Courts have problems, like everyone else. In the UK, there will be much heat over the coming months over the closure programme announced by the government.The US is getting frothed up about the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. So, what about the European courts? Are they havens of peace, or is it just that we don’t hear about their problems? The answer is that the usual UK silence falls over anything European which is not about bent bananas. For instance, can you name the UK judges at the courts in Luxembourg? If you can – a medal! (Answers: Nicholas Forwood for the General Court, and Konrad Schiemann for the Court of Justice).

Before listing the problems, it is worth speaking of the disabilities under which the two courts labour, which makes them very different from our own. The European courts work in 23 languages, which can obviously slow matters down and produce many complications. You can file your case in any of the 23 languages. At the Court of Justice, in direct actions, the language used in the application will then be the ‘language of the case', that is to say the language in which the proceedings will be conducted. With references for preliminary rulings, the language of the case is that of the national court which made the reference to the Court of Justice. Oral proceedings at hearings are interpreted simultaneously, as required, into the various official languages of the EU. And the judges deliberate, without interpreters, in a common language, which is traditionally French. Again, unlike national courts, since each member state has the right to appoint a judge, all judges are from different member states with different legal traditions. Each chamber is composed, therefore, of a number of judges with very different backgrounds.

You may think that, in such complex circumstances, any complaints are out of order. But when has life been about fairness? I shall begin with delays before the General Court (known as the Court of First Instance pre-Lisbon Treaty). In important categories of cases such as state aid and other competition cases, the proceedings before the General Court can sometimes last for more than 5 years, which no-one will find acceptable. Three options are believed to be under consideration for dealing with the problem: the formation of a separate specialist trade mark court, perhaps along the lines of the European Civil Service Tribunal (a court set up to deal with EU institutional staff cases); an increase in the number of judges; or the formation of a specialist chamber. There is a difference in the time taken for each solution, since a new court would take time, whereas extra judges could be appointed immediately. The CCBE has just agreed that the court needs to undertake urgent structural measures to address the problem of delays.

Unlike our own courts, the European courts are not so dependent on oral pleadings. There are many complaints about the oral procedure in either the General Court or the European Court of Justice. Here are some of the questions being asked. What about three dates being suggested six months in advance, and the court investing in some kind of sophisticated scheduling software? Should the oral hearing itself be able to be extended beyond 30 minutes on request in the General Court? What about technical questions being sent in advance? What about a full transcript of the oral hearing? What about the right to subsequent comments in writing if the court raises new issues?

As for the written pleadings, the European Court of Justice runs a strict limit on their length. Practitioners feel strongly that there is no connection between the length of pleadings and, for example, the complexity of the case. They feel that it is essential that there should be more realistic rules on length of pleadings. Is not the automatic reply received from the courts about exceeding the length of pleadings against the rights of the defence? And, regarding the time taken for proceedings, should not a simpler case progress faster than a complex one (which is not the case at present)?

We should not treat the two courts in the same way, since the General Court deals with questions of fact and law, whereas the Court of Justice deals with questions of law only. In addition, there is the possibility of appeal with cases before the General Court, but not before the Court of Justice.

Finally, the Court of Justice is understood to be reviewing its rules of procedure. Will this be an open procedure, with stakeholders such as lawyers being consulted? If not, why not?

These are the supreme courts of Europe. There should be as much discussion about their workings as there is about other courts. Only in that way can the balance between the needs of democracy and the needs of justice be maintained.

Jonathan Goldsmith is the secretary general of the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE), which represents over 700,000 European lawyers through its member bars and law societies