Abstract

I have to confess that it was with some trepidation that, in 2005 at the start of my function as President of the newly instituted, and now already defunct, European Union Civil Service Tribunal in Luxembourg, I awaited the appointment that was to be set up with Carl Baudenbacher in order to explore the possibility of organising a working meeting between our small Tribunal and his EFTA Court. Who was this man, I wondered, who could take on the job of succeeding the mythical and monumental Icelander, Thór Vilhjálmsson as President of the EFTA Court? When, very soon after my arrival in Luxembourg, I did meet Carl, at an official dinner of the EFTA Court, I discovered the congenial, cultured and dynamic reality of “this man”. What followed was a still continuing history of family friendship. This modest article on one aspect of judicial reasoning—namely, whether the acceptability of a court’s ruling should enter into the decision-making process of judges—is dedicated to Carl in thanks for that friendship, as well as being an expression of respect for his professional achievements.