Activities of Alexandra THEIN related to 2011/0901(COD)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union
Amendments (6)
Amendment 5 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) In order to increase theprovide for broader participation ofby all the Judges in the decisions ofand to allow them to sit more frequently in cases assigned to the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice, there should be an increase in the number of Judges who may participate in the Grand Chamber, and the automatic participation of the Presidents of Chambers of five Judges should cease.
Amendment 9 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) Consequently, the necessary measures should be taken to address this situation, and the possibility, provided for by the Treaties, of increasing the number of Judges of the General Court from 27 to 39 is such as to enable both the volume of pending cases and the excessive duration of proceedings before the General Court to be reduced within a short time.
Amendment 10 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9 a (new)
Recital 9 a (new)
(9a) There should be the possibility for a Judge to announce, during the Court's deliberations, that he intends to deliver a dissenting opinion as to the judgment or the reasons on which it is based, to be published together with the judgment. This possibility, which exists in numerous constitutional courts of Member States of the European Union and in the European Court of Human Rights, ensures that the public is aware of the fact that there is not a sole answer to the question before the Court and that legally sound alternatives are conceivable, and may thus have an influence on future judicial practice. It contributes, moreover, to a better understanding and, in a legal system which is largely based on case-law such as that of the European Union, to a better interpretation and application of the Court's findings. Dissenting opinions must be utilised in a way that ensures the necessary authority of the Court and does not compromise the secrecy of deliberations. They must be the sole initiative and responsibility of the Judge concerned. At the same time, they enable the majority to give the reasons for their decision in a clear and straightforward manner. Experience has shown that they do not undermine the reputation of those courts in which they are delivered, as the modalities of their delivery are entirely a matter for the court concerned.
Amendment 12 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9 a (new)
Recital 9 a (new)
(9a) The arrangement for nominating judges to the General Court should be modified to reflect a balance between the objective of ensuring the best possible representation of all national legal systems and the need to respond to the requirements of a General Court which is structured more in terms of specialised chambers for each subject. To that end, half of the new Judges (in other words, six of them) should be nominated in line with a procedure that meets this need for specialisation.
Amendment 15 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9 b (new)
Recital 9 b (new)
(9b) The basic principle should be that the General Court should comprise at least one Judge and at most two Judges having the nationality of each Member State.
Amendment 22 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)
1a. The first paragraph of Article 9 shall be replaced by the following: 'When, every three years, the Judges are partially replaced, 20 and 19 Judges shall be replaced alternately.'.