Address by President of the Republic Tarja Halonen at the 18th Colloquim of the Association of the Councils of State and Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions of the European Union on 20 May 2002 at Finlandia Hall, Helsinki

(Check against delivery)

The legal system of the European Union is based on an ambitious aim of achieving uniform application and interpretation of community law within the whole Union. Legal integration has indeed significantly enhanced the European integration, as well as its acceptance and stability.

Both Courts at Luxembourg are known for their role in the development of a consistent interpretation of community law. The Court of Justice of the European Communities, which was established 50 years ago, has succeeded well in this role.
Countless unclear questions have been resolved and the community law has been developed with a view to ensuring a more efficient implementation of the Treaties establishing the European Communities.

A possibility that has been discussed somewhat less in recent years is that the Court of Justice might, for political reasons, consciously aim at developing and strengthening the Community in relation to the Member States, in various respects.

It is, however, often forgotten that community law is not only applied by the Court of Justice, but also by national courts. National judges have both a right and a duty to do so. Should a conflict emerge between national laws or regulations and community law, precedence must be given to the provisions of community law. In such a situation, the judge may be faced with a particularly demanding task as, in some cases, it may also be necessary to apply international instruments other than those of community law, such as the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Thus, it is in fact both the national courts and the Court of Justice that ensure the effectiveness of the legal system of the EU and contribute to the development of community law. The supreme jurisdictions of the Member States have an important role in ensuring and guiding the national implementation of community law.

Nevertheless, getting familiar with community law is by no means easy for the judges of new Member States. It is not sufficient that the judges are familiar with the material contents of community law and with the case law of the Court of Justice, but they must also have internalised the general principles of community law and the underlying legal doctrine. The judges must be genuinely willing to conform to the common legal principles.

I am pleased to notice that, apart from the courts of the existing Member States of the EU, there are also judges from candidate countries present in this colloquium. In my opinion, this is a good occasion for a fruitful debate. It does not only provide the judges from candidate countries with an opportunity to participate in the discussion on existing problems, but it also serves as a chance for the judges representing the present Member States to look at the Community's legal system from a new perspective.

Finland has been a Member State of the EU for more than seven years now. The past seven years are adequate for the purpose of assessing the impact of the EU membership on the judiciary in Finland, as well as the challenges faced by national judges so far.

Finland, together with Austria and Sweden, joined the EU after first becoming a State party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area. That transitional period, which is hardly remembered any longer, was nevertheless not sufficiently long for the national judges to get prepared for all new demands brought about by the Community's legal system. However, this has not been an obstacle for career advancement. For example the former president of the EFTA Court, Leif Sevòn, was later appointed a judge of the Court of Justice, and is currently the president of the Finnish Supreme Court. Such career developments have probably taken place in all Member States, and will also be seen in new Member States.

I have myself talked with judges I personally know, about the major changes faced by the Finnish legal system. In their opinion, it was a more significant change to ratify the European Convention on Human Rights and accept it as a source of law in the same way as any national sources of law, although it is not supranational law but an international instrument, the implementation of which required Parliament's consent in the same way as the traditional forms of cooperation among the Nordic Countries. However, the exceptional possibility of citizens of member states of the Council of Europe to have violations of their rights considered by the Strasbourg Court, once they have exhausted the national remedies, was something new.

The later accession of Finland to the Treaty establishing the European Union was a demanding procedure, but it was carefully prepared. Since Finland's adherence to the EEA, hundreds of national laws needed to be amended. Finland's membership in the Council of Europe only required the amendment of 14 acts of Parliament. The preparatory work for Finland's accession to the EU was without doubt well done, and provided a solid ground for the Finnish judiciary to get over the first years of membership without any significant problems. Of course, the mere number of requests made for preliminary rulings - that is 25 requests - does not give an accurate picture of how often the courts actually have relied on the provisions of community law in decision-making.

In some fields of law, the provisions of community law play a dominant role in the deliberations of national courts. In nearly all cases concerning agriculture, customs duties, value-added tax and public procurements have the courts relied on community law. The same applies to cases concerning consumer protection and rights of workers. Furthermore, human rights and criminal law aspects are increasingly paid attention to.

So far, the Finnish courts have made 25 requests for preliminary rulings to the Court of Justice. Many of these requests have related to rather ordinary matters which are close to citizens, such as slot machines, automobile taxation, fishing, impact of bus traffic on the environment, social security and equality. The Court of Justice has decided fourteen of these cases. In four cases has the judgment required changes of national law or administrative practice.

The preliminary rulings given on such concrete questions have brought community law closer to citizens and strengthened the idea of a common legal system. The preliminary rulings are binding on Member States and may therefore lead to significant changes in national law.

Wide implementation of the legal principles created by the Luxembourg Courts throughout Europe would not have been possible without cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national jurisdictions of Member States. Despite its slowness, the system of preliminary rulings has proved to be a working mechanism ensuring the legal protection of citizens. As a matter of fact, the system has enhanced the equality of EU citizens before the law.

Should I make any predictions as to the future, I would simply say that we will all face great changes. As regards the EU, there will soon be twice as many Member States as there are now, and cooperation will become more intensive in many fields. However, the world is changing even outside the EU. The increasing globalisation affects us all.

The significance of these challenges has been understood very well within the European Union. The Convention convened to consider the future of Europe has a mandate to draft guidelines for the purpose of increasing the Union's efficiency and democratic legitimacy - in other words, for the purpose of creating a community where the Europeans would feel home. This work will most likely lead to changes in the division and definition of competence in the European Union. Whatever changes are made to the institutional structures, however, the judiciary must not be forgotten.

The Treaty of Nice did already provide guidelines for reforming the court system. The aim is above all to ensure that the courts of the European Communities will be able to function even in an enlarged Union, while avoiding unnecessary delays in the consideration of individual cases. The Treaty of Nice maintained a possibility for flexibility in this respect.

It is my sincere hope that, after the entry into force of the Treaty of Nice, the Court of Justice will be able to accelerate the consideration of cases. The Treaty provides for the establishment of judicial panels for the consideration of specific types of cases, such as personnel disputes. It should also help make the division of competence between the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance better so that the Court of Justice would be able to concentrate on those cases and questions of interpretation which are relevant for the development of community law.

However, I would like to remind that an efficient system ensuring the legal protection of citizens will require significant efforts even in the Member States. Although this will be particularly important in the new Member States, also the old ones have still a lot to do. Wider respect and continued respect for the rule of law requires efforts. We must also make sure that both the Community Courts and the national courts have the necessary means for working efficiently, with a view to ensuring correct application and consistent interpretation of community law.

I also hope to see more clarity in community law. In Finland, there are many people who still, after seven years of membership, find community law complicated and hard to understand. And I believe that we are not alone with our hopes for more positive a development.

I would finally like to recall the fact that not even after enlargement will the European Union mean Europe as a whole. As a European, I find it important that respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law be strengthened throughout Europe.

The Presidency conclusions of the Laeken European Council contain a significant statement which is of relevance for the implementation of fundamental rights within the EU. It says that thought would have to be given to whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which was adopted as a political declaration in 2000, should be included in the basic treaty and to whether the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights.

I set great hopes on positive development. When the Court of Justice for the first time recognised the need to protect certain fundamental rights, the Court made them part of the general principles of the Community's legal system, as they result from the constitutional traditions and international obligations common to the Member States.

The European Convention on Human Rights enjoys a special position among the international human rights obligations binding on the Member States, from which the Community's legal principles result. All Member States of the EU are parties to the Convention. Adherence of the EU to the Convention would subject the EU institutions and the Member States to the same external control with regard to compliance with human rights obligations.

The judgments of the European Court of Human Rights have already now great significance for later decisions made by national courts and for the work of national judges. In the same way, the Court of Justice pays attention to the positions the European Court of Human Rights has adopted in its judgments, insofar as questions of human rights are concerned.

It is highly desirable that the system of protection of fundamental and human rights will further be strengthened whatever the future developments in Europe will be.