On 1 September 2024, Regulation (EU, EURATOM) 2024/2019 (‘Regulation’), Amendments to the Rules of Procedure of The General Court [2024/2095] and Amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice [2024/2094] entered into power and introduced vital adjustments to the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU (‘Statute’), the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the EU (‘RoP CJEU’) and the Rules of Procedure of the General Court (‘RoP GC’). The essential functions of the reform are to cut back the workload of the Court of Justice of the EU (‘CJEU’) and to extend transparency of the judicial course of. The press launch on the reform might be discovered here.
The most vital adjustments are the next:
1. Shift of competencies for preliminary rulings
As of 1 October 2024, references for preliminary rulings within the following six areas will likely be heard by the General Court:
- The widespread system of VAT;
- Excise duties;
- The Customs Code;
- The tariff classification of products;
- Compensation and help to passengers within the occasion of denied boarding or of delay or cancellation of transport companies;
- The system for greenhouse gasoline emission allowance buying and selling.
Even if certainly one of these areas of regulation is worried, the CJEU retains jurisdiction to listen to and decide requests for a preliminary ruling that elevate unbiased questions referring to the interpretation of main regulation, public worldwide regulation, basic rules of EU regulation or the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.
This signifies that nationwide courts can affect the jurisdiction to some extent by together with a query on the interpretation of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU or the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.
Although IP and IP-related material isn’t among the many competencies transferred to the General Court, the competence shift might need an impact on the period of all proceedings earlier than the General Court.
This isn’t just because of the extra workload for the General Court with out growing the variety of judges but in addition as a result of the General Court will likely be supported by Advocate Generals within the proceedings for a preliminary ruling (Art. 49a Statute). The Advocate Generals are chosen from among the many judges of the General Court. This may even bind capability, which can’t be used for different circumstances.
According to the Judicial Statistics for the Year 2023, the common size of proceedings earlier than the General Court was 18.2 months. This is already fairly lengthy and the extra workload is unlikely to shorten the period.
The Regulation is nonetheless optimistic in Recital 5:
the General Court is at present able to have the ability to cope with the rise in workload that can comply with from the switch of jurisdiction to present preliminary rulings in some particular areas.
2. Publication of submissions in preliminary ruling proceedings
According to the brand new Art. 23(5) Statute,
Statements of case or written observations submitted by an particular person pursuant to this Article shall be revealed on the web site of the Court of Justice of the European Union inside an affordable time after the closing of the case, until that particular person raises objections to the publication of that particular person’s personal written submissions.
The publication goals at growing the accountability and construct belief within the EU in addition to in EU regulation and to strengthen transparency and openness of the judicial course of (Recital 4 Regulation).
An objection to the publication doesn’t must include causes and can’t be challenged by one other occasion. In case of a reference for a preliminary ruling earlier than the CJEU, the objection to the publication have to be submitted to the Court’s registry in a separate doc no later than three months after the supply of the judgment or service of the order closing the proceedings.
The particulars of the publication and objection are ruled by Art. 202(3) RoP GC and Art. 96(3) RoP CJEU.
3. Extension of mechanism of ‘pre-approval’ of appeals to the CJEU
The modification to the Statute additionally supplies for an extension of the mechanism for the dedication of whether or not an enchantment is allowed to proceed (Recitals 22 to 24 Regulation). Since May 2019, appeals introduced towards choices of the General Court regarding a choice of the European Union Intellectual Property Office, the Community Plant Variety Office, the European Chemicals Agency and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency have to be admitted by the CJEU in the event that they elevate a difficulty that’s vital with respect to the unity, consistency or growth of EU regulation.
Now, this additionally applies to appeals introduced towards a choice of the General Court regarding a choice of an unbiased Board of Appeal of the next EU establishments:
- European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators;
- Single Resolution Board;
- European Banking Authority;
- European Securities and Markets Authority;
- European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority;
- European Union Agency for Railways.
Furthermore, it applies to
- Decisions of the General Court regarding a choice of an unbiased Board of Appeal, arrange after 1 May 2019 inside another physique, workplace or company of the EU, which must be seised earlier than an motion might be introduced earlier than the General Court;
- Decisions of the General Court referring to the efficiency of a contract containing an arbitration clause, inside the which means of Art. 272 TFEU.
This is supposed to keep up the effectivity of enchantment proceedings and permit the CJEU to focus on appeals that elevate vital authorized questions (Recital 22 Regulation).
4. Submission of statements by EU our bodies
The European Parliament, the Council and the European Central Bank will likely be notified of references for a preliminary ruling and have the appropriate to submit statements of case or written observations (Recitals 25 et seq. Regulation).
This proper already existed however was restricted to acts which these establishments have adopted and whose validity or interpretation was in dispute within the explicit case.
5. Broadcasting of hearings
Hearings of the CJEU and the General Court could also be broadcast (Artt. 110a and 219 RoP GC, Art. 80a RoP CJEU).
The broadcast will likely be stay when it pertains to the supply of judgments or opinions, and with a delay when it pertains to oral pleadings. The events might object to the published however the Courts will in the end resolve on whether or not to broadcast or not.
Recordings will likely be obtainable on the CJEU’s web site for a most interval of 1 month after the shut of the listening to.
6. Deletion of Art. 191 RoP GC
The Amendments to the Rules of Procedure of The General Court [2024/2095] additionally meant saying goodbye to Art. 191 RoP GC as a result of it was deleted.
Art. 191 RoP GC was the final article in Title IV of the RoP GC, which dealt (and nonetheless offers) with IP matters, and declared Title III of the RoP GC relevant. The purpose for this reference was that Title III (regarding direct actions to the General Court) contained (and nonetheless accommodates) vital provisions referring to the illustration of the events, the closing dates, hearings and judgments, which Title IV did and doesn’t.
The purpose for the deletion of Art. 191 RoP GC is that Title III is straight relevant to IP proceedings now. The reform broadened the which means of ‘direct action’ in Art. 1(2)(j) RoP GC to cowl
the entire actions that could be introduced earlier than the General Court, except requests for a preliminary ruling.
Comment
If Weird Al Yankovic had made a track about this reform, he might need borrowed from Elvis Presley:
With extra and extra regulation coming from the EU it doesn’t appear very possible that the variety of circumstances will lower – the alternative might be anticipated. A protracted-term answer to an growing caseload would have been to extend the variety of judges on the CJEU accordingly.
And whereas we’re at it: Specialised chambers for matters that often come earlier than the Court of Justice (like IP) would even be a good suggestion – which jogs my memory of one other Elvis Presley track: If I can dream…
The image is by Franco Garcia and used underneath the licensing phrases of Pexels.com.