Activities of Max ORVILLE related to 2022/0906(COD)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the proposed amendments to Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union
Amendments (15)
Amendment 4 #
Draft Regulation
Recital 2 a (new)
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 5 #
Draft Regulation
Recital 2 b (new)
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 8 #
Draft Regulation
Recital 3
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 andAs a result the measures taken in the context of the reform of the judicial framework of the Union resulting from 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.13 Nevertheless, since the workload of the General Court is closely related to developments in the Union’s activity, care should be taken to ensure that the General Court remains capable of fully exercising its powers of review in respect of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, if necessary by means of increasing the number of its staff. _________________ 13 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/2422 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (OJ L 341, 24.12.2015, p. 14).
Amendment 15 #
Draft Regulation
Recital 8
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 ruling. Every request for a preliminary ruling must therefore be submitted to a single court, namely the Court of Justice, which will determine, in accordance with detailed rules to be 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 dealt with by the General Court. 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 20 #
Draft Regulation
Recital 8 a (new)
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 22 #
Draft Regulation
Recital 8 b (new)
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)
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 28 #
Draft Regulation
Recital 11
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 32 #
Draft Regulation
Recital 14 a (new)
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)
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 35 #
Draft Regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union
Article 50
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 37 #
Draft Regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union
Article 50b
Article 50b
– the Customs Code and the tariff classification of goods under the Combined Nomenclature;
Amendment 39 #
Draft Regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union
Article 50b
Article 50b
- the tariff classification of goods under the Combined Nomenclature;
Amendment 42 #
Draft Regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union
Article 50b
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 52 #
Draft Regulation
Article 4 a (new)
Article 4 a (new)