So this is the third and final lecture that

Enders giving on this fascinating subject of essentially the innards of the Court of Justice,

or as much as she's free to say, given the duties of confidentiality to which she's bound. She is going to talk for sort of half an hourish.

A little bit longer than that. I will shortly from questions. Yeah. And we will be done today at

just after 10-2 because I know various people have got things to get to for 2 o'clock. There are some

very fine cakes going

round. Please make good use of them. Sometimes there's no such thing as a free lunch, but actually

today there is a free lunch. There is no caveats. So please, please, please help yourself.

Leo, the floor is yours. Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone. And I am deeply impressed, and I do mean deeply impressed, by how many people have still managed

to get here on what is the last teaching day of term.

That is a great tribute to your desire to know more about the inside story of the Court of Justice.

Obviously, this third seminar links on from its two predecessors about language on the court and about decoding the Court of Justice judgments.

And equally, obviously, a lot of what I've already said in those two seminars will feed into this discussion.

There are some parameters I want to suggest you should bear in mind when thinking about the interaction between the court and its advocates general.

They're really fairly obvious, but that may not mean that it doesn't bear repeating.

First of all, the difference in roles between the Advocate General and the bench.

The Advocate General is out there exploring all the facets of the case,

trying to look at the options available

to the court, trying to gaze into a crystal ball, unfortunately we're not issued with one

upon appointment, sometimes you feel it would be helpful, and then trying to suggest to the

court the way in which we think that the court should resolve the matter before it.

...