The European Law Institute is ready for launch.

I have written before about the struggle to establish it.

The Inaugural Congress will now be held in Paris on 1 June.

Its aims are to be: ‘an independent non-profit organisation established to initiate, conduct and facilitate research, make recommendations and provide practical guidance in the field of European legal development.

'Building on the wealth of diverse legal traditions, its mission is the quest for better law-making in Europe and the enhancement of European legal integration.’

European legal integration? Pass the smelling salts!

Before giving a constructive critique of progress so far, I should say that the CCBE is a founding member, and will become an ex officio member.

We have contributed to the discussions leading to its launch, always in the direction of highlighting the importance of legal practice. The views here are my own, not those of the CCBE.

The fact that research is mentioned first in the list of the Institute’s aims should be a guide to its provenance.

Of the 41 founding members, well over half are academics.

This is not surprising given that it is born out of the joint efforts of two primarily academic associations.

The others included are a smattering of judges, representatives of European legal organisations and further third parties.

Many of the legal academics are well-known in the European contract law field, and have now come together to form the new institute.

Practising lawyers have had a struggle to have our voice heard, and to ensure that legal practice, and not just legal theory, is at the heart of the Institute’s work.

I don’t think that the citizens of Europe – or even its lawyers – are out on the streets calling for another European academic legal institution.

The universities of Europe, including of the UK, have plenty of European law institutes and academies, and there are also academic networks to allow the various professors to communicate with one another – for instance, at random and off the top of my head, the European Law Faculties Association (ELFA), or the European Criminal Law Academic Network (ECLAN).

One of the aims of a European Law Institute should be to bring together academics with judges and practitioners.

Therefore, the heavy weighting in favour of academics at present is something which should give pause to the founders.

Let us also look at the Institute from another perspective, that of a Member State. Since I write for the Law Society Gazette, I shall take the UK as an example.

The UK is represented by the following among the founding members: Lord Mance from the Supreme Court; Sir John Thomas from the Court of Appeal (and in this context from the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary), together with John Sorabji who assists him; Sir Francis Jacobs, former Advocate General at the European Court of Justice and now a professor of law at King’s College, London; and, doubtless because of his prominence among the European contract law academics, Hugh Beale, professor of law at Warwick.

No-one could complain about the distinction of these representatives.

But they come from academia and the judiciary.

One of the most striking features of the contribution of the common law to the European legal scene is the ubiquity of the English law firms as leaders of what are called multi-jurisdictional law firms, and they are uniquely present in nearly all Member States.

If the European Law Institute is to be serious about the contribution of legal practitioners, and indeed about the common law, then where are the English law firms among its founding members, and among the drivers for the kind of projects which it should undertake?

I could doubtless make a similar critique from the point of view of other Member States, too (for instance, the south, and in particular the east, of Europe are clearly under-represented among the founders).

Although the Institute insists that its first projects are not yet set in stone, it looks from the launch programme that it is likely to commence with those already promoted by academics among its founders: for instance, a restatement of the law of administrative procedure, the regulatory environment for e-commerce, and a condensed guidance tool of interpretation for national and European courts.

If the Institute is to catch the imagination of European lawyers – and, one hopes, its citizens, too – are these the projects which come first to mind?

Should there not be a consultation among all stakeholders, particularly including under-represented judges and practitioners, and a period of reflection, before deciding the projects that it undertakes?

I believe that these are some of the considerations which will save the Institute from becoming just another European legal academic institution, indistinguishable from others, and consistent with its stated aim of taking account of ‘the wealth of diverse legal traditions’.