small rolling hills. Looking out the window I could have just as easily been taking a bus from Hartford to my house.

Unfortunately, our reception at the U.S. Embassy was cancelled due to an untimely death at the Embassy, so we had our reception dinner in the hotel instead. One thing I learned at this dinner was that if you wanted to study abroad as a graduate student, study Immigration Policy. Out of the thirty or so fulbright grantees, eight or nine were studying immigration policy all over Europe. At my dinner table were three journalists staioned and Germany, a law student from Ireland, and a law student from Sweden. Due to my jetlag I learned very little from these people besides that an Irish way to say “what's up?” is “what's the crack?,” which the German journalists,and myself, found hilarious.

Since the breifing at the U.S. Embassy did not happen, our first true session was the following morning at the European court of Justice. We first sat in on a court hearing, and then had a Question and Answer session with a Legal Secretary.

A few things struck me about the case being presented in the court. It was a dispute between the Italian government and a company over the amount of time was to be taken to repay a debt the Italian government owed the company. The first thing that struck me was the amount of languages that were spoken during the case. The lawyers presented their opinions in Italian, but the judges read their opinions, and asked their questions in French, Greek, Spanish and Latvian. Throughout all of the readings, a translator sitting behind a window was translating everything into English for the members of our program, which we could receive through an earpiece. Not being fluent in legal language, I still understood little to nothing about the issues of the case, but I found it amazing the variety of language being used, and the ability of the translators to translate everything as it was being said. It puts American's arguments about whether to allow Spanish translations in court-rooms in a little bit of perspective.

The Q and A after the session provided me with a basic understanding of how the court operates. There are 27 differenet judges, each from a different EU nation. Like the US Senate, it does not matter the size of the country, both France and Malta have one judge on the court. Judges are appionted by their countries for terms of six years. Most cases only need five or seven judges (the one I heard had five) and the judge of the country which the case is concerned is nearly always on the panel. The official language of the court is French, which the clerk admitted was for no particular reason, and actually made things more difficult. Cases cannot be brought to the Court directly by individuals. The document which these judges are bound by are the EU treaties, which are updated every few years.These treaties are held as higher documents than state's constitutions, though they often change.

There are clear distinctions I noticed between law in this court and American law. First, There is a position in the European court called the “Advocate General,” which has no equivalent in American law. The Advocate General is not a judge, but sits off to the side of them during the hearing. After the hearing the Advocate General sets a date in which he or she will state their opinion on the case. This opinion is individual, and non-binding, but the Judges more often times than not end up agreeing with the Advocate General though they don't have too. I had a difficult time trying to figure out what the exact purpose of the Advocate General was, but they play a very influential role in the EU court system. Appeals are not allowed in this court, and there can be no dissenting opinion among the judges. All judges on the case must sign the ruling whether they agreed with it or not. Judge's opinions on the case are also always kept confidential. This is to ensure that judge's will not risk losing their position if a case comes up where they disagree with their government, or the public opinion of their nation.

The Institution of this Court is extraordinarily complex, but the above explanation is my basic understanding of how it works, after spending one day there. After our court sessions we took a bus to Brussells where the rest of the program will take place. On the busride the law students talked excitedly amongst themselves, while the rest of the bus complained about how hard it was to stay awake during the Court hearing.