BETA


2018/0900(COD) Statute of the Court of Justice: amendment of Protocol No 3

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead JURI WÖLKEN Tiemo (icon: S&D S&D) RADEV Emil (icon: PPE PPE), RADEV Emil (icon: PPE PPE), DZHAMBAZKI Angel (icon: ECR ECR), DZHAMBAZKI Angel (icon: ECR ECR), MARINHO E PINTO António (icon: ALDE ALDE), MARINHO E PINTO António (icon: ALDE ALDE), CHRYSOGONOS Kostas (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL), CHRYSOGONOS Kostas (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL)
Committee Opinion AFCO MESSERSCHMIDT Morten (icon: ECR ECR) Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN (icon: S&D S&D)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
Euratom Treaty A 106a-pa, TFEU 281-p2

Events

2019/04/25
   Final act published in Official Journal
Details

PURPOSE: to improve the functioning of the EU Court of Justice by introducing more effective rules for the handling of appeals before the Court of Justice.

LEGISLATIVE ACT: Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2019/629 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

CONTENT: this Regulation amending the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union aims to improve the functioning of the Court of Justice, which has seen a steady increase in the number of cases brought before it, in order to allow the Court to focus on those cases which require its full attention.

The amendments made by the amending regulations to Protocol No. 3 provide for:

(1) a transfer to the Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate in actions for annulment lodged by Member States against Commission decisions relating to a failure properly to comply with a judgment delivered by the Court under Article 260(2) and (3) TFEU;

(2) the establishment of an initial admission mechanism of appeals against decisions of certain EU agencies and offices, intended to enable the Court to rule on certain categories of appeals only if they meet certain criteria.

It is clear from the review undertaken by the Court of Justice and the General Court that many appeals are brought in cases which have already been considered twice, initially by an independent board of appeal, then by the General Court, and that many of those appeals are dismissed by the Court of Justice because they are patently unfounded or on the ground that they are manifestly inadmissible.

Under the new rules, an appeal brought against a decision of the General Court concerning a decision of an independent board of appeal of one of the following offices and agencies of the Union shall not proceed unless the Court of Justice first decides that it should be allowed to do so:

- the European Union Intellectual Property Office;

- the Community Plant Variety Office;

- the European Chemicals Agency;

- the European Union Aviation Safety Agency.

An appeal shall be allowed to proceed, wholly or in part, in accordance with the detailed rules set out in the Rules of Procedure, where it raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of Union law.

The procedure shall also apply to appeals brought against decisions of the General Court concerning a decision of an independent board of appeal, set up after 1 May 2019 within any other office or agency of the Union, which has to be seised before an action can be brought before the General Court.

ENTRY INTO FORCE: 25.4.2019.

2019/04/17
   CSL - Draft final act
Documents
2019/04/17
   CSL - Final act signed
2019/04/17
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2019/04/09
   EP/CSL - Act adopted by Council after Parliament's 1st reading
2019/04/09
   CSL - Council Meeting
2019/03/13
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2019/03/13
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 585 votes to 39, with 55 abstentions, a legislative resolution on the draft regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Protocol 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The European Parliament adopted its position at first reading in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure.

The amendments made by the amending regulations to Protocol No. 3 provide for:

(1) a transfer to the Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate in actions for annulment lodged by Member States against Commission decisions relating to a failure properly to comply with a judgment delivered by the Court under Article 260(2) and (3) TFEU;

(2) establishing an initial admission mechanism for certain appeals before the Court of Justice only if they meet certain criteria: the examination of appeals against decisions of the Court of First Instance relating to a decision of a Board of Appeal independent of the European Union Office for Intellectual Property, the Community Plant Variety Office, the European Chemicals Agency or the European Aviation Safety Agency would be subject to its prior admission by the Court of Justice.

The prior admission procedure referred to in the first paragraph shall also apply to appeals brought against decisions of the General Court concerning a decision of an independent board of appeal, set up after the date of entry into force of this amending Regulation within any other office or agency of the Union, which has to be seised before an action can be brought before the General Court.

The appeal shall be allowed to proceed when it raises an issue of importance with respect to the unity, consistency or development of Union law. The decision as to whether the appeal should be allowed to proceed or not shall be reasoned, and it shall be published.

Documents
2019/03/05
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2019/01/23
   EP - Approval in committee of the text agreed at 1st reading interinstitutional negotiations
2018/12/12
   EP - Committee decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations confirmed by plenary (Rule 71)
2018/12/10
   EP - Committee decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations announced in plenary (Rule 71)
2018/12/07
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading
Details

The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted the report by Tiemo WÖLKEN (S&D, DE) on the draft regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The draft amendments to Protocol 3 submitted by the Court of Justice to the European Parliament and the Council concern:

a transfer to the Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate in actions for annulment lodged by Member States against Commission decisions relating to a failure properly to comply with a judgment delivered by the Court under Article 260(2) and (3) TFEU; establishing an initial admission mechanism for certain appeals before the Court of Justice only if they meet certain criteria:

The committee recommended that the European Parliament to adopt its position at first reading under the ordinary legislative procedure subject to the following amendments:

Transfer of responsibility for infringement proceedings : Members would like to clarify that the element of the request made by the Court of Justice on 26 March 2018 concerning the partial transfer of infringement proceedings to the General Court should be examined at a later stage, after the report on the functioning of the Tribunal, in particular on the efficiency of the General Court, its effectiveness and the need to increase the number of judges to 56, has been prepared in December 2020.

The achievement of gender balance within the General Court should also be assessed. To achieve this objective, Members suggested organising partial replacements within this Court in such a way that Member State governments gradually begin to nominate two judges for the same partial replacement, with the aim of choosing a woman and a man, in accordance with the conditions and procedures laid down in the Treaties.

Mechanism for the prior admission of appeals : Members supported the introduction, for certain categories of actions, of a procedure whereby the Court of Justice will first determine whether certain actions can be authorised. However, they considered that independent administrative authorities should not be listed individually.

The amended text provides that where the referral to an independent administrative body whose members are not bound by any instructions when taking their decisions is a prerequisite of an action being brought before the General Court, an appeal brought against the decision of the General Court shall not proceed unless the Court of Justice first decides that it should be allowed to do so.

Decisions not to allow an appeal to proceed, and the reasons underpinning such decisions, must also be published.

Documents
2018/12/06
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading
2018/12/06
   EP - Committee decision to open interinstitutional negotiations with report adopted in committee
2018/11/29
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2018/11/08
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2018/10/23
   EC - Document attached to the procedure
Documents
2018/10/18
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2018/07/11
   EC - Document attached to the procedure
Details

The European Commission delivered an opinion on the draft amendments to Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, presented by the Court of Justice on 26 March 2018.

The Commission shares the concern of the Court of Justice to strike the best possible balance in the division of powers between the Court and the General Court. However, the Commission is not convinced of the appropriateness, at this stage, of making structural changes to the division of powers between the Court and the General Court .

The Commission therefore takes the view that it would be better to await the report on the operation of the General Court to be submitted by the Court of Justice by the end of 2020 before making any further changes to the division of powers between the Court and the General Court which really will have the effect of relieving the Court.

The Commission delivered the following opinion:

Action for failure to fulfil obligations : the Commission does not support the Court's request to transfer to the General Court jurisdiction to adjudicate, at first instance, in actions under Article 108(2) TFEU and in actions for failure to fulfil obligations under Articles 258 and 259 TFEU.

The Commission wonders whether the amendments proposed by the Court of Justice are likely to achieve the desired objective, namely to relieve the Court of Justice.

The Commission has examined the impact the proposed transfer would have had if it had been applicable in the three years preceding the request of the Court of Justice, i.e. between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2018. It concluded that as such, the Court of Justice would have been relieved of 78 cases in that period, i.e. 26 per year. Given the number of new cases lodged on average in 2015, 2016 and 2017 (i.e. 715 cases), this decrease would have accounted for barely 3.6 % of the Court’s total annual judicial workload.

Secondly, the Commission is of the opinion that the proposed amendments raise important structural concerns . It observes that in actions for failure to fulfil obligations, the protagonists are two Member States or an institution of the Union and a Member State. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations are more comparable to direct actions, which would continue to be reserved to the Court of Justice pursuant to Article 51 of the Statute in its revised form.

Next, as with proceedings for a preliminary ruling, a Union court before which an action for failure to fulfil obligations has been brought must be able to hand down a ruling within a short period of time with the force of res judicata on the matters referred to it. The introduction of a two-tier system of jurisdiction for actions for failure to fulfil obligations would extend the judicial phase of the action and threaten to turn it into a long-term legal dispute with a negative political impact on compliance with Union law. In a significant number of cases, the duration of appeal proceedings would be added to the duration of the dispute at first instance.

The Commission doubts that the proposed criteria proposed by the Court of Justice are such as to avoid major difficulties of interpretation.

The Commission is of the opinion that the transfer proposed by the Court of Justice of some actions for failure to fulfil obligations would have a negligible impact on the workload of the Court but would significantly extend the judicial phase of actions for failure to fulfil obligations.

Actions for annulment : the Commission is in favour of the request to transfer to the Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate in actions for annulment lodged by Member States against Commission decisions relating to a failure properly to comply with a judgment delivered by the Court under Article 260(2) and (3) TFEU.

The Commission endorses the objectives which this proposal to amend the Statute seeks to achieve. This amendment would make it possible to prevent actions for annulment being brought against acts of the Commission for the recovery of penalty payments or lump sums from the Member State concerned other than with the judicial body which imposed the penalty payment or lump sum.

Procedure for initial admission of appeals : the Commission endorses the objectives which this proposal to amend the Statute seeks to achieve. This proposed amendment concerns appeals brought against judgments and orders of the General Court concerning decisions which have already been examined by an independent administrative authority and have thus already been subjected to a two-tier review of legality, as is the case, in particular, for decisions on trademarks taken by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

With regard to these decisions, it is proposed to restrict the admission of appeals to cases where a decision of the General Court might adversely affect the unity, consistency or development of Union law.

However, the Commission stresses the need to avoid divergence in case-law via the appeal admission mechanism. It also considers that, in the interests of legal certainty, what is meant by the notion of ‘independent administrative body’ should be clarified.

The Commission is of the opinion that it should be made clear that the grounds must be given not only for decisions to reject admission of appeals but also for decisions to accept admission of appeals. Lastly, these decisions should be made public.

Terminology : the Commission welcomes the proposed amendments aimed at ensuring greater terminological consistency of the Statute with the Treaties.

2018/06/20
   EP - MESSERSCHMIDT Morten (ECR) appointed as rapporteur in AFCO
2018/05/15
   EP - WÖLKEN Tiemo (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in JURI
2018/04/16
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading
2018/03/26
   EC - Legislative proposal published
Details

PURPOSE: to amend Protocol 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

PROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council.

ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the European Parliament decides in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and on an equal footing with the Council.

BACKGROUND: this revised draft Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council takes account of the Commission's opinion on the draft amendments to Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, presented by the Court of Justice on 26 March 2018.

This request by the Court of Justice seeks to amend Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union follows on from its report of 14 December 2017 to the European Parliament and the Council on the possibility of certain changes to the distribution of jurisdiction between the Court of Justice and the General Court with regard to preliminary rulings.

In its report, the Court of Justice considered that there was no need, at this stage, to propose amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union with a view to transferring to the General Court part of the jurisdiction it exercises in preliminary rulings.

The Court of Justice and General Court brought to light the fact that, when adjudicating on an action for annulment brought by a Member State against an act of the Commission relating to a failure properly to comply with a judgment delivered by the Court of Justice under Article 260(2) or (3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the General Court may encounter serious difficulties where the Commission and the Member State concerned disagree on the adequacy of the measures adopted by that State to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice.

Many appeals are brought in cases which have already been considered twice, initially by an independent administrative authority, then by the General Court, and that many of those appeals are dismissed by the Court of Justice because they are patently unfounded, or on the ground that they are manifestly inadmissible.

In order to enable the Court of Justice to concentrate on the cases that require its full attention, it is necessary to introduce, for appeals relating to such cases, a mechanism whereby the Court determines whether an appeal should be allowed to proceed.

In the light of the constant increase in the number of cases brought before the Court of Justice, it is necessary, at this stage, to prioritise the establishment of the procedure mentioned above whereby the Court of Justice decides whether an appeal should be allowed to proceed .

The component of the request made by the Court of Justice on 26 March 2018 that relates to the partial transfer to the General Court of infringement proceedings should be examined at a later stage , after the report on the functioning of the General Court provided for in Regulation 2015/2422 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

CONTENT: in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 281 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and paragraph 1 of Article 106a of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, the draft amendments to Protocol 3 submitted by the Court of Justice to the European Parliament and the Council concern:

a transfer to the Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate in actions for annulment lodged by Member States against Commission decisions relating to a failure properly to comply with a judgment delivered by the Court under Article 260(2) and (3) TFEU . All litigation linked to a failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations to which a financial penalty should be reserved exclusively to the Court of Justice, including challenges that may be made following a Member State being ordered to pay a lump sum or a penalty payment; establishing an initial admission mechanism for certain appeals before the Court of Justice only if they meet certain criteria : for example, a n appeal brought against a decision of the General Court concerning a decision of a board of appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office, the Community Plant Variety Office, the European Chemicals Agency or the European Aviation Safety Agency shall not proceed unless the Court of Justice first decides that it should be allowed to do so. An appeal shall be allowed to proceed, in accordance with the detailed rules set out in the Rules of Procedure, where it raises, wholly or in part, an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of Union law. The decision as to whether the appeal should be allowed to proceed shall be reasoned and published.

The proposed amendments are also intended to ensure the terminological consistency of certain provisions of the Staff Regulations with the Treaties.

Documents

Documents

  • Final act published in Official Journal: Regulation 2019/629
  • Final act published in Official Journal: OJ L 111 25.04.2019, p. 0001
  • Draft final act: 00001/2019/LEX
  • Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
  • Decision by Parliament, 1st reading: T8-0179/2019
  • Amendments tabled in committee: PE636.269
  • Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading: A8-0439/2018
  • Committee opinion: PE627.917
  • Amendments tabled in committee: PE630.426
  • Document attached to the procedure: C(2018)7500
  • Committee draft report: PE628.708
  • Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex
  • Document attached to the procedure: COM(2018)0534
  • Legislative proposal published: 02360/2018
  • Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex COM(2018)0534
  • Committee draft report: PE628.708
  • Document attached to the procedure: C(2018)7500
  • Amendments tabled in committee: PE630.426
  • Committee opinion: PE627.917
  • Amendments tabled in committee: PE636.269
  • Draft final act: 00001/2019/LEX

Votes

A8-0439/2018 - Tiemo Wölken - Am 6 13/03/2019 12:46:09.000 #

2019/03/13 Outcome: +: 585, 0: 55, -: 39
DE FR PL ES IT GB RO HU BE SE BG CZ AT NL FI SK HR LT PT IE LV SI LU MT EE DK CY EL
Total
90
69
47
51
61
63
26
19
19
19
17
20
15
26
12
12
11
10
17
10
8
8
6
6
4
12
6
13
icon: PPE PPE
192

United Kingdom PPE

2

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Cyprus PPE

1

Greece PPE

For (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
175

Netherlands S&D

3
3

Croatia S&D

2

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Malta S&D

3

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Cyprus S&D

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
64

United Kingdom ALDE

1

Romania ALDE

3

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Croatia ALDE

2
2

Portugal ALDE

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

For (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

2
icon: ECR ECR
70

Romania ECR

For (1)

1

Sweden ECR

2

Bulgaria ECR

2

Czechia ECR

2

Netherlands ECR

2
2

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1

Cyprus ECR

1

Greece ECR

Against (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
51

Italy Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Hungary Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Croatia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: ENF ENF
31

Germany ENF

For (1)

1

Poland ENF

Abstain (1)

1

United Kingdom ENF

4

Belgium ENF

Abstain (1)

1

Austria ENF

2

Netherlands ENF

4
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
45

Italy GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Czechia GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

3

Portugal GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

4

Ireland GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

4

Denmark GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2
icon: NI NI
16

Germany NI

1

France NI

Abstain (1)

2

Poland NI

Abstain (1)

2

Italy NI

Abstain (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Denmark NI

1
icon: EFDD EFDD
33

Germany EFDD

Abstain (1)

1

Poland EFDD

1

Czechia EFDD

Against (1)

1

Lithuania EFDD

For (1)

1
AmendmentsDossier
7 2018/0900(COD)
2018/11/06 AFCO 2 amendments...
source: 630.378
2018/11/08 JURI 5 amendments...
source: 630.426

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

docs/1/docs/0/url
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE628.708
docs/3/docs/0/url
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE630.426
docs/4/docs/0/url
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE627.917&secondRef=02
events/1/type
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
New
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading
events/2/type
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
New
Vote in committee, 1st reading
events/4
date
2018-12-07T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2018-0439_EN.html title: A8-0439/2018
summary
events/4
date
2018-12-07T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2018-0439_EN.html title: A8-0439/2018
summary
events/5
date
2018-12-10T00:00:00
type
Committee decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations announced in plenary (Rule 71)
body
EP
events/6
date
2018-12-12T00:00:00
type
Committee decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations confirmed by plenary (Rule 71)
body
EP
events/6
date
2019-03-13T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2019-0179_EN.html title: T8-0179/2019
summary
events/8
date
2019-03-13T00:00:00
type
Results of vote in Parliament
body
EP
docs
url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=31922&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
events/9
date
2019-03-13T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2019-0179_EN.html title: T8-0179/2019
summary
procedure/Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
procedure/Notes
  • 12/12/2018 Decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations confirmed by plenary (Rule 69c)
procedure/Other legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
events/4/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2018-0439&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2018-0439_EN.html
events/6/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2019-0179
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2019-0179_EN.html
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
rapporteur
name: WÖLKEN Tiemo date: 2018-05-15T00:00:00 group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
date
2018-05-15T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: WÖLKEN Tiemo group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Constitutional Affairs
committee
AFCO
rapporteur
name: MESSERSCHMIDT Morten date: 2018-06-20T00:00:00 group: European Conservatives and Reformists abbr: ECR
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Constitutional Affairs
committee
AFCO
date
2018-06-20T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: MESSERSCHMIDT Morten group: European Conservatives and Reformists abbr: ECR
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
date
2018-05-15T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: WÖLKEN Tiemo group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
date
2018-05-15T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: WÖLKEN Tiemo group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
activities
  • date: 2018-03-26T00:00:00 docs: type: Legislative proposal published title: 02360/2018 body: EC commission: DG: url: https://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/legal-service_en title: Legal Service Commissioner: TIMMERMANS Frans type: Legislative proposal published
  • date: 2018-04-16T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Constitutional Affairs committee: AFCO body: EP shadows: group: GUE/NGL name: CHRYSOGONOS Kostas responsible: True committee_full: Legal Affairs committee: JURI
commission
  • body: EC dg: Legal Service commissioner: TIMMERMANS Frans
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
date
2018-05-15T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: WÖLKEN Tiemo group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
committees/0
body
EP
responsible
False
committee_full
Constitutional Affairs
committee
AFCO
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Constitutional Affairs
committee
AFCO
date
2018-06-20T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: MESSERSCHMIDT Morten group: European Conservatives and Reformists abbr: ECR
committees/1
body
EP
shadows
group: GUE/NGL name: CHRYSOGONOS Kostas
responsible
True
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
council
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: General Affairs meeting_id: 3685 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3685*&MEET_DATE=09/04/2019 date: 2019-04-09T00:00:00
docs
  • date: 2018-07-11T00:00:00 docs: url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2018&nu_doc=0534 title: EUR-Lex title: COM(2018)0534 summary: The European Commission delivered an opinion on the draft amendments to Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, presented by the Court of Justice on 26 March 2018. The Commission shares the concern of the Court of Justice to strike the best possible balance in the division of powers between the Court and the General Court. However, the Commission is not convinced of the appropriateness, at this stage, of making structural changes to the division of powers between the Court and the General Court . The Commission therefore takes the view that it would be better to await the report on the operation of the General Court to be submitted by the Court of Justice by the end of 2020 before making any further changes to the division of powers between the Court and the General Court which really will have the effect of relieving the Court. The Commission delivered the following opinion: Action for failure to fulfil obligations : the Commission does not support the Court's request to transfer to the General Court jurisdiction to adjudicate, at first instance, in actions under Article 108(2) TFEU and in actions for failure to fulfil obligations under Articles 258 and 259 TFEU. The Commission wonders whether the amendments proposed by the Court of Justice are likely to achieve the desired objective, namely to relieve the Court of Justice. The Commission has examined the impact the proposed transfer would have had if it had been applicable in the three years preceding the request of the Court of Justice, i.e. between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2018. It concluded that as such, the Court of Justice would have been relieved of 78 cases in that period, i.e. 26 per year. Given the number of new cases lodged on average in 2015, 2016 and 2017 (i.e. 715 cases), this decrease would have accounted for barely 3.6 % of the Court’s total annual judicial workload. Secondly, the Commission is of the opinion that the proposed amendments raise important structural concerns . It observes that in actions for failure to fulfil obligations, the protagonists are two Member States or an institution of the Union and a Member State. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations are more comparable to direct actions, which would continue to be reserved to the Court of Justice pursuant to Article 51 of the Statute in its revised form. Next, as with proceedings for a preliminary ruling, a Union court before which an action for failure to fulfil obligations has been brought must be able to hand down a ruling within a short period of time with the force of res judicata on the matters referred to it. The introduction of a two-tier system of jurisdiction for actions for failure to fulfil obligations would extend the judicial phase of the action and threaten to turn it into a long-term legal dispute with a negative political impact on compliance with Union law. In a significant number of cases, the duration of appeal proceedings would be added to the duration of the dispute at first instance. The Commission doubts that the proposed criteria proposed by the Court of Justice are such as to avoid major difficulties of interpretation. The Commission is of the opinion that the transfer proposed by the Court of Justice of some actions for failure to fulfil obligations would have a negligible impact on the workload of the Court but would significantly extend the judicial phase of actions for failure to fulfil obligations. Actions for annulment : the Commission is in favour of the request to transfer to the Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate in actions for annulment lodged by Member States against Commission decisions relating to a failure properly to comply with a judgment delivered by the Court under Article 260(2) and (3) TFEU. The Commission endorses the objectives which this proposal to amend the Statute seeks to achieve. This amendment would make it possible to prevent actions for annulment being brought against acts of the Commission for the recovery of penalty payments or lump sums from the Member State concerned other than with the judicial body which imposed the penalty payment or lump sum. Procedure for initial admission of appeals : the Commission endorses the objectives which this proposal to amend the Statute seeks to achieve. This proposed amendment concerns appeals brought against judgments and orders of the General Court concerning decisions which have already been examined by an independent administrative authority and have thus already been subjected to a two-tier review of legality, as is the case, in particular, for decisions on trademarks taken by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). With regard to these decisions, it is proposed to restrict the admission of appeals to cases where a decision of the General Court might adversely affect the unity, consistency or development of Union law. However, the Commission stresses the need to avoid divergence in case-law via the appeal admission mechanism. It also considers that, in the interests of legal certainty, what is meant by the notion of ‘independent administrative body’ should be clarified. The Commission is of the opinion that it should be made clear that the grounds must be given not only for decisions to reject admission of appeals but also for decisions to accept admission of appeals. Lastly, these decisions should be made public. Terminology : the Commission welcomes the proposed amendments aimed at ensuring greater terminological consistency of the Statute with the Treaties. type: Document attached to the procedure body: EC
  • date: 2018-10-18T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE628.708 title: PE628.708 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2018-10-23T00:00:00 docs: title: C(2018)7500 type: Document attached to the procedure body: EC
  • date: 2018-11-08T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE630.426 title: PE630.426 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2018-11-29T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE627.917&secondRef=02 title: PE627.917 committee: AFCO type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2019-03-05T00:00:00 docs: title: PE636.269 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2019-04-17T00:00:00 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=ADV&RESULTSET=1&DOC_ID=[%n4]%2F19&DOC_LANCD=EN&ROWSPP=25&NRROWS=500&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC title: 00001/2019/LEX type: Draft final act body: CSL
events
  • date: 2018-03-26T00:00:00 type: Legislative proposal published body: EC docs: title: 02360/2018 summary: PURPOSE: to amend Protocol 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. PROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council. ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the European Parliament decides in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and on an equal footing with the Council. BACKGROUND: this revised draft Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council takes account of the Commission's opinion on the draft amendments to Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, presented by the Court of Justice on 26 March 2018. This request by the Court of Justice seeks to amend Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union follows on from its report of 14 December 2017 to the European Parliament and the Council on the possibility of certain changes to the distribution of jurisdiction between the Court of Justice and the General Court with regard to preliminary rulings. In its report, the Court of Justice considered that there was no need, at this stage, to propose amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union with a view to transferring to the General Court part of the jurisdiction it exercises in preliminary rulings. The Court of Justice and General Court brought to light the fact that, when adjudicating on an action for annulment brought by a Member State against an act of the Commission relating to a failure properly to comply with a judgment delivered by the Court of Justice under Article 260(2) or (3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the General Court may encounter serious difficulties where the Commission and the Member State concerned disagree on the adequacy of the measures adopted by that State to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice. Many appeals are brought in cases which have already been considered twice, initially by an independent administrative authority, then by the General Court, and that many of those appeals are dismissed by the Court of Justice because they are patently unfounded, or on the ground that they are manifestly inadmissible. In order to enable the Court of Justice to concentrate on the cases that require its full attention, it is necessary to introduce, for appeals relating to such cases, a mechanism whereby the Court determines whether an appeal should be allowed to proceed. In the light of the constant increase in the number of cases brought before the Court of Justice, it is necessary, at this stage, to prioritise the establishment of the procedure mentioned above whereby the Court of Justice decides whether an appeal should be allowed to proceed . The component of the request made by the Court of Justice on 26 March 2018 that relates to the partial transfer to the General Court of infringement proceedings should be examined at a later stage , after the report on the functioning of the General Court provided for in Regulation 2015/2422 of the European Parliament and of the Council. CONTENT: in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 281 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and paragraph 1 of Article 106a of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, the draft amendments to Protocol 3 submitted by the Court of Justice to the European Parliament and the Council concern: a transfer to the Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate in actions for annulment lodged by Member States against Commission decisions relating to a failure properly to comply with a judgment delivered by the Court under Article 260(2) and (3) TFEU . All litigation linked to a failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations to which a financial penalty should be reserved exclusively to the Court of Justice, including challenges that may be made following a Member State being ordered to pay a lump sum or a penalty payment; establishing an initial admission mechanism for certain appeals before the Court of Justice only if they meet certain criteria : for example, a n appeal brought against a decision of the General Court concerning a decision of a board of appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office, the Community Plant Variety Office, the European Chemicals Agency or the European Aviation Safety Agency shall not proceed unless the Court of Justice first decides that it should be allowed to do so. An appeal shall be allowed to proceed, in accordance with the detailed rules set out in the Rules of Procedure, where it raises, wholly or in part, an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of Union law. The decision as to whether the appeal should be allowed to proceed shall be reasoned and published. The proposed amendments are also intended to ensure the terminological consistency of certain provisions of the Staff Regulations with the Treaties.
  • date: 2018-04-16T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2018-12-06T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2018-12-06T00:00:00 type: Committee decision to open interinstitutional negotiations with report adopted in committee body: EP
  • date: 2018-12-07T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2018-0439&language=EN title: A8-0439/2018 summary: The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted the report by Tiemo WÖLKEN (S&D, DE) on the draft regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The draft amendments to Protocol 3 submitted by the Court of Justice to the European Parliament and the Council concern: a transfer to the Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate in actions for annulment lodged by Member States against Commission decisions relating to a failure properly to comply with a judgment delivered by the Court under Article 260(2) and (3) TFEU; establishing an initial admission mechanism for certain appeals before the Court of Justice only if they meet certain criteria: The committee recommended that the European Parliament to adopt its position at first reading under the ordinary legislative procedure subject to the following amendments: Transfer of responsibility for infringement proceedings : Members would like to clarify that the element of the request made by the Court of Justice on 26 March 2018 concerning the partial transfer of infringement proceedings to the General Court should be examined at a later stage, after the report on the functioning of the Tribunal, in particular on the efficiency of the General Court, its effectiveness and the need to increase the number of judges to 56, has been prepared in December 2020. The achievement of gender balance within the General Court should also be assessed. To achieve this objective, Members suggested organising partial replacements within this Court in such a way that Member State governments gradually begin to nominate two judges for the same partial replacement, with the aim of choosing a woman and a man, in accordance with the conditions and procedures laid down in the Treaties. Mechanism for the prior admission of appeals : Members supported the introduction, for certain categories of actions, of a procedure whereby the Court of Justice will first determine whether certain actions can be authorised. However, they considered that independent administrative authorities should not be listed individually. The amended text provides that where the referral to an independent administrative body whose members are not bound by any instructions when taking their decisions is a prerequisite of an action being brought before the General Court, an appeal brought against the decision of the General Court shall not proceed unless the Court of Justice first decides that it should be allowed to do so. Decisions not to allow an appeal to proceed, and the reasons underpinning such decisions, must also be published.
  • date: 2019-01-23T00:00:00 type: Approval in committee of the text agreed at 1st reading interinstitutional negotiations body: EP
  • date: 2019-03-13T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2019-0179 title: T8-0179/2019 summary: The European Parliament adopted by 585 votes to 39, with 55 abstentions, a legislative resolution on the draft regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Protocol 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The European Parliament adopted its position at first reading in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. The amendments made by the amending regulations to Protocol No. 3 provide for: (1) a transfer to the Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate in actions for annulment lodged by Member States against Commission decisions relating to a failure properly to comply with a judgment delivered by the Court under Article 260(2) and (3) TFEU; (2) establishing an initial admission mechanism for certain appeals before the Court of Justice only if they meet certain criteria: the examination of appeals against decisions of the Court of First Instance relating to a decision of a Board of Appeal independent of the European Union Office for Intellectual Property, the Community Plant Variety Office, the European Chemicals Agency or the European Aviation Safety Agency would be subject to its prior admission by the Court of Justice. The prior admission procedure referred to in the first paragraph shall also apply to appeals brought against decisions of the General Court concerning a decision of an independent board of appeal, set up after the date of entry into force of this amending Regulation within any other office or agency of the Union, which has to be seised before an action can be brought before the General Court. The appeal shall be allowed to proceed when it raises an issue of importance with respect to the unity, consistency or development of Union law. The decision as to whether the appeal should be allowed to proceed or not shall be reasoned, and it shall be published.
  • date: 2019-04-09T00:00:00 type: Act adopted by Council after Parliament's 1st reading body: EP/CSL
  • date: 2019-04-17T00:00:00 type: Final act signed body: CSL
  • date: 2019-04-17T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
  • date: 2019-04-25T00:00:00 type: Final act published in Official Journal summary: PURPOSE: to improve the functioning of the EU Court of Justice by introducing more effective rules for the handling of appeals before the Court of Justice. LEGISLATIVE ACT: Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2019/629 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. CONTENT: this Regulation amending the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union aims to improve the functioning of the Court of Justice, which has seen a steady increase in the number of cases brought before it, in order to allow the Court to focus on those cases which require its full attention. The amendments made by the amending regulations to Protocol No. 3 provide for: (1) a transfer to the Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate in actions for annulment lodged by Member States against Commission decisions relating to a failure properly to comply with a judgment delivered by the Court under Article 260(2) and (3) TFEU; (2) the establishment of an initial admission mechanism of appeals against decisions of certain EU agencies and offices, intended to enable the Court to rule on certain categories of appeals only if they meet certain criteria. It is clear from the review undertaken by the Court of Justice and the General Court that many appeals are brought in cases which have already been considered twice, initially by an independent board of appeal, then by the General Court, and that many of those appeals are dismissed by the Court of Justice because they are patently unfounded or on the ground that they are manifestly inadmissible. Under the new rules, an appeal brought against a decision of the General Court concerning a decision of an independent board of appeal of one of the following offices and agencies of the Union shall not proceed unless the Court of Justice first decides that it should be allowed to do so: - the European Union Intellectual Property Office; - the Community Plant Variety Office; - the European Chemicals Agency; - the European Union Aviation Safety Agency. An appeal shall be allowed to proceed, wholly or in part, in accordance with the detailed rules set out in the Rules of Procedure, where it raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of Union law. The procedure shall also apply to appeals brought against decisions of the General Court concerning a decision of an independent board of appeal, set up after 1 May 2019 within any other office or agency of the Union, which has to be seised before an action can be brought before the General Court. ENTRY INTO FORCE: 25.4.2019. docs: title: Regulation 2019/629 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32019R0629 title: OJ L 111 25.04.2019, p. 0001 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:2019:111:TOC
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: https://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/legal-service_en title: Legal Service commissioner: TIMMERMANS Frans
procedure/Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
procedure/Notes
  • 12/12/2018 Decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations confirmed by plenary (Rule 69c)
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
Old
JURI/8/12714
New
  • JURI/8/12714
procedure/final
title
Regulation 2019/629
url
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32019R0629
procedure/legal_basis/0
Euratom Treaty A 106a-pa
procedure/legal_basis/0
Euratom Treaty A 106-pa
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Awaiting committee decision
New
Procedure completed
procedure/subject
Old
  • 8.40.04 Court of Justice, Court of First Instance
New
8.40.04
Court of Justice, Court of First Instance
activities/0/docs/0/text
  • PURPOSE: to amend Protocol 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

    PROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council.

    ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the European Parliament decides in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and on an equal footing with the Council.

    BACKGROUND: this request by the Court of Justice to amend Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union follows on from its report of 14 December 2017 to the European Parliament and the Council on the possibility of certain changes to the distribution of jurisdiction between the Court of Justice and the General Court with regard to preliminary rulings.

    In its report, the Court of Justice considered that there was no need, at this stage, to propose amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union with a view to transferring to the General Court part of the jurisdiction it exercises in preliminary rulings.

    In the conclusion to that report, the Court stated, however, that the possibility of a future transfer of jurisdiction with respect to preliminary rulings could not be wholly ruled out in certain specific areas. Furthermore, the background leading to the reform of the structure of the EU Courts has led to a broader reflection on the distribution of jurisdiction between the Court of Justice and the General Court and on how appeals are to be dealt with by the Court of Justice.

    The discussions that have taken place on these issues have led to the present request for amendments to Protocol No. 3. This request aims to examine all the possibilities offered by the reform of the judicial structure of the European Union.

    CONTENT: in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 281 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and paragraph 1 of Article 106a of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, this draft amendment to Protocol 3 submitted by the Court of Justice to the European Parliament and the Council concerns:

    I. Transfer to the General Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate at first instance on the majority of infringement proceedings based on Articles 108(2), 258 and 259 TFEU: where the Court of Justice adjudicates on an action brought on the basis of those Articles, it is required to carry out a detailed analysis of the often complicated facts and circumstances that have given rise to the dispute and, before deciding whether there is or is not an infringement, it must examine each of the submissions made by the applicant (in most cases, the Commission).

    The General Court accordingly appears particularly well placed to hear and determine actions of that kind, which, experience shows, most often require decisions to be made on many issues of fact.

    The Court of Justice should however retain jurisdiction with respect to actions that have a constitutional aspect or that must be dealt with urgently, together with actions based wholly or partly on Article 260 TFEU, involving the possible imposition of a lump sum or a penalty payment on the defendant.

    It is necessary, in addition, to provide that the General Court may refer a case of which it is seised to the Court of Justice for the latter to give a ruling, where the General Court considers that that case calls for a decision of principle or where exceptional circumstances so justify.

    In order to maintain the effectiveness of infringement proceedings, it is proposed that, in the event that an appeal is brought against a decision delivered by the General Court in those proceedings, the Court of Justice may give a final ruling on the dispute, in law and in fact, if it considers that the appeal is well founded and that it is necessary to set aside that decision.

    II. Transfer to the Court of Justice of jurisdiction to adjudicate on actions for annulment linked to a failure properly to comply with a judgment delivered by the Court under Article 260(2) or (3) TFEU: in the light of the sensitivity of such actions, which may lead to the imposition of penalty payments or lump sum payments, and in order not to cause the length of proceedings to be unduly prolonged due to the possibility of bringing an appeal against the decisions of the General Court, actions based on that article should, at this stage, fall exclusively within the jurisdiction the Court of Justice.

    It is proposed to reserve all litigation linked to a failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations to which a financial penalty is attached exclusively to the Court of Justice, including challenges that may be made following a Member State being ordered to pay a lump sum or a penalty payment.

    III. Procedure whereby the Court of Justice determines whether certain appeals should be allowed to proceed: many appeals are brought in cases which have already been considered twice, initially by an independent administrative authority, then by the General Court, and that many of those appeals are dismissed by the Court of Justice because they are patently unfounded, or on the ground that they are manifestly inadmissible.

    In order to enable the Court of Justice to concentrate on the cases that require its full attention, it is therefore proposed, in the interests of the proper administration of justice, to introduce, for appeals relating to cases in which an independent administrative authority has already been seised prior to the action before the General Court, a mechanism whereby the Court determines whether an appeal should be allowed to proceed.

    It is proposed to establish such a procedure solely in situations where the dispute has already been considered by an independent administrative authority, that is, cases where an administrative appeal has taken place before the case is brought before the General Court. That applies to, inter alia, decisions adopted in relation to trade marks by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

    Within the framework of this mechanism, it will remain possible to contest the decisions of the General Court in those areas before the Court of Justice on appeal, limited to questions of law, but it will be necessary for the party challenging the decision of the General Court to establish, by means of a document annexed to the appeal, its interest in the light of the importance of the issue that it raises with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law.

activities/1/committees/1/shadows
  • group: GUE/NGL name: CHRYSOGONOS Kostas
committees/1/shadows
  • group: GUE/NGL name: CHRYSOGONOS Kostas
activities/0/commission/0
DG
Commissioner
TIMMERMANS Frans
other/0
body
EC
dg
commissioner
TIMMERMANS Frans
activities
  • date: 2018-03-26T00:00:00 docs: type: Legislative proposal published title: 02360/2018 body: EC commission: type: Legislative proposal published
  • date: 2018-04-16T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Constitutional Affairs committee: AFCO body: EP responsible: True committee_full: Legal Affairs committee: JURI
committees
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Constitutional Affairs committee: AFCO
  • body: EP responsible: True committee_full: Legal Affairs committee: JURI
links
other
    procedure
    dossier_of_the_committee
    JURI/8/12714
    reference
    2018/0900(COD)
    instrument
    Regulation
    legal_basis
    stage_reached
    Awaiting committee decision
    subtype
    Legislation
    title
    Statute of the Court of Justice: amendment of Protocol No 3
    type
    COD - Ordinary legislative procedure (ex-codecision procedure)
    subject
    8.40.04 Court of Justice, Court of First Instance