Next event: Draft final act 2024/04/11 more...
- Act adopted by Council after Parliament's 1st reading 2024/03/19
- Decision by Parliament, 1st reading 2024/02/27
- Approval in committee of the text agreed at 1st reading interinstitutional negotiations 2024/01/24
- Committee decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations confirmed by plenary (Rule 71) 2023/10/04
- Committee decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations announced in plenary (Rule 71) 2023/10/02
- Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading 2023/09/27
- Vote in committee, 1st reading 2023/09/19
- Committee decision to open interinstitutional negotiations with report adopted in committee 2023/09/19
- Committee opinion 2023/07/19
- Amendments tabled in committee 2023/07/07
Progress: Awaiting signature of act
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | JURI | CICUREL Ilana ( Renew) | NIEBLER Angelika ( EPP), REPASI René ( S&D), BREYER Patrick ( Verts/ALE), LEBRETON Gilles ( ID), DZHAMBAZKI Angel ( ECR) |
Committee Opinion | AFCO | SIMON Sven ( EPP) | Jacek SARYUSZ-WOLSKI ( ECR), Helmut SCHOLZ ( GUE/NGL), Giuliano PISAPIA ( S&D), Damian BOESELAGER ( Verts/ALE), Max ORVILLE ( RE) |
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
Euratom Treaty A 106a-pa, TFEU 281-p2
Legal Basis:
Euratom Treaty A 106a-pa, TFEU 281-p2Events
The European Parliament adopted by 600 votes to 13, with 12 abstentions, a legislative resolution on the draft regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The European Parliament's position adopted at first reading under the ordinary legislative procedure amends the Commission's proposal as follows:
Transfer of jurisdiction to hear and determine questions referred for a preliminary ruling to the General Court
In order to enable the Court of Justice to continue to fulfil its task of protecting and strengthening the unity and consistency of Union law, and to ensure that the Court's decisions are of the highest quality, it is necessary to transfer to the General Court jurisdiction to hear and determine questions referred for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in specific areas determined by the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The transfer to the General Court of part of the jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings should enable the Court of Justice to devote more time and resources to examining the most complex and sensitive requests for a preliminary ruling.
Case before the Court of Justice
The text stated that in the cases governed by Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the decision of the court or tribunal of a Member State which suspends its proceedings and refers a case to the Court of Justice should be notified to the Court by the court or tribunal concerned. The decision should then be notified by the Registrar of the Court to the parties, to the Member States, to the European Parliament, to the Council, to the Commission and to the European Central Bank, as well as to the institution, body, office or agency of the Union which adopted the act the validity or interpretation of which is in dispute.
Within two months of this notification, the parties, the Member States, the Commission and, where they consider they have a particular interest in the issues raised by the request for a preliminary ruling, the European Parliament, the Council and the European Central Bank should be entitled to submit statements of case or written observations to the Court of Justice. Where appropriate, the institution, body, office or agency which has adopted the act the validity or interpretation of which is in dispute should also be entitled to submit statements of case or written observations.
General Court
The General Court should be assisted by one or more Advocates General in dealing with requests for a preliminary ruling transmitted. The Judges of the General Court should elect from among their number, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the Members that are to perform the duties of Advocate General. In the period during which those Members perform the duties of Advocate General, they shall not sit as Judges in requests for a preliminary ruling.
For each request for a preliminary ruling, the Advocate General should be selected from among the Judges elected to perform that duty who belong to a chamber other than the chamber to which the request in question has been assigned. The Judges elected to perform the duties referred to in the second paragraph should be elected for a term of three years. They may be re-elected once.
Court’s jurisdiction
The General Court should have jurisdiction to hear and determine requests for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that come exclusively within one or several of the following specific areas:
- the common system of value added tax;
- excise duties;
- the Customs Code;
- the tariff classification of goods under the Combined Nomenclature;
- compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding or of delay or cancellation of transport services;
- the system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading.
The Court of Justice should retain jurisdiction to hear and determine requests for a preliminary ruling that raise independent questions relating to the interpretation of primary law, public international law, general principles of Union law or the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Where the General Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action or a request for a preliminary ruling in respect of which the Court of Justice has jurisdiction, it should refer that action or request to the Court of Justice. Likewise, where the Court of Justice finds that an action or a request for a preliminary ruling falls within the jurisdiction of the General Court, it should refer that action or request to the General Court, whereupon that Court may not decline jurisdiction.
Monitoring
The proposed Regulation entails a significant change to the Union’s judicial framework and therefore its implementation should be closely monitored. To that end, the Court of Justice should submit to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, in a timely manner, a report on the transfer to the General Court of jurisdiction for preliminary rulings in specific areas and on the extension of the mechanism for the determination of whether an appeal is allowed to proceed. The Court of Justice should, in particular, provide information that allows an assessment of the extent to which the stated objectives were achieved, having regard to the speed with which cases were dealt with and the efficiency of the examination of the most complex or sensitive appeals and requests for a preliminary ruling.
The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted the report by Ilana CICUREL (Renew, FR) on the draft regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The committee responsible recommended that the European Parliament's position adopted at first reading under the ordinary legislative procedure should amend the proposal as follows:
As a reminder, following the reform of the Union’s judicial framework as a result of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/2422 of the European Parliament and of the Council, 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 to give preliminary rulings.
The report introduces new articles into the Statute concerning:
Right of access to documents
Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, shall have a right to access, upon request, documents of the Court in accordance with arrangements set out in the Rules of Procedure. The President shall refuse access to a document, either of his or her own motion or at the request of a party or any other person concerned, where disclosure would undermine protection of the public interest, or the privacy or the integrity of an individual.
The President shall also refuse access to a document where disclosure would undermine the protection of commercial interests or the Court’s decision-making process, unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.
Notification of cases
In the cases governed by Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the decision of the court or tribunal of a Member State which suspends its proceedings and refers a case to the Court of Justice shall be notified to the Court by the court or tribunal concerned. The decision shall then be notified by the Registrar of the Court to the parties, to the Member States, to the European Parliament, to the Commission and to the institution, body, office or agency of the Union which adopted the act the validity or interpretation of which is in dispute.
Within two months of this notification, the parties, the Member States, the Commission, the European Parliament and, where appropriate, the institution, body, office or agency which adopted the act the validity or interpretation of which is in dispute, shall be entitled to submit statements of case or written observations to the Court.
Administration of justice
The report noted that there is an upward trend in the number of requests for a preliminary ruling, that are meanwhile becoming increasingly complex and sensitive. Examination of these cases therefore requires greater mobilisation of the Court’s resources, resulting in an increase in the average length of time needed to deal with cases. Therefore, the report introduced a new article stipulating that the General Court shall be assisted by one or more Advocate Generals in dealing with requests for a preliminary ruling transmitted to it.
The Judges of the General Court shall elect, in accordance with its Rules of Procedure and only from the Judges among their number who do not belong to a Chamber which is designated to deal with requests for a preliminary ruling transmitted to the General Court, the Judges that are to perform the duties of an Advocate General.
The Judges elected to perform the duties shall be elected for a term of three years . They may be re-elected once.
Request for a preliminary ruling
The amended text added that the Court of Justice shall retain jurisdiction to hear and determine requests for a preliminary ruling that raise independent questions relating to the interpretation of primary law, public international law, general principles of Union law or the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Where the General Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action or a request for a preliminary ruling in respect of which the Court of Justice has jurisdiction, it shall refer that action or request to the Court of Justice. Likewise, where the Court of Justice finds that an action or a request for a preliminary ruling falls within the jurisdiction of the General Court, it shall refer that action to the General Court, whereupon that Court may not decline jurisdiction.
Moreover, Members stressed that any amendment of this Statute at the request of the Court of Justice shall be subject to a public consultation of two months being carried out prior to the adoption of the legislative request by the Court of Justice.
Monitoring
Lastly, given that the proposed regulation entails a significant change to the Union’s judicial framework, Members considered that its implementation should be closely monitored. To that end, the Court of Justice shall submit to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, in a timely manner, a report on the transfer to the General Court of jurisdiction for preliminary rulings in specific areas and on the extension of the initial admission mechanism for appeals . The Court shall, in particular, provide information that allows for an assessment of the extent to which the stated objectives were achieved, having regard to the speed with which cases were dealt with and the efficiency of the examination of the most complex or sensitive appeals and requests for a preliminary ruling.
The Commission delivered an opinion on the draft amendment to Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, presented by the Court of Justice on 30 November 2022.
Context
As a reminder, on 30 November 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union submitted a request to the European Parliament and the Council under the second paragraph of Article 281 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) to amend Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Statute).
The main part of that request is 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 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.
The second part is a proposal to extend the mechanism for the determination of whether an appeal is allowed to proceed provided for under Article 58a of the Statute, which would be consolidated and replaced. These two parts are accompanied by a proposal for a specific amendment to Article 50 of the Statute as regards the composition of the chambers of the General Court.
Favourable opinion from the Commission
The Commission gives a favourable opinion on the draft amendment to Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, presented by the Court of Justice on 30 November 2022.
The Commission judges that it is essential that the Court of Justice is able to fulfil its role as the supreme judicial body of the Union. In order to do so, it must be able to focus more on cases which raise issues of fundamental importance to the Union legal order, by devoting all necessary resources to the handling of those cases and, where this proves necessary, by deepening dialogue with national courts, including courts of last instance, to ensure the unity of the Union legal order.
In view of the constant increase in the number of requests for a preliminary ruling, which must be dealt with expeditiously in order to enable national courts to guarantee individuals respect for the right to an effective remedy, the Commission agrees with the Court of Justice that, despite the difficulties inherent in such an operation, it has become necessary for the Court of Justice and the General Court to share jurisdiction over requests for a preliminary ruling .
Comments
The Commission does, however, have some comments on the main aspect of the request made by the Court of Justice, namely the transfer to the General Court of jurisdiction to hear and determine the questions referred for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU in specific areas.
a) Choice and definition of specific areas
The Court of Justice has identified the following specific areas: the common system of value added tax; excise duties; the Customs Code and the tariff classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature; compensation and assistance to passengers; the system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading.
The Commission welcomes the choice of specific areas identified. As regards the definition of those specific areas, it may be useful to clarify further the areas in which jurisdiction over preliminary rulings is transferred to the General Court, while retaining the flexibility necessary to ensure that those areas are defined so as to ensure their allocation in such a way that takes into account developments in the acquis.
b) The condition that a request for a preliminary ruling falls ‘exclusively within one or several of the specific areas’
The Court of Justice proposes that the General Court acquire jurisdiction to hear and determine requests for a preliminary ruling which fall ‘exclusively within one or several of the specific areas’, so that a request for a preliminary ruling involving issues relating both to those specific areas and to other areas would remain with the Court of Justice.
The Commission agrees with this approach in principle. However, it considers that it would be preferable to clarify, preferably in the recitals to the draft Regulation, what is meant by ‘exclusively within one or several of the specific areas’ in the situation that regularly arises, in which a request for a preliminary ruling includes issues both of interpretation or validity of provisions of a Union act falling within one or several of the specific areas, and of issues of interpretation of primary law provisions, general principles of law or the Charter.
According to the Commission, a request for a preliminary ruling which raises questions which do not relate as such to the interpretation of an act falling within one of those specific areas but, for example, to provisions of primary law, general principles of law or the Charter should remain within the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice even if the legal context of the main proceedings falls within one of those specific areas.
Lastly, it would also be preferable to specify the arrangements for allocating requests for a preliminary ruling which, in addition to issues falling within one or more of the specific areas, explicitly or implicitly raise issues of the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice or admissibility.
The Commission sees no compelling reasons against the transfer of such requests to the General Court.
c) The detailed rules and procedure applicable to the handling of requests for a preliminary ruling by the General Court
The Court of Justice proposes that the General Court hear the preliminary ruling cases transferred to it in chambers designated for that purpose, in accordance with the detailed rules set out in the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
The Commission supports the greater specialisation of the Chambers of the General Court. Furthermore, the Commission considers that the General Court should include in its Rules of Procedure, and effectively apply in practice, all the detailed rules of procedure enabling requests for a preliminary ruling to be dealt with expeditiously, including, in particular, the possibility of deciding a case without a hearing or without the Advocate General’s Opinion, or by reasoned order.
On the designation of Advocates-General, the Commission has no objections as such to the provision proposed by the Court of Justice in the draft amendment to the Statute.
As regards the second part of the reform and the specific amendment to Article 50 of the Statute, the Commission has no particular remarks to make and is able to give a favourable opinion on this subject.
PURPOSE: request by the Court of Justice, under Article 281, second paragraph, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to amend Protocol No 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: at the invitation of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 December 2015, the Court of Justice submitted to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, on 14 December 2017, 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. 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 requests.
Five years later, however, the situation is very different. On the one hand, the number of requests for a preliminary ruling brought before the Court of Justice has followed an upward trend and has resulted, for several years, in the gradual increase in the length of proceedings owing to the difficulty for the Court of Justice to deal, as expeditiously as before, with requests that are not only more numerous but also increasingly complex or sensitive. On the other hand, the reform of the judicial framework of the European Union has now been fully carried out.
Against this background, the present request to amend Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union has a twofold objective:
(1) lay down the specific areas in which the General Court is to have jurisdiction, pursuant to Article 256(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to hear and determine questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the courts of Member States under Article 267 of that Treaty;
(2) include within the scope of the mechanism for the determination of whether an appeal is allowed to proceed, which entered into force on 1 May 2019, appeals brought against decisions of the General Court handed down in respect of decisions of boards of appeals of offices, bodies or agencies of the Union which already existed on the abovementioned date but which are not yet referred to in the first paragraph of Article 58a of the Statute, and to extend that mechanism to the disputes referred to in Article 272 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, relating to arbitration clauses contained in a contract concluded by or on behalf of the Union, whether that contract be governed by public or private law.
CONTENT: made on the basis of the second paragraph of Article 281 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the present request for amendment of Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union contains two parts:
I. The transfer, to the General Court, of jurisdiction to hear and determine questions referred for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in specific areas laid down by the Statute
After carrying out an in-depth analysis of the relevant statistics relating to the cases closed by the Court of Justice between 1 January 2017 and 30 September 2022, the Court of Justice has identified specific areas that correspond to the abovementioned parameters: (i) the common system of value added tax, (ii) excise duties, (iii) the Customs Code and the tariff classification of goods under the Combined Nomenclature, (iv) compensation and assistance to passengers, and (v) the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading.
The transfer, to the General Court, of the Court of Justice’s jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings made in the abovementioned areas should lead to a significant reduction in the workload of the Court of Justice, since such requests represent, on average, roughly 20% of all requests for a preliminary ruling brought before the Court of Justice each year.
The Court's request specifies how the Court of Justice and the General Court distribute jurisdiction for preliminary rulings and how the General Court is to deal with requests for preliminary rulings.
Thus, any reference under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be submitted to the Court of Justice. After verifying, in accordance with the rules of procedure, that the reference for a preliminary ruling relates exclusively to one or more of the above-mentioned matters, the Court of Justice would transmit the reference to the General Court.
It is further provided that references for preliminary rulings submitted to the General Court will be assigned, in accordance with the rules laid down in its Rules of Procedure, to chambers designated for that purpose. In such cases, an Advocate General will be appointed in accordance with the rules of procedure.
II. Extension of the mechanism for the prior admission of appeals to the Court
In order to preserve the efficiency of the appeal procedure and to enable the Court of Justice to concentrate on appeals raising important questions of law, the mechanism for the prior admission of appeals should be extended, while ensuring that the requirements of effective judicial protection are respected.
To this end, it is planned to :
- extend that mechanism to appeals whose subject matter is a decision of the General Court concerning the decision of an independent board of appeal of an office, body or agency of the Union which, on 1 May 2019, had such an independent board of appeal but to which Article 58a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union does not yet refer. Such appeals concern cases which have already been considered twice, initially by an independent board of appeal, then by the General Court, with the result that the right to effective judicial protection is fully guaranteed;
- extend the abovementioned mechanism to disputes relating to the performance of contracts containing an arbitration clause , within the meaning of Article 272 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Documents
- Draft final act: 00085/2023/LEX
- Decision by Parliament, 1st reading: T9-0086/2024
- Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading: A9-0278/2023
- Committee opinion: PE749.876
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE751.628
- Committee draft report: PE749.912
- Contribution: COM(2023)0135
- Document attached to the procedure: COM(2023)0135
- Legislative proposal published: 07307/2022
- Document attached to the procedure: COM(2023)0135
- Committee draft report: PE749.912
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE751.628
- Committee opinion: PE749.876
- Draft final act: 00085/2023/LEX
- Contribution: COM(2023)0135
Activities
- Ilana CICUREL
Plenary Speeches (0)
Amendments | Dossier |
53 |
2022/0906(COD)
2023/06/29
AFCO
53 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft Regulation 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.
Amendment 10 #
Draft Regulation Recital 4 (4) For reasons of legal certainty, the areas in which jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings is
Amendment 11 #
Draft Regulation 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
Amendment 12 #
Draft Regulation Recital 6 (6) The common system of value added tax, excise duties, the Customs Code and the tariff classification of goods under the
Amendment 13 #
Draft Regulation Recital 7 (7)
Amendment 14 #
Draft Regulation Recital 8 (8)
Amendment 15 #
Draft Regulation 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 of legal certainty and expedition, for the referring courts not themselves to
Amendment 16 #
Draft Regulation 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 of legal certainty and expedition, for the referring courts not themselves to decide the question as to which of the Courts of the Union has jurisdiction to hear and determine a request for a preliminary
Amendment 17 #
Draft Regulation 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
Amendment 18 #
Draft Regulation 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
Amendment 19 #
Draft Regulation 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
Amendment 2 #
Draft Regulation 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. That situation is attributable not only to the high number of requests for a preliminary ruling of which the Court of Justice is seised each year, but also to the great complexity and particularly sensitive nature of a growing number of questions put to that court. In order to allow the Court of Justice to continue to fulfil its mission, including in safeguarding and strengthening the unity and consistency of Union law, 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 20 #
Draft Regulation Recital 8 a (new) (8a) 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 21 #
Draft Regulation Recital 8 a (new) (8a) Should the General Court find that, during the examination of a request for a preliminary ruling, it does not have jurisdiction according to Article 50b, paragraph 1, of the Statute, it shall refer the request to the Court of Justice.
Amendment 22 #
Draft Regulation Recital 8 b (new) (8b) In order to ensure compliance with the principle of legality, the provisions of the Statute should clearly state that the Court of Justice will retain jurisdiction where, pursuant to Article 256, paragraph 3, first paragraph of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, the request for a preliminary ruling, notwithstanding the fact that the main proceedings fall under one or more of the subjects referred to in Article 50b, paragraph 1, of the Statute, raises autonomous questions of interpretation of primary law, international public law, general principles of law or of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, taking into account the horizontal nature of the latter.
Amendment 23 #
Draft Regulation Recital 8 c (new) (8c) In order to ensure clarity and legal predictability in the implementation of the distribution of competence to examine preliminary rulings, the Court should publish and update periodically a list of examples illustrating the application of article 50b of the Statute.
Amendment 24 #
Draft Regulation Recital 9 (9) In order to provide the national courts and the interested persons referred to in Article 23 of the Statute with the same guarantees as those provided by the Court of Justice, the General Court
Amendment 25 #
Draft Regulation Recital 9 (9)
Amendment 26 #
Draft Regulation Recital 10 (10)
Amendment 27 #
Draft Regulation Recital 10 (10) Having regard to the specific features of preliminary ruling proceedings as compared with direct actions over which the General Court has jurisdiction,
Amendment 28 #
Draft Regulation Recital 11 (11) In addition, in order to maintain in particular the consistency of preliminary rulings given by the General Court, and in the interests of the proper administration of justice, provision should be made for a formation of the court of an intermediate size between the chambers of five Judges and the Grand Chamber. As a result of the new competences of the General Court, which will become final judge in addressing certain requests for preliminary ruling, the intermediate size chamber should sit in full composition where a Member State or an institution of the European Union concerned so requests.
Amendment 29 #
Draft Regulation Recital 11 (11) In addition,
Amendment 3 #
Draft Regulation 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. Th
Amendment 30 #
Draft Regulation Recital 13 (13) With this in mind, it is necessary
Amendment 31 #
Draft Regulation Recital 14 Amendment 32 #
Draft Regulation Recital 14 a (new) (14a) This Regulation provides for a significant development of the judiciary framework of the Union, of which the implementation should be monitored closely. To this end, the Court should report no later than three years after the entry into force of this Regulation, on the transfer to the Court of preliminary jurisdiction in specific subjects and the extension of the mechanism of the prior admission to appeals to the Court to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. In this report, the Court should draw up an assessment of the implementation of this reform. In particular, this report should contain elements to appreciate the achievement of the objectives pursued by this reform, taking into account both the speed at which cases are processed as well as the qualitative gains observed in the examination of appeals and requests for preliminary ruling in more complex and sensitive cases.
Amendment 33 #
Draft Regulation Recital 14 b (new) (14b) It is for the above reasons appropriate to amend Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the following way:
Amendment 34 #
Draft Regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union 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 the
Amendment 35 #
Draft Regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union Article 50 The General Court, seized pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, shall sit in full intermediate size chamber when a Member State or an institution of the Union concerned so requests.
Amendment 36 #
Draft Regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Article 50b(1) (1) The General Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine requests for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that come exclusively within one or several of the following specific areas:
Amendment 37 #
Draft Regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union Article 50b – the Customs Code
Amendment 38 #
Draft Regulation 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 – the Customs Code
Amendment 39 #
Draft Regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union Article 50b - the tariff classification of goods under the Combined Nomenclature;
Amendment 4 #
Draft Regulation Recital 2 a (new) (2a) The transfer to the General Court of a part of the competence to examine requests for preliminary ruling should enable the Court of Justice to allocate more time and resources to the examination of more complex and sensitive requests for preliminary ruling. The General Court in turn has the capacity to address these requests as a priority matter, which will improve the efficiency of European justice and strengthen the implementation of the rights of European citizens. This transfer of competence should also promote the uniform application of EU law and increase legal certainty throughout the EU and its Member States.
Amendment 40 #
Draft Regulation 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) - the tariff classification of goods under the Combined Nomenclature;
Amendment 41 #
Draft Regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union Article 50b – paragraph 1a (new) 1a. When a request for a preliminary ruling raises questions that relate to provisions of primary law, general principles of law, or the Charter of Fundamental Rights, it shall remain within the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice even if the legal context of the main proceedings falls within one of the specific areas indicated in paragraph 1.
Amendment 42 #
Draft Regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union Article 50b 1a. A request for a preliminary ruling does not come exclusively within one or several of the above specific areas when it raises autonomous questions of interpretation of primary law, international public law, general principles of law or of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Amendment 43 #
Draft Regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Article 50b(2) (2) Every request for a preliminary ruling made under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union shall be submitted to the
Amendment 44 #
Draft Regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union 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 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 within a reasonable time to the General Court.
Amendment 45 #
Draft Regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union Article 50b – 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 submitted to a single court, namely the Court of
Amendment 46 #
Draft Regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union 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 47 #
Draft Regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union Article 50b (new) 2a. The requests referred to in paragraph 1 that contain elements connected to the interpretation or validity of Union primary law should remain within the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice.
Amendment 48 #
Draft Regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union Article 50b – paragraph 2a (new) 2a. Where the General Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine a request for preliminary ruling, it shall refer the request back to the Court of Justice.
Amendment 49 #
Draft Regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union Article 58a – paragraph 2 – indent 2 Amendment 5 #
Draft Regulation Recital 2 b (new) (2b) A new and improved distribution of labour between the Court of Justice and the General Court should also give way for a more intense dialogue between EU and Member States’ courts and tribunals. This dialogue is a centrepiece of the “ever closer union” and is critical to increase the resilience of European democracy and legal system. This dialogue could further be developed through an extended application of Article 101 of the Court’s rules of procedure, which allows the Court to request clarifications to the referring court, in addition to briefs or observations submitted by the interested parties referred to in Article 23 of the Statute.
Amendment 50 #
Draft Regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 51 #
Draft Regulation 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.
Amendment 52 #
Draft Regulation Article 4 a (new) Amendment 53 #
Draft Regulation Article 4 a (new) Article4a 1. At the latest three years after the entry into force of the current Regulation, the Court of Justice shall present to the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission a report on its implementation and impact. 2. This report shall include, inter alia: - the total number of requests for preliminary rulings received under Article 267 TFEU and the average length for dealing with preliminary ruling cases; - the number of requests for preliminary rulings in each of the specific areas indicated in Article 50b, paragraph 1, of the Statute, and the average length for dealing with preliminary ruling cases in these areas; - the number of requests for preliminary rulings in these specific areas that were transferred to the General Court, and the average length for dealing with preliminary ruling cases in these areas in the General Court; - the number of requests for preliminary rulings that despite falling within one of these specific areas were not transferred to the General Court, as well as the number of requests that were first transferred to the General Court but then referred to the Court of Justice.
Amendment 6 #
Draft Regulation 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,
Amendment 7 #
Draft Regulation 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 Union resulting from Regulation (EU,
Amendment 8 #
Draft Regulation Recital 3 (3)
Amendment 9 #
Draft Regulation Recital 4 (4) For reasons of legal certainty, the areas in which jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings is conferred on the General Court must be clearly defined and sufficiently separable from other areas.
source: 750.158
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
events/10 |
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting signature of actNew
Procedure completed, awaiting publication in Official Journal |
events/10 |
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting signature of actNew
Procedure completed, awaiting publication in Official Journal |
events/10 |
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting signature of actNew
Procedure completed, awaiting publication in Official Journal |
events/10 |
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting signature of actNew
Procedure completed, awaiting publication in Official Journal |
docs/4 |
|
events/9 |
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Council's 1st reading positionNew
Awaiting signature of act |
docs/4 |
|
events/9 |
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Council's 1st reading positionNew
Awaiting signature of act |
events/9 |
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Council's 1st reading positionNew
Awaiting signature of act |
events/9 |
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Council's 1st reading positionNew
Awaiting signature of act |
events/9 |
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Council's 1st reading positionNew
Awaiting signature of act |
events/9 |
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Council's 1st reading positionNew
Awaiting signature of act |
docs/4 |
|
events/8/summary |
|
docs/4 |
|
events/8 |
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Parliament's position in 1st readingNew
Awaiting Council's 1st reading position |
forecasts |
|
events/7 |
|
forecasts/0/date |
Old
2024-02-05T00:00:00New
2024-02-26T00:00:00 |
links |
|
forecasts |
|
docs/0 |
|
docs/4 |
|
docs/4/date |
Old
2023-04-11T00:00:00New
2023-04-12T00:00:00 |
docs/5 |
|
events/0/date |
Old
2022-12-04T00:00:00New
2022-12-05T00:00:00 |
committees/0/shadows/5 |
|
docs/5 |
|
events/4/summary |
|
events/6 |
|
events/5 |
|
docs/5/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2023-0278_EN.html
|
events/4/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2023-0278_EN.html
|
docs/5 |
|
events/4 |
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting committee decisionNew
Awaiting Parliament's position in 1st reading |
events/2 |
|
events/3 |
|
procedure/Other legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 159
|
committees/0/shadows/5 |
|
docs/4 |
|
docs/3 |
|
committees/0/shadows/5 |
|
docs/2 |
|
commission |
|
docs/2 |
|
docs/1/summary |
|
docs/1/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2023/0135/COM_COM(2023)0135_EN.pdf
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
docs/1 |
|
committees/0/shadows |
|
events/0 |
|
committees/1/rapporteur |
|
events/0 |
|
committees/0/rapporteur |
|
events/0 |
|
docs/0/summary |
|
events/0 |
|
events/1 |
|
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Preparatory phase in ParliamentNew
Awaiting committee decision |