Here's what I found, surfing on the web re. the creation of a specialized competition court? B. Bishop advocates against the lawyer's membership monopoly within the EC courts.
"Lawyers only? Restriction of full court membership to lawyers is an anachronism. Note that in France, Professor Frederic Jenny, an economist, was recently Vice President of the French competition court (Conseil de la Concurence) and is today a Judge of the French supreme court (Cour de Cassation). The EU restriction dates from a time when it would not have occurred to anyone that a non-lawyer had anything relevant to contribute. But no competent observer thinks that today. The restriction makes little more sense than the one that not long ago in this country confined judicial appointments to barristers to the exclusion of solicitors. It is something of a trade union restrictive practice – for a rather well-heeled trade union".
I would tend to agree with him. For pure political reasons, judges with actually no background in EU and/or economic law are appointed at the ECJ and CFI. So the very same disqualifying argument that is opposed to economists (economists cant understand law) should apply to them - examples:
- a lawyer specialized in labour law has no clue on merger control issues - except that mergers may lead to job losses... He thus should not be able to become a judge at CFI/ECJ;
- a lawyer with only an academic background does not enjoy the practical background necessary to grasp the practical issues at hand in cases pending before the EC Courts. He thus should not be able to become a judge at CFI/ECJ.
In light of these examples, one can only see how senseless the rationale for the restriction of economists membership is.