17 Amendments of Danuta Maria HÜBNER related to 2022/0906(COD)
Amendment 1 #
Draft Regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) At the invitation of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 December 2015,12 on 14 December 2017 the Court of Justice submitted to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission a report on possible changes to the distribution of jurisdiction to receive preliminary rulings under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. While, in that report, the Court of Justice took the view that there was no need, at that time, to propose changes as regards the manner of dealing with requests for preliminary rulings under Article 267, it nevertheless pointed out, in that same report, that a subsequent transfer of jurisdiction to the General Court to give preliminary rulings in certain specific areas could not be ruled out if the number and complexity of requests for a preliminary ruling submitted to the Court of Justice were to be such that the proper administration of justice required it. Furthermore, such a transfer is in line with the intentions of the authors of the Treaty of Nice, who sought to strengthen the efficiency of the judicial system of the Union by providing for the possibility of the General Court being involved in dealing with those requestsMoreover, this transfer aligns with the objectives of the Treaty of Nice, where the powers of the General Court were increased by providing for the possibility to deal with certain categories of preliminary ruling in order to enhance the effectiveness of the European Union's judicial system. _________________ 12 See Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/2422 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (OJ L 341, 24.12.2015, p. 14).
Amendment 3 #
Draft Regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The statistics of the Court of Justice highlight the fact that both the number of pending preliminary ruling cases and the average duration to deal with those cases are increasing. Thatis situation is attributablearises not only tofrom the high number ofsubstantial volume of annual requests for a preliminary ruling of whichs received by the Court of Justice is seised each year, but also tofrom the greatincreasing complexity and particularly sensitive nature of a growingsensitivity of a significant number of questions put to that cbrought before the Court. In order to allow the Court of Justice to continue to fulfil its mission, it is necessary, in the interests of the proper administration of justice, to make use of the possibility provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 256(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to transfer to the General Court jurisdiction to hear and determine questions referred for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 of that Treaty, in specific areas laid down by the Statute.
Amendment 6 #
Draft Regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) The General Court is currently in a position to be able to deal with the increase in workload that will follow from that transfer of jurisdiction, as a result of the doubling of the number of its Judges and the measures taken in the context of the reform of the judicial framework of the European Union resulting from Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/2422 of the European Parliament and of the Council.13 Nevertheless, since the workload of the General Court is closely related to developments in the European Union’s activity, cameasures should be taken to ensure that the General Court remains capable of fully exercising its powers of review in respect of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the European Union, if necessary by means of increasing the number of its staff. _________________ 13 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/2422 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (OJ L 341, 24.12.2015, p. 14).
Amendment 10 #
Draft Regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) For reasons of legal certainty, the areas in which jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings is conferrgranted ton the General Court must be clearly defined and sufficiently separable from other areas. Furthermore, those areas must have given rise to a substantial body of case-law of the Court of Justice which is capable of guiding the General Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings.
Amendment 11 #
Draft Regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) The specific areas must moreover be determined taking into account the need to relieve the Court of Justice from having to examine a sufficiently high number of preliminary ruling cases so as to have a real impact, thereby ensuring a substantial alleviation onf its workload.
Amendment 12 #
Draft Regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The common system of value added tax, excise duties, the Customs Code and the tariff classification of goods under the Combined Nomenclature meetfulfil all of the abovementioned criteria to be regarded as specific areas within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 256(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Amendment 13 #
Draft Regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) The same is true ofLikewise, the compensation and assistance to passengers, ands well as the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading. In addition to the fact that those two areas also meet the abov, satisfy the aforementioned criteria. Furthermore, the General Court is perfectly well-equipped to adjudicate onhandle requests for a preliminary rulings in thoese areas, sincegiven that their factual and technical context determines, to a large extent, the usesignificantly influences the meaningful interpretation of the relevant provisions of European Union law.
Amendment 19 #
Draft Regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) Having regard to the substantive criterion applicable to the distribution between the Court of Justice and the General Court of jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings, it is necessary, for reasons ofthe legal certainty and expedition to be ensured, for the referring courts not themselves to decide the question as to which of the Courts of the European Union has jurisdiction to hear and determine a request for a preliminary ruling. Every request for a preliminary ruling must therefore be submitted to a single court, namely the Court of Justice, which will determine, in accordance with detailed rules to be set out in its Rules of Procedure, whether the request falls exclusively within one or several specific defined areas laid down in the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and, accordingly, whether that request must be dealt with by the General Court. The Court of Justice will continue to have jurisdiction to adjudicate on requests for a preliminary ruling that, notwithstanding that they may be connected to those specific areas, also concern other areas, since the first subparagraph of Article 256(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union does not provide any possibility of transferring to the General Court jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings in areas other than the specific areas.
Amendment 25 #
Draft Regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) In order to providTo ensure theat national courts and the interested personparties referred to in Article 23 of the Statute with the samereceive equivalent guarantees as those provided by the Court of Justice, the General Court is to adoptwill establish procedural rules equivalent tothat mirror those applied by the Court of Justice when dealing within handling requests for a preliminary ruling, in particular as regards the designation of an Advocate General.
Amendment 26 #
Draft Regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) Having regard to the specific feConsidering the distinctive natures of preliminary ruling proceedings asin compared wiison to the direct actions over which the General Court has jurisdiction, it is appropriate to allocatefalling under the jurisdiction of the General Court, it is advisable to assign requests for a preliminary ruling to specialized chambers ofwithin the General Court designated for thatis purpose.
Amendment 29 #
Draft Regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) In addition, in order to maintain in particularto ensure the consistency of preliminary rulings givenissued by the General Court, and in the interests ofto promote the proper administration of justice, provision should be made for a formation of the court of anit is essential to establish a court formation of intermediate size between the chambers composed of five Judges and the Grand Chamber.
Amendment 34 #
Draft Regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union
Article 50
Article 50
The General Court shall sit in chambers of three or five Judges. The Judges shall elect the Presidents of the chambers from among their numbermselves. The Presidents of the chambers of five Judges shall be elected for three years. They may be re-elected once.
Amendment 38 #
Draft Regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union
Article 50 b – paragraph 1 – indent 3
Article 50 b – paragraph 1 – indent 3
– the Customs Code and the tariff classification of goods under the Combined Nomenclature;
Amendment 40 #
Draft Regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union
Article 50 b – paragraph 1 – indent 3 a (new)
Article 50 b – paragraph 1 – indent 3 a (new)
- the tariff classification of goods under the Combined Nomenclature;
Amendment 46 #
Draft Regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union
Article 50 b – paragraph 2
Article 50 b – paragraph 2
2. Every request for a preliminary ruling made under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union shall be initially submitted to the Court of Justice. After verifying, in accordance with the detailed rules set out in its Rules of Procedure, that the request for a preliminary ruling comes exclusively within one or within several of the areas to which paragraph 1 refers, the Court of Justice shall transmit that request to the General Court.
Amendment 50 #
Draft Regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. RAny requests for a preliminary ruling madesubmitted under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and still pending before the Court of Justice onat the first day of the month following the date of entry into forccommencement of the month subsequent to the effective date of this Regulation shall be dealt withcontinue to be handled by the Court of Justice.
Amendment 51 #
Draft Regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. Appeals against decisions of the General Court concerning a decision of a board of appeal of one of the offices, bodies or agencies of the European Union referred to in Article 58a(1)(e) to (j), and the appeals referred to in the second indent of Article 58a(2), of which the Court of Justice is seised on the date of entry into force of this Regulation, are not covered by the mechanism by which it is determined whether an appeal is allowed to proceed.