Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe question at the centre of focus in this chapter is whether the Advocate Generals' (AGs') Opinions contribute to the clarity of the Court's decisions and thus increase its legitimacy. Methodologically, it analyses the cases of Mangold and Kücükdeveci and the pertaining AGs' Opinions. It also looks at the Opinions of other AGs in other cases that commented upon either of these two judgments. It concludes that due to the lack of response by the Court to the arguments offered by its AGs, their Opinions have a very weak capacity to clarify unreasoned parts of the judgment to the general public beyond the Court. Thus the only real beneficiary of the Opinions is the academic community.