Changes from plenary report to adopted text

RemovedDRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

AddedP9_TA(2024)0086

Changedon the draft regulation of the European Parliament and of the CouncilAmendments amendingto Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union

Removed(07307/2022 – C9-0405/2022 – 2022/0906(COD))

AddedCommittee on Legal Affairs

AddedPE749.912

AddedEuropean Parliament legislative resolution of 27 February 2024 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 (07307/2022 – C9-0405/2022 – 2022/0906(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the request from the Court of Justice submitted to Parliament and the Council (07307/2022),

Changed– having regard to Article 256(3) and the second paragraphArticle of281, Articlesecond 281paragraph, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and Article 106a(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, pursuant to which the draft act was submitted to Parliament (C9-0405/2022),

– having regard to Article 294(3) and (15) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

– having regard to the opinion of the Commission (COM(2023)0135),

Added– having regard to the provisional agreement approved by the committee responsible under Rule 74(4) of its Rules of Procedure and the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 18 January 2024 to approve Parliament’s position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

▸5 unchanged paragraphs

– having regard to Rules 50 and 59 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A9-0278/2023),

1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice and the national parliaments.

Change 1

RemovedAMENDMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT*

AddedP9_TC1-COD(2022)0906

Removedto the draft by the Court of Justice

AddedPosition of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 27 February 2024 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/… of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union

Removed---------------------------------------------------------

Added(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2019.)

RemovedREGULATION (EU, Euratom) 2022/… of THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

Removedof

Removedamending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union

RemovedTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

RemovedHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 256(3) and the second paragraph of Article 281 thereof,

RemovedHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a(1) thereof,

RemovedHaving regard to the request of the Court of Justice of 30 November 2022,

RemovedAfter transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,

RemovedHaving regard to the opinion of the European Commission of …,

RemovedActing in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure,

RemovedWhereas:

Removed(1) At the invitation of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 December 2015, on 14 December 2017 the Court of Justice submitted to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission a report on possible changes to the distribution of jurisdiction to receive preliminary rulings under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. While, in that report, the Court of Justice took the view that there was no need, at that time, to propose changes as regards the manner of dealing with requests for preliminary rulings under Article 267, it nevertheless pointed out, in that same report, that a subsequent transfer of jurisdiction to the General Court to give preliminary rulings in certain specific areas could not be ruled out if the number and complexity of requests for a preliminary ruling submitted to the Court of Justice were to be such that the proper administration of justice required it. Furthermore, such a transfer is in line with the intentions of the authors of the Treaty of Nice, who sought to strengthen the efficiency of the judicial system of the Union by providing for the possibility of the General Court being involved in dealing with those requests.

Removed(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. As preliminary rulings have to be dealt with expeditiously in order to enable national courts to guarantee the right to an effective remedy, the current situation is not sustainable. 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, and to ensure the decisions of the Court of Justice are of the highest quality, 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 (TFEU) and to transfer to the General Court jurisdiction to hear and determine questions referred for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, in specific areas laid down by the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the Statute’).

Removed(2a) 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 and, in that framework, to enhance the dialogue with European courts. This enhanced dialogue should in particular be based on a greater use of the mechanism provided for in Article 101 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, which allows it to request clarification from a referring court within a time limit prescribed by the Court, in addition to the statements of case or written observations submitted by interested parties, referred to in Article 23 of the Statute.

Removed(2b) In this context, and as the Court of Justice is increasingly required to rule on matters of a constitutional nature and related to human rights and the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), the transparency and openness of the judicial process should be strengthened. To that end, the Statute should be modified to ensure that all documents deposited with the Registrar by the parties or by any third party in connection with an application are accessible to the public upon request. This would be in line with the principle of open decision-making. Transparency increases accountability and builds trust in the Union and in Union law. In preliminary ruling proceedings in particular, giving access to case-files will enable other national judges to better assess the necessity of referring additional references and thus reduce the overall workload on the Court of Justice. Such access should be granted in accordance with the arrangements and exceptions set out in the Statute, in order to preserve the calm and dignity of judicial deliberations and ensure that the public interest and fundamental rights, such as those laid down in Article 16 TFEU and Article 8 of the Charter which provide for the protection of personal data, Article 7 of the Charter which protects the right to private and family life and communications and Article 339 TFEU which requires the institutions to respect professional secrecy, are protected.

Removed(3) 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 Council1a, 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.

Removed(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. Furthermore, those areas must have given rise to a substantial body of case-law of the Court of Justice which is capable of guiding the General Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings.

Removed(5) The specific areas must moreover be determined taking into account the need to relieve the Court of Justice from having to examine a sufficiently high number of preliminary ruling cases so as to have a real impact on its workload.

Removed(6) The common system of value added tax, excise duties, the Customs Code and the tariff classification of goods under the Combined Nomenclature meet all of the abovementioned criteria to be regarded as specific areas within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 256(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Removed(7) The same is true of compensation and assistance to passengers and the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading. In addition to the fact that those two areas also meet the abovementioned criteria, the General Court is perfectly equipped to adjudicate on requests for a preliminary ruling in those areas, since their factual and technical context determines, to a large extent, the useful interpretation of the relevant provisions of Union law.

Removed(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 important, for reasons of legal certainty and expedition, for the referring courts not themselves to decide the question as to which Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine a request for a preliminary ruling. Every request for a preliminary ruling should therefore be submitted to the Court of Justice, which should determine, in accordance with detailed rules set out in its Rules of Procedure, whether the request falls exclusively within one or several specific defined areas laid down in the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and, accordingly, whether that request must be transmitted to the General Court. ▌

Removed(8a) The Court of Justice should continue to adjudicate on requests for a preliminary ruling that, although they might be connected to those specific areas, also concern other areas, since the first subparagraph of Article 256(3) TFEU does not provide any possibility of transferring to the General Court jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings in areas other than the specific areas.

Removed(8b) The right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law is a fundamental right of Union citizens guaranteed by the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter. To ensure that that right is respected, the provisions of the Statute should clearly state that the Court of Justice will retain jurisdiction pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 256(3) TFEU where the request for a preliminary ruling raises independent questions of interpretation of primary law, public international law, general principles of Union law or the Charter, having regard to their horizontal nature, even where the legal framework of the case in the main proceedings falls within one or more of the specific areas referred to in Article 50b(1) of the Statute.

Removed(8c) Following a preliminary analysis, and after hearing the Vice-President of the Court of Justice and the First Advocate General, the President of the Court of Justice should inform the Registry whether the request should be transmitted to the General Court or should be referred to the general meeting of all Judges and Advocate Generals for further analysis.

Removed(8d) In the interest of greater transparency in judicial proceedings, the General Court or the Court of Justice should briefly provide reasons, in its ruling on a preliminary reference, as to why it is competent to hear and determine a question referred for a preliminary ruling, in particular in cases where the preliminary reference raises questions relating to the interpretation of Union primary law, public international law, general principles of Union law or the Charter in the case of the General Court or where the references concern one of the specific areas referred to in Article 50b(1) of the Statute in the case of the Court of Justice. In addition, the Court should publish and regularly update a list of examples illustrating the application of Article 50b of the Statute.

Removed(8e) The General Court should have jurisdiction to hear and determine on 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 jurisdiction or admissibility, since the rules governing those issues should from now on be applied by both courts.

Removed(8f) The second paragraph of Article 54 of the Statute provides that, where the General Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action, it is to refer that action to the Court of Justice. The same obligation should apply if the General Court, while examining a request for a preliminary ruling submitted to it, finds that the request does not meet the criteria laid down in Article 50b(1) of the Statute.

Removed(8g) Furthermore, the General Court may, pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 256(3) TFEU, refer to the Court of Justice a case that falls within its jurisdiction but requires a decision of principle likely to affect the unity or consistency of Union law.

Removed(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 should adopt procedural rules equivalent to those applied by the Court of Justice when dealing with requests for a preliminary ruling, in particular as regards the designation of an Advocate General. The Advocate General should be elected from among the Judges that do not belong to a chamber that is designated to deal with preliminary references, to serve for a period of at least three years with a possibility of being re-elected.

Removed(10) Having regard to the specific features of preliminary ruling proceedings as compared with direct actions over which the General Court has jurisdiction, it is appropriate to allocate requests for a preliminary ruling to chambers of the General Court designated for that purpose.

Removed(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. Given the increased responsibilities, introduced as a result of this Regulation, of the General Court, which will give final judgment in the requests for a preliminary ruling transmitted to it pursuant to the Statute as amended by this Regulation, a Member State or an Union institution should be able to request the convening of such chamber of intermediate size.

Removed(12) The statistics of the Court of Justice also highlight a high number of appeals brought against the decisions of the General Court. With a view to maintaining the efficiency of appeal proceedings and allowing the Court of Justice to focus on the appeals that raise important legal questions, it is appropriate to extend the mechanism for the determination of whether an appeal is allowed to proceed, whilst ensuring that the requirements inherent in effective judicial protection are met.

Removed(13) With this in mind, it is necessary, first, 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.

Removed(14) Second, it is necessary to 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. Those disputes require the General Court merely to apply to the substance of the dispute the national law to which the arbitration clause refers and thus do not raise, in principle, issues that are significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of Union law.

Removed(14a) As the institution that, in accordance with Article 10(2) of the Treaty on European Union, directly represents the citizens at Union level the European Parliament should be included in the list of parties that can, under Article 23 of the Statute, submit statements of case or written observations to the Court of Justice in preliminary ruling proceedings, irrespective of whether an act it has adopted is in dispute.