Graham Mitchell of MacRoberts has had a close look at the European Court of Justice and finds that we should all be paying a little more attention to an institution accustomed to working in near-secrecy.

Whilst the UK press blames "Brussels" for encroaching on the British way of life, perhaps they should turn their attention to Luxembourg. The European Court of Justice ("ECJ") is an institution at the heart of Europe which is rarely mentioned in the press. Nevertheless, its interpretation of Directives on employment law issues affects our daily lives.

In Stringer and Others v HM Revenue & Customs it decided that when workers are on long term sick leave they continue to accrue the working time element of their annual leave (and can take holidays when they are sick!). Furthermore, in Pereda v Madrid Movilidad SA it held that if workers are on annual leave and they are ill for part of the holiday, they have the right to later request further annual leave for those "sick days."

Despite ash clouds, I found myself at the European Employment Lawyers Association (EELA) Conference in Luxemburg. One of the eminent Judges in the Ainsworth/Stringer case was billed to tell us exactly what the decision meant in practice. However, he told us nothing more than what the decision stated. The difficulty being that the ECJ's decisions are merely answers back to national courts on whether national law is compatible with the relevant Directive (or not). This leaves the national court to struggle with the decisions and often with incompatible national legislation.

Later, there was discussion at the Conference on redundancy and the recession. There was talk of the widespread use of short time, layoff and extended unpaid leave. A panel forum discussed what each member state was doing in order to ease the pain for employers and employees. Comparatively, the UK has done very little.

The struggling "PIIGS" countries, as they are known by UK press (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain) were those where generally the employment protection was the greatest (i.e. long consultation periods and large minimum statutory redundancy payments). One speaker indicated that they recently had a client that needed to shed 19 employees by reason of redundancy. However given the unbelievably torturous and expensive consultation process (involving court approval), they simply dismissed by way of 19 "imaginative" gross misconducts which had now led to 19 unfair dismissal claims against the client.

The highlight of the conference was a trip to the ECJ itself. We were transported from the pretty cobblestone valley in Luxemburg to the austere new town on the hillside. We discovered that each party going to the ECJ presents their case in their own language and each Judgment is translated thereafter into 27 languages. There are two skyscrapers that simply house the interpreters!

We also gleaned that the ECJ administration "thinks" in French – a legacy of it being set up before the UK joined the party. From the cold but dramatic concrete public waiting areas, the transition into the five court rooms was unexpected. The main court usually has five Judges (and dozens of interpreters) but for the big decisions there are seats for nearly 30 Judges. As more member states join the EU they may have to do some joinery work to make the top table longer!

It is interesting to picture the Judges reflecting in chambers (via interpreters?) in this slightly detached monument in Luxemburg. Presumably they are aware that literally millions of "citizens" across the EU will be affected by their decisions. Did they think through the implications of allowing workers to request more annual leave back for "sick days" when they were on annual leave? Would it not have been prudent to limit the boundaries of the decision to prevent further conflicting case law on the issue? That is not the function of the ECJ. It simply answers the questions that are asked by member state courts.

A comparable institution may now be the US Supreme Court. At least the Judges there are political appointments and their power is acknowledged as such. I wonder how the US views the ECJ and the fact that workers get more than 10 days annual leave!

If there was less secrecy and mystery attached to the ECJ as an institution and the Judges appointed by each member state, I suspect their powerful decisions would be viewed with less suspicion.