Catherine Barnard examines the seemingly nebulous role of the advocates general
EU lawyers are well aware of the importance of the advocates general (AG). Their opinions, often illuminating and certainly well researched, are the first writing of any judgment in a particular case. If the European Court of Justice (ECJ) reaches the same conclusion, it is likely that it was influenced by the AG's arguments. If it doesn't, then the AG's opinion may well function in the manner of a dissenting opinion in a common law system.
But to the outside world, the role of the AG is a mystery. This is, in part, due to the fact that there is no common law equivalent. The AG's opinion is given by a judge, but is not a final judgment. There is no obvious “victor”, which makes an AG's opinion difficult to convey in the mass media.
Coleman
Coleman v Attridge Law: C-303/06 [2008] All ER (D) 245 (Jul)—one of the first cases supported by the new Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)—demonstrates these problems in spades. Sharon Coleman was a legal secretary who took
