Epilogue

Abstract

Abstract The Epilogue wraps up the discussion with respect to selected recurring themes. Section two carries out a comparative assessment of the overall performance of the judicial expert advisory panels in the EU and the ECHR. Section three critically revisits the selection criteria coined by the 255 Panel. In section four, a theme problematic in both European systems and tackled throughout the volume is revisited: the lack of transparency and control of the operation and output of the advisory panels and, by implication, the overall European judicial selection process. Finally, sections five and six deal with the more sociological questions: what type of European judges are the new criteria and procedures likely to generate? Section seven concludes with reflection as to whether or not a working language of a court that is no longer so widely spoken might not in itself operate as an obstacle in attracting top judicial candidates.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 24 citations exist upstream.