Changes from report parliamentary committee draft to plenary report

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Change 4

Changed1. The rapporteur agreesParliament withsupports 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.

Change 5

ChangedAbove all, the reform seeksaims to changemodify the distributionallocation 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 legislature.legislators. The rapporteurParliament supports this change for a number of reasons.as:

Change 6

Changed- It ensures proper administration of justice. There is an upward trend in the number of requests for a preliminary ruling, and theythat 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.

Change 7

Changed- It 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 rapporteurParliament believesinsists that it is essential for the reform to be used as a lever for enhanced dialogue between the Court and the referring courts. SheThe Parliament therefore calls on the Court to make greater use of the corresponding tools in its Rules of Procedure.

Change 8

ChangedThe 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 rapporteur is whollyParliament supportivealso ofendorses this,this too.objective.

Change 9

Changed2. The rapporteur is in favour of the principle ofNonetheless, the reform but believes that Parliament shouldwould focuslike onto further clarifyingclarify and strengthen certain aspects of the Court’s proposal.

Change 10

Changed- SheThe feelsParliament thatconsiders the proposed one-stop-shop mechanism is appropriate,relevant but would like to see the respective jurisdictions of the Court and the General Court to be clearly defined by the co-legislators in order to comply with the principle of legality. In this regard, the rapporteur would like the Statute itself, rather than theParliament recitalschose to this amendingindicate Regulation,in tothe stateStatute clearlyitself that the Court will continue to have jurisdiction toon adjudicaterequests onfor anypreliminary issueruling that raisesraise independent questions of interpretation of primary law, public international law, general principles of law or the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, despiteeven where the legal framework of the case in the main proceedings fallingfalls within one or several of the specific areas.areas referred to in Article 50b(1) of the Statute. In order to ensure that the jurisdictions thus defined by the legislator are respected, shethe Parliament proposes that Article 54 of the Statute be updated.updated accordingly. Finally, shethe proposesParliament 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.

Change 11

Changed-Given Thethe proceduralincreased guaranteesresponsibilities concerningof the General Court couldas a result of the reform, the Parliament insists that procedural guarantees before it be further clarifiedstrengthened. andThe strengthened.Parliament Followingproposes theto reform,clarify in the GeneralStatute Courtitself willthat giveAdvocate finalGenerals judgmentdesignated into thedeal requestswith request for a preliminary ruling transmittedwill have to it.be Inelected lightfrom ofamong the implicationsJudges ofthat thesedo increasednot responsibilities,belong theto rapporteura 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 intermediate chamber of the Generalintermediate Courtsize created in the Statute by this reform.

Change 12

RemovedThis reform is an important development in the Union’s judicial framework: the rapporteur calls for close monitoring of its implementation.

Added3. 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.

RemovedWith this in mind, she proposes that the Court draw up a report within three years providing an initial assessment of the implementation of this reform. The report will, in particular, make it possible 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 and enhancing the dialogue with national courts.

Added4. 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.

Added5. This reform entails a significant change to the Union’s judicial framework: the Parliament calls for close monitoring of its implementation.

AddedWith 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.

AddedThe 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.

▸19 unchanged paragraphs

Article 1 of the Regulation

Amendment to Article 50 of the Statute: new paragraph 4

Under 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.

As 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.

According 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.

Instead, 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.

It 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.

This 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.

Article 2 of the Regulation

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

Under 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.

However, 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.

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

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

Article 2a of the Regulation

Amendment to the second paragraph of Article 54 of the Statute

Article 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.

It 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.

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

Change 13

Added18.7.2023