A year ago, I wrote about the problems facing the European courts. These have not been resolved, and now there is an increasing dispute between the courts and the member states over whether the number of judges should be increased.

To recap, there are two courts based in Luxembourg, the General Court (dealing with questions of fact and law, and with the possibility of appeal against its decisions) and the Court of Justice (questions of law only, and no appeal). There are serious problems of delays before the General Court: sometimes the proceedings before it can last for more than five years. For ease of reading, I shall refer to the institution collectively as ‘the Court’.

The Court has now tied its colours to the mast by saying that only an increase of 12 judges to the General Court will solve its problems – as opposed to the other principal solution of the creation of a specialised court in intellectual property cases. Its favoured solution would take the number of judges from 27 to 39, and it is reported that this would require a further 72 staff to provide support as legal secretaries and assistants, at an additional cost to the Court’s administrative budget of €13.6m per year. It would probably also generate more work for other services, including translation and documentation.

In July, the member states discussed this proposal. The Court appealed to member states and the European parliament for rapid approval. The General Court managed to handle only 527 cases in 2010, and still had 1,300 cases pending at the end of the year. The Court predicts that its workload will continue to rise because of the EU's enlargement, and because of the Court's wider powers under the Lisbon treaty. The Czech Republic, France, Sweden and the United Kingdom were among the most vociferous in their criticisms of the costs and options presented. Many member states were also unclear how the 12 extra judges would be selected (the ECJ has traditionally had one judge from each member state). The member states want an impact assessment to see whether the Court’s work can be changed in other ways.

The Court does not favour the establishment of a specialised court in intellectual property, because such cases, which are repetitive by nature, can be dealt with relatively easily and quickly. It says that the difficulties facing the General Court stem first of all from the characteristics of the other categories of actions brought, in particular in the fields of competition, dumping and state aid or, more recently, actions such as those related to the freezing of funds.

Such cases are complex; they require extensive factual information to be taken into consideration and call for meticulous examination of the arguments put forward for determination. It is precisely to deal with those categories of cases, which require a considerable investment by the Judge-Rapporteur, that the General Court must be reinforced, the Court believes. It also says that the number of cases before the General Court is constantly rising in fields other than that of intellectual property.

Finally, it points out that another disadvantage of a specialised court would be that the General Court would be required to deal, by way of appeals, with a significant proportion of the cases transferred to the newly-established court.

The commission's position on the request will be presented in September, with the aim of reaching an agreement between the council of ministers and MEPs before the end of this year.

I have written recently about the impact of budget cuts on the American court system. Here is an example of inadequate court funding closer to home. And interestingly, just as in the US the cuts are accompanied by a growth in e-filing and other new technology systems, the European court is preparing to launch its own e-filing system, e-Curia.