Berkeley Law’s Borderlines podcast host, Professor Katerina Linos, and guest co-host, Professor Mark Pollack (Temple University), conduct a special interview series profiling Judges and Advocates General serving at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Luxembourg.
Episode #10 of the Borderlines CJEU series features Advocate General Jean Richard de la Tour in conversation with Professor Mark Pollack (Temple). Advocate General Richard de la Tour was appointed to the French advocate-general seat at the Court of Justice in March 2020 and reappointed in 2024.
In this episode, Advocate General Richard de la Tour reflects on his extensive judicial career as a magistrate in France and how it prepared him for his current role at the CJEU. Listeners will learn about the rigorous process of appointment to the CJEU and the unique responsibilities of an Advocate General, who offers independent opinions on cases that inform the Court’s rulings. The conversation also highlights several cases impacted by Advocate General Richard de la Tour, involving gender identity rights, data privacy violations, the criteria for granting or revoking refugee status, the political rights of non-national EU citizens, and the protection of the rights of asylum seekers. Advocate General Richard de la Tour also shares his views on the evolving role of the CJEU in safeguarding fundamental rights, the growing importance of data protection, and insights into potential future cases involving artificial intelligence.
Advocate General Richard de la Tour obtained a Master of Laws at the University of Paris II in 1982 then commenced professional judicial training at France’s National School for the Judiciary. He began his illustrious career in 1986 as a judge at the District Court of Limoges, later serving as a judge at the central administration of the Ministry of Justice in the Directorate for Civil Affairs and the Legal Professions and as an Auxiliary Judge at the Court of Cassation. He brings extensive CJEU experience to his role as Advocate General, as he previously worked at the Court from 2004 to 2012, holding roles as a lecteur d’arrêts (reader of judgments) and legal secretary in the Court of Justice to Judge Pernilla Lindh and Judge Carl Gustav Fernlund. In 2012, he returned to France and was appointed Advocate General in the Social Chamber of the Court of Cassation and later, as First Advocate General in the Commercial, Financial, and Economic Chamber until 2020. Additionally, from 2016 to 2020, Advocate General Richard de la Tour served as the President of the Board of Directors of the National Institute of Notarial Training. He was named Chevalier of the Order of the Legion of Honor in 2016 in recognition of his many achievements and contributions.
Some of the cases and sources mentioned in the podcast:
- Link to The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) – Article 253
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12016E253
- Links to Mirin case
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2024-10/cp240158en.pdf
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=285741&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=256950 - Links to Inkreal, the Slovak Companies’ Jurisdiction Agreement Case
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=4A541A1A8823FB0AB6A4A4357B8C239C?text=&docid=282586&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=915406
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=278538&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=259025
- Links to the Meta Platforms Ireland Case (GDPR Compliance)
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=258485&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5724408
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62020CC0319
- Links to the Fashion ID Case
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=216555&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5738133
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=209357&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=260442
- Link to the EU Qualification Directive (Directive 2011/95/EU)
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2011/95/oj
- Link to the 1951 Refugee Convention
https://www.unhcr.org/media/convention-and-protocol-relating-status-refugees
- Links to the Serious Crime and Refugee Status Case
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=275247&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5724408
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62022CC0402
- Links to the Domestic Violence and Refugee Status Case
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=281302&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5724408
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2023-11/cp230172en.pdf
- Link to the Istanbul Convention (Council of Europe)
- Link to the European Commission v Czech Republic Case (In Progress)
- Link to the European Commission v Republic of Poland Case (In Progress)
- Link to The Treaty of Lisbon
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12007L%2FTXT
- Link to The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX%3A12012P%2FTXT
Selected speech by Advocate General Richard de la Tour for further research:
- Travail et Discrimination: Deux Exemples Venus de la Cour de Justice (Soirée Débat Autour du Droit Social de l’Union Européennee conference, 12 October 2023; in French).
Citation: Linos, Katerina and Pollack, Mark. Episode #10: Interview with Advocate General Jean Richard de la Tour. Borderlines podcast, European Union Court of Justice Series (April 29, 2025). https://www.law.berkeley.edu/podcast-episode/european-union-court-of-justice-series-interview-with-advocate-general-Jean-Richard-de-la-Tour/
Berkeley Law’s Borderlines features exclusive content with the world’s leading international law experts. Check out recent interviews with former ICJ President Donoghue and ICC President Hofmański – be sure to subscribe so you don’t miss an episode! And please rate Borderlines on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite app, which can help others find useful resources. Thanks for listening!
Episode Transcript
Interview with Advocate General Jean Richard de la Tour
[00:00:00]
Katerina Linos: Welcome to Borderlines. I’m Katerina Linos, Tragen Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley.
Mark Pollack: And I’m Mark Pollack, Freaney Professor of Political Science and Law and Jean Monnet Chair at Temple University.
Katerina Linos: This is our series of interviews conducted in summer 2024 with Judges and Advocates General of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg.
Little is known about the backgrounds, careers, and personalities of the key decision makers on Europe’s highest court, and we hope to create an archive to shed light on these jurists.
Mark Pollack: In today’s episode, I speak with Advocate General Jean Richard de la Tour. Appointed to the Court of Justice in 2020 and reappointed in 2024, Advocate General Richard de la Tour brings decades of experience from France’s highest national courts and a deep understanding of both national and EU legal principles.
In our conversation, Advocate General Richard de la Tour shares insights into his role at the [00:01:00] Court and the unique function of the Advocate General in shaping the Court’s rulings. He also discusses some of the most complex and high profile cases he’s worked on, including landmark opinions on gender identity rights, data privacy, and refugee protections.
As you’ll hear, many of Advocate General Richard de la Tour’s legal opinions have focused on questions of fundamental rights protection in areas that the EU’s founding fathers could not have imagined. And our discussion illuminates the transition of the Court of Justice from a specialized economic court in the 1960s and ‘70s into a much broader court devoted in large part to the protection of fundamental human rights.
We hope you enjoy it.
Mark Pollack: Advocate General Richard de la Tour, welcome to Borderlines. Thank you so much for talking to me today, for sharing your experiences at the Court of Justice with our listeners.
Your remarkable career has spanned roles as a judge at various levels of the French judiciary, from the District Court of Limoges, up to [00:02:00] the Cour de Cassation.
How has your experience as a national judge in France influenced your approach to cases here at the Court of Justice, and maybe, what aspects of the Court of Justice’s work seemed most familiar to you when you arrived, and which ones seem perhaps surprising?
Advocate General Richard de la Tour: Thank you for coming.
I am a magistrate in my country. As a magistrate, I used to handle cases in varied areas. What is important is to have a logical reasoning and a thorough understanding of the trial. The judge must decide on a dispute and provide a solution. The Court of Justice applies the law in a manner similar to that used in France.
Moreover, it should be noted that it uses many references to its own case law. What differs is technical law and the main founding principles of Union law: primacy, direct effect, equivalence, [00:03:00] effectiveness, sincere cooperation, mutual recognition, etc. At the Court of Justice, I am most familiar with the written procedure, adversarial proceedings, hearing, role of the Advocate General – which is the same as the Court of Cassation. At the Court, there is a need to study many laws from different Member States, and the number of languages used, the great importance of interpreters, and the fact that judges ask many questions during their hearing. This is not the case in France.
But I must say that when I came to the Court in 2020, I already knew the functioning of the Court, having been a legal assistant, called référendaire, from 2004 to 2012. First, to answer your question, there was nothing really surprising for me. [Laughter]
Mark Pollack: Indeed, [00:04:00] indeed. And I think a number of your colleagues have also been référendaire before coming to the Court. It’s common.
Advocate General Richard de la Tour: It’s common.
Mark Pollack: So, you came as an Advocate General to the Court in 2020, following the death of your predecessor in office, Yves Bot. And you were then reappointed to a full six-year term of office, which you’re currently serving. The appointment process for European judges is one of the less well-known and, I think, less transparent parts of the Court’s working.
So I wonder if you could tell us a little bit about what it was like, first to be nominated and appointed in 2020, and then how you experienced your renomination.
Advocate General Richard de la Tour: The skills and experience required of a judge or an advocate general are set out in Article 253 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU (in short, TFEU).
The procedure is in two stages. Firstly, each Member State chooses the person who has the skills and experience required, [00:05:00] but each judge or advocate general is not appointed by its Member State itself. They are appointed by common accord of the governments of the Member States. Each Member State has its own procedure for choosing the future judge or advocate general, and there are three ways to do this.
One way is an open procedure, with a parliament deciding on the appointee. Another way is having panels that recommend applicants to the government. And the last one is the choice of the appointee directed by the government. The choice of the procedure depends on the Member State. Secondly, the name of chosen person is communicated to the [EU] Council, and the application is submitted to a panel to check the applicant’s suitability for the job. The panel comprises former Members of the Court, members of [00:06:00] national supreme courts, and lawyers of recognized competence. If the panel gives an unfavorable opinion, the applicant cannot be appointed.
Now I am going to tell you how I’ve been appointed in 2020 and reappointed this year. After the death of my predecessor, the French government called for applications for appointment as advocate general. At that time, I was Advocate General at the Cour de Cassation. The application was submitted to a national panel. The panel proposed three names to the government, and I was chosen. After, I was interviewed by the European panel, which gave a positive opinion. And I was appointed a few weeks later, just before the COVID pandemic. Due to the prohibition to move at that moment, I had to take an oath from my home in Paris, [00:07:00] virtually, in March; it was the first time done at the Court. And I came to Luxembourg only in June. For my reappointment, the European panel examined what I did during my term, especially the number of cases and the time I took to deal with them. The panel confirmed its positive opinion, and I was reappointed.
Mark Pollack: That is a very vivid image of your arrival at the Court during COVID. So, as Advocate General, you have the unique role of formulating and delivering individual opinions that are publicly associated with you, unlike the collegiality, but also the relative anonymity, of the Chamber judges.
In that light, I’m wondering how your role as an Advocate General is similar to or different from the role of the Chamber judges. And I’m also curious to hear how the visibility of your individual opinions has shaped your experience at the Court and how you go about navigating the attention [00:08:00] and the scrutiny that comes with delivering opinions on sometimes controversial and politically sensitive issues.
Advocate General Richard de la Tour: As Advocate General, my duty is to give an opinion in open court with complete impartiality and independence. I have to propose a solution to the Court and it’s my personal opinion. But when my opinion is given, I cannot modify or tweak it. On the other hand, judges discuss among themselves, and they can change their opinion after discussion.
In most cases, my opinion is consistent with that of the Court. I think that the visibility and the publicity of my opinions are important aspects of my job. When I give an opinion, it does not only concern the case for which it is given, but also all similar in all Member States of the EU. This visibility is always [00:09:00] on my mind.
But this visibility and the scrutiny you have mentioned are very important in the Member States where the case is pending. However, the Court has a rule to protect judges and advocate generals from pressures that come from their countries of origin. According to this rule, I am not allowed to deal with cases that come from France and with cases for which the reporting judge is a French judge.
So, comments about my opinion in other Member States don’t really affect me.
Mark Pollack: Fascinating. I’ve never heard that answer before and it is very enlightening. So, question along the same lines. We’re going to talk about a number of your opinions in a moment. Looking over your record, there are many opinions that got a great deal of attention and scrutiny. Looking back on your time at the Court of Justice so far, I wonder which of your [00:10:00] opinions you think has been the most impactful, and why? And then perhaps also any opinions where the Court ultimately took a different approach in terms of outcome or legal reasoning, and how you reflected on that experience that happens inevitably to all advocates general.
Advocate General Richard de la Tour: There are several interesting cases in which my opinion has been significant. For me, the most significant is about a Romanian person, born in Romania, who identifies as man. He has obtained British nationality by naturalization. He changes his first name and title from female to male, using a special procedure in the U.K.. Then, he obtained in the U.K., a gender recognition certificate that confirmed his male gender identity. So, he has asked the Romanian authorities to record in his birth [00:11:00] certificate the change of his first name and sex.
The authorities refused and told him that his request needs a judicial decision, but the person argues that the judicial decision is unnecessary because the authorities of the U.K. have already recorded his new gender. In my opinion, the refusal of the Romanian authorities is a violation of the right of EU citizens to freedom of movement and respect of their private life. These authorities have to recognize the gender identity acquired in another Member State and to enter it, without any proceedings, on his or her birth certificate. In this case, the Court has not handed down its decision yet.
And there is a recent case where the Court took a [00:12:00] different approach than mine. In that case, two companies domiciled in Slovakia concluded two contracts. Each of those contracts included an agreement conferring jurisdiction under which, in the event of a dispute, that dispute shall be settled by a Czech court. The question was, is this kind of agreement conferring jurisdiction valid when there is no link between the contract and the court chosen? In my opinion, this kind of agreement is valid only if there is an international element in the relationships between the companies, and I think that this condition is not fulfilled solely by the choice of a court of a Member State. In its decision, the Court ruled that the condition is fulfilled if the chosen court is a court settled [00:13:00] in a Member State.
That decision has been criticized by academic professors who consider that it’s contrary to the international law. In that case, I was surprised by the Court’s decision, and my first reaction was to understand where they come from. But in most cases, the Court is in the same page with me, and when it’s not the case, I understand the decision, and I take note of it.
Mark Pollack: If I may, I’d like to continue along the line of asking about a few specific cases and, your opinions in those cases to give the listeners a better sense of really the huge range of cases that come before you as an Advocate General. The days when it was mostly internal market cases are over. In that context, I want to begin with our case that is closest to the internal market, which is your opinion in the high-profile preliminary reference from Germany, in the case of Meta Platforms Ireland, in which a German [00:14:00] court asked the Court of Justice whether the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, the GDPR, allowed for consumer organizations to bring complaints against defendants like Facebook for violating the GDPR.
And I think this case might be an interesting way for listeners to understand what’s at stake in these kinds of data privacy cases, but also how you went about considering this question, the legal arguments about what EU law did and didn’t require, and how you formulated your opinion.
Advocate General Richard de la Tour: Due to this, consumer protection associations often initiate actions for injunction against certain data controllers that infringes rights protected by the GDPR.
At the same time, it infringes rights protected by other rules, relating in particular to the protection of consumer rights and to the combat against unfair commercial practices. I suggested that the [00:15:00] GDPR must not preclude such actions. To do that, I had to determine whether what was permissible under Directive 9546, which was the EU law before the GDPR, should now be prohibited following the entry into force of the GDPR. I took account of the judgment of the Court in Fashion ID case. Furthermore, after examining all aspects of the GDPR, I noticed that this regulation does not address all data protection issues, particularly to consumers law. After considering these preliminary questions, I was able to concentrate, in a more classic way, on the literal, systematic, and finalistic interpretation of the GDPR.
In this perspective, the legal literature was a great help.
Mark Pollack: One of the things I remember about [00:16:00] reading your opinion in this case is how clearly the issues were spelled out, and I think you said something about how it would be perverse if the passage of the GDPR were to restrict the rights of consumers rather than expand them.
Advocate General Richard de la Tour: It’s impossible, to restrict.
Mark Pollack: It’s a vivid passage in the opinion. I want to come next again to a very different case. EU Member States have put in place, over time, various requirements, both to establish and to revoke refugee status for people coming to the EU from third countries.
And in your May 2023 Opinion, in case C-402/22, which, for our listeners, is how the cases appear in the record, you addressed the question of what constitutes a particularly serious crime in the EU so-called “Qualification Directive” and the implications for that of Member States either granting, or revoking, or refusing refugee [00:17:00] status in the case of asylum applicants who had been convicted of a particularly serious crime. So in this case, which is a fascinating one, the law didn’t seem to lay out what was a serious crime versus a particularly serious crime, and yet fate of the asylum seeker depended on that question.
And that was the question that came before you as Advocate General. How did you balance those considerations in this case, and to what extent do you see your opinion and the Court’s final judgment as achieving a balance between, on the one hand, the rights of refugees, and on the other hand, the prerogatives of the Member States?
Advocate General Richard de la Tour: In that opinion, I noted that neither the provision of the Qualification Directive nor the national laws of the Member State defines the concept of a particularly serious crime. Therefore, there is a need for uniform application of the EU law. Additionally, it follows from the principle of [00:18:00] equality that the terms of a provision of EU law must be given an independent and uniform interpretation for all the EU. However, such an interpretation must not deprive the Member States of their power to determine their own policies in the criminal matters. The Court does not seek by an indirect route to impose a uniform policy on the Member States regarding criminal matters.
Given this balance to be found, I set out the reasons why I considered that a particularly serious crime is a criminal offense characterized by an exceptional degree of seriousness. Thus, it is only where the crime reaches a level of particular seriousness, and it’s categorized amongst the most serious crimes in the Member States, [00:19:00] that they can exercise their power to revoke or refuse to grant refugee status.
I added that this interpretation is consistent with the fact that, as an exception, the ground for revoking or refusing to grant refugee status must be interpreted strictly. This means that it can only be applied when the third-country national concerned has been convicted of a crime of exceptional seriousness.
Mark Pollack: So in this case, as in many others, you don’t dictate the outcome of the particular case, but you indicate to the national courts what criteria they need to apply, and that they need to be applied strictly?
Advocate General Richard de la Tour: Yes.
Mark Pollack: Along similar lines, the Court of Justice, 2024, in a Grand Chamber, set down a judgment, case C-621/21, which you helped [00:20:00] shape through an opinion, and the Court held that women facing the threat of domestic violence in non-EU countries could qualify for refugee status or protected status in the Union under EU directives. What was your role in developing the Court’s reasoning in this landmark case? How did you see this case impacting EU asylum law and also efforts to combat gender-based violence?
Advocate General Richard de la Tour: Yes, it’s a very important case because the Qualification Directive defines the notion of refugee. A refugee is a person who has well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership of a particular social group. This definition is the same as that of the UN Geneva Convention.
The belonging of a [00:21:00] gender – to be man or woman – is not specifically mentioned as a reason for persecution. However, it appears absolutely essential to interpret EU law in light of the major concern of our societies to combat gender-based violence and discrimination against women.
In Europe, there is the Istanbul Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence. Some Member States have recognized femicide, the murder of a woman because she is a woman. So, in this case, my role was to propose a dynamic interpretation of the Directive in order to recognize gender-based acts of persecution and specifically domestic violence by non-state actors.
For this purpose, in my Opinion, I first defined the concept of [00:22:00] gender that is not defined by the Directive, and I examined the particular difficulties, because gender-based violence often occurs within personal relationships. Next, I maintained that women victims of domestic violence constitutes a particular social group which have to be protected.
And a few weeks later, I gave another opinion in which I proposed to the Court to rule that Afghan women must be protected because they suffer persecution from the Taliban regime based solely on their gender. The Court has not done its decision yet on this case.
Mark Pollack: We will link to all of these cases and to your opinions in the show notes so that our listeners can see those cases and your opinions.
Switching to yet another set of issues. In January of this year, you delivered opinions in several [00:23:00] Commission infringement cases against Poland and Czechia, related to the rights of EU citizenship and the value of democracy.
The cases concern a Czech law and a Polish law, respectively, that only allow their own nationals to join their political parties. And the Commission in its infringement proceedings argued that these kinds of provisions violate EU law and you agreed. Could you, again, walk us through your approach to these cases and how you balance, for example, respect for national sovereignty, on the one hand, with upholding EU principles, on the other?
Advocate General Richard de la Tour: Democracy and equality between citizens of your unions are values common to the Member States upon which the European Union is founded. On this basis, electoral rights, the right to vote, and to stand as a candidate in municipal and European parliament elections, are [00:24:00] granted to every mobile citizen of the Union. A mobile citizen is a citizen of a Member State who resides in another Member State. To be a member of a political party increases the chances of being elected because political parties play a fundamental role in the exercise of their political rights in the Member States.
As EU law currently stands, membership of a political party is a matter falling within the competence of the Member States. However, is clear from the total case law of the Court that when exercising their competence, Member States are required to comply with the obligations deriving from EU law. Consequently, national sovereignty of a Member State cannot justify reserving the right [00:25:00] to become a member of a political party for national citizens. It creates inequality between citizens of the Union in the effective exercise of their right to participate in the democratic life of the EU.
So, I agreed with the Commission because, in other words, what matters most in these cases is the effectiveness of the electoral rights of citizens accorded by the Union, which are based on its two founding values, namely democracy and equality of its citizens.
Mark Pollack: And again, here we see in this case, the balancing act that you carry out in a number of your opinions between respecting that certain prerogatives lie within the Member States, but that they must comply with EU law in doing so.
Advocate General Richard de la Tour: With most principles of the EU law.
Mark Pollack: Yes, indeed. I want to ask you about one last set of cases that you worked on [00:26:00] recently that dealt with the scope of judicial review in immigrant detention cases. So, these are situations in which immigrants are detained, and then the question is, how the national courts have to deal with those detentions.
And, essentially, if I understand it correctly, your opinion and the decision of the Court resulted in the Court of Justice requiring national courts to review the lawfulness of detention of immigrants on their own initiative, whether or not the immigrants in question had put those arguments forward in their pleadings.
And so here again, we see a case where there’s an interplay between EU and national procedural rules, and an issue of finding the balance between the EU, the national, the right to liberty, and the procedural autonomy of the Member States. Again, if I can ask you, how did you find that balance?
Advocate General Richard de la Tour: We have had cases involving the review [00:27:00] by national courts of motions of plea, alleging breaches of EU law. Issues relating to the detention of third-country nationals and protections of the right to liberty at stake provided ample opportunity to revisit the approach taken so far. The right to liberty is important, and the role played by the courts in protecting it is essential. There are provisions in the EU law that preclude national law to prevent national courts from carrying out its own motion, and from verifying the lawfulness of the detention of a third-country national, even if such detention has been found to be in breach of the EU law.
Liberty is guaranteed by Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. So, the right to effective judicial protection must not have loopholes or [00:28:00] blind spots. It must be rigorously and strictly guaranteed. Therefore, I think it would be illogical and incongruent if the Court prevented the release of such a person even when it finds this detention is unlawful.
The application of such a national procedural rule is, in my opinion, liable to undermine the requirement of the consistency of lawfulness detention reviews across the Member States. Different systems of review seems to me to be odds with the fact that the conditions under which detention may be ordered are harmonized by secondary EU law.
Differences in the review scope between Member States can erode the effectiveness of EU rules regarding the detention or continued detention of a third-country national.
Mark Pollack: So, [00:29:00] we have covered really a broad range of issues, a number of your cases. And so I think as my final question for you, I want to move from these specific opinions and specific cases, to the bigger picture in terms of what you think are the most important questions the Court, as a whole, faces today.
I know, for example, that you’ve written and spoken about the issue of judicial independence, which we haven’t mentioned yet, in the Member States. So I wonder if you’d like to reflect either on the judicial independence question or other questions that you think are particularly pressing before the Court today.
Advocate General Richard de la Tour: It’s true that judicial independence has given rise to many case laws of the Court, especially about the Polish legislation. It’s fundamental in a democracy to have independent and impartial judges. Also, important questions on the Court’s plate are the regulation about refugees and migrants and the personal [00:30:00] data protection in line with the interpretation of the GDPR.
We have already spoken about EU’s case law involving migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers. Regarding the GDPR, I want to reiterate that because of the harsh penalty for breaches and more people are interesting their personal data online, the Court forces more cases about this.
Mark Pollack: Indeed.
Advocate General Richard de la Tour: The Court has to ensure the respect of the area of freedom, security, and justice of the Union, based on the principle of mutual confidence and mutual recognition between the Member States. This is enshrined in Article 67 of the TFEU. But for me, the most significant change in the Court case law is our increasingly important role in the protection of fundamental rights.
Before the Lisbon Treaty, the Court used [00:31:00] to deal mostly with economic, trade, and financial topics. Since the Lisbon Treaty, the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the EU has taken the same value as the Treaties, which has transformed the Court. Nowadays, our case law is mostly about the protection of fundamental rights.
And in closing, I want to say that artificial intelligence will certainly be a topic for the Court in the future. The Council, Parliament, and Commission have already started discussing about AI’s questions and issues.
Mark Pollack: Thank you so much for a really fascinating interview.
I think you’ve given our listeners some sense – it’s very complicated, but some sense – of what EU law is about; how you confront case-by-case as the cases come to you, the tradeoffs between individual liberties and state power, the tradeoffs between the EU and the [00:32:00] Member States. Thank you so much for sharing with that with us.
Advocate General Richard de la Tour: Thank you very much.
Mark Pollack: That wraps up our conversation with Advocate General Jean Richard de la Tour. We covered a great deal of ground, but for me, again, the most striking feature of the interview was the constant through line of fundamental rights protection, from data privacy, to the right of EU citizens to join national political parties, to the rights of transgender citizens and asylum seekers.
If you found this discussion thought-provoking please subscribe, share, and stay tuned for more Borderlines conversations with the leading voices in European and international law. Our thanks as always to our producer, Toni Mendicino our sound engineer, Keith Hernandez, and to the staff of the Court of Justice for making our CJEU profile series possible.
Thanks for listening.