Changes from plenary report to adopted text

RemovedEXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Removed1. The Parliament supports the overall objective of this reform: improving the quality of justice for European citizens, by ensuring that cases brought before the Union’s courts are dealt with expeditiously and that sufficient resources can be allocated to examination of the most complex and sensitive cases.

RemovedAbove all, the reform aims to modify the allocation of cases between the Court of Justice and the General Court by giving the latter jurisdiction to hear and determine requests for a preliminary ruling relating to one or more of the specific areas identified by the legislators. The Parliament supports this change as:

Removed- It ensures proper administration of justice. 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. At the same time, the doubling of the number of judges of the General Court, decided upon during the 2015 reform, places the General Court in a good position to be given additional jurisdiction, bearing in mind that the principle of transferring jurisdiction to the General Court to give preliminary rulings in specific areas has been enshrined in Article 256 TFEU since the adoption of the Treaty of Nice. The clear definition of the areas identified by the Court satisfies that principle and will allow cases to be transferred in a controlled manner.

RemovedIt must also lead to an improvement in the quality of the rulings handed down by the Court on the most sensitive and complex requests for a preliminary ruling, by allowing the Court to allocate more time and resources to them. In this regard, the Parliament insists that the reform be used as a lever for enhanced dialogue between the Court and the referring courts. The Parliament therefore calls on the Court to make greater use of the corresponding tools in its Rules of Procedure.

RemovedThe second objective of the draft reform is to broaden the scope of the initial admission mechanism for appeals before the Court so that it can devote more resources to examination of the most legally complex appeals. The Parliament also endorses this objective.

Removed2. Nonetheless, the Parliament would like to further clarify and strengthen certain aspects of the Court’s proposal.

Removed- The Parliament considers the proposed one-stop-shop mechanism is relevant but would like to see the respective jurisdictions of the Court and the General Court clearly defined by the co-legislators in order to comply with the principle of legality. In this regard, the Parliament chose to indicate in the Statute itself that the Court will continue to have jurisdiction on requests for preliminary ruling that raise independent questions of interpretation of primary law, public international law, general principles of law or the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, even where the legal framework of the case in the main proceedings falls within one or several of the specific areas referred to in Article 50b(1) of the Statute. In order to ensure that the jurisdictions thus defined by the legislator are respected, the Parliament proposes that Article 54 of the Statute be updated accordingly. Finally, the Parliament asks that the General Court or the Court of Justice 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 and that examples of the application of the criteria laid down in Article 50b of the Statute be published and regularly updated.

RemovedGiven the increased responsibilities of the General Court as a result of the reform, the Parliament insists that procedural guarantees before it be further strengthened. The Parliament proposes to clarify in the Statute itself that Advocate Generals designated to deal with request for a preliminary ruling will have to be elected from among the Judges that do not belong to a chamber designated to deal with preliminary references. The Parliament also proposes allowing a Member State or EU institution that is party to the proceedings to request the convening of the chamber of intermediate size created by this reform.

Removed3. As the institution that directly represents the citizens at Union level, the Parliament asks to be included in the list of parties that according to the Statute can 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.

Removed4. The Parliament also proposes that all documents deposited with the Registrar be made accessible upon request in order to strengthen the transparency of the judicial process and the understanding of EU law. The Parliament stresses that this issues is intrinsically linked to the preliminary ruling proceedings, as giving access to case-files will enable national judges to better assess the necessity of referring additional references and thus reduce the overall workload on the Court of Justice. The Parliament also stresses that such access should be granted under strict conditions, to ensure that the public interests and fundamental rights of individuals are protected.

Removed5. This reform entails a significant change to the Union’s judicial framework: the Parliament calls for close monitoring of its implementation.

RemovedWith this in mind, the Parliament asks that the Court draw up a report within three years providing an initial assessment of the implementation of this reform. The report will allow the Parliament to assess the extent to which the stated objectives were achieved, in particular as regards increasing the resources allocated to the most complex and sensitive cases, as well as the necessity to amend the list of specific areas.

RemovedThe Parliament also suggests that future amendments of this Statute be subject to a public consultation of two months prior to the adoption of the legislative request by the Court of Justice.

RemovedArticle 1 of the Regulation

RemovedAmendment to Article 50 of the Statute: new paragraph 4

RemovedUnder Article 16 of the Statute, a Member State or an institution of the Union that is party to proceedings may request the convening of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice.

RemovedAs the Court points out, however, the procedure used for requests for a preliminary ruling before the General Court must provide the same guarantees as those offered by the Court.

RemovedAccording to the Court, it should not be necessary to convene the Grand Chamber of the General Court in order to rule on questions transmitted to the General Court for a preliminary ruling.

RemovedInstead, it provides for the creation in the General Court of chambers of an intermediate size to deal with cases that merit the attention of more than five judges.

RemovedIt thus proposes including in the Statute a provision enabling any Member State or institution of the Union that is party to proceedings to request the convening of this intermediate chamber.

RemovedThis additional guarantee is consistent with the implications of the increased responsibilities of the General Court, as the reform will mean that it will automatically give final judgment in the requests for a preliminary ruling transmitted to it.

RemovedArticle 2 of the Regulation

RemovedAmendment to paragraph 2 of new Article 50b of the Statute

RemovedUnder Article 256(3) TFEU, the General Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine questions referred for a preliminary ruling in specific areas identified by the legislature. This interpretation of secondary legislation may be made in the light of higher sources of law, which the General Court will therefore also be required to interpret.

RemovedHowever, requests for a preliminary ruling may also raise independent questions of interpretation of higher sources of law, in other words, questions that are not intended to act as a guide for the interpretation of secondary legislation needed to resolve the dispute in the main proceedings.

RemovedThese questions are horizontal by nature and, therefore, they must not, pursuant to Article 256(3) TFEU, fall under the jurisdiction of the General Court.

RemovedIt is proposed that this crucial aspect of the proposal be clarified in the body of Article 50b.

RemovedArticle 2a of the Regulation

RemovedAmendment to the second paragraph of Article 54 of the Statute

RemovedArticle 54 of the Statute currently requires the General Court to refer to the Court of Justice any action brought before it that does not fall within its jurisdiction.

RemovedIt should be clarified that the General Court would be subject to the same requirement if a request for a preliminary ruling transmitted to it did not fall within its jurisdiction, and vice versa. This would apply, in particular, to the scenario whereby the General Court realises, when examining a case, that the request for a preliminary ruling raises separate questions relating to interpretation of primary law, public international law, general principles of law or the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

RemovedIt therefore seeks to ensure proper respect for the distribution of jurisdiction laid down by the co-legislators in Article 50b of the Statute.

Removed18.7.2023