Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opinion | AFCO | MESSERSCHMIDT Morten (EFD) | |
| Opinion | BUDG | WERTHMANN Angelika (NI) | |
| Lead | JURI | THEIN Alexandra (ALDE) | ZWIEFKA Tadeusz (EPP), MASIP HIDALGO Antonio (S&D), LICHTENBERGER Eva (Verts/ALE), ZIOBRO Zbigniew (ECR), MAŠTÁLKA Jiří (GUE/NGL), SPERONI Francesco Enrico (EFD) |
Activites
-
2012/07/05
Vote scheduled
-
2012/07/04
Debate scheduled
-
2012/06/05
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
- A7-0185/2012
-
2012/05/31
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
- #3132
-
2011/12/05
Council Meeting
- 2011/11/29 Committee draft report
-
2011/09/30
Document attached to the procedure
-
COM(2011)0596
summary
The Commission presents its Opinion on the requests for the amendment of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU, presented by the Court in two requests on 28 March 2011. The proposed amendments concern to varying degrees the three courts currently making up the Court of Justice of the European Union: the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal. The Court also proposes an amendment that would affect the three courts in the same way, namely dropping the provision on periods of grace based on considerations of distance, which would in fact result in the disappearance of the ten-day fixed period which is currently added to the procedural deadlines. Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, these provisions should, for the first time, be adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Court of Justice: the amendments are intended to: establish the office of Vice-President of the Court and to determine the tasks to be entrusted to him/her; modify the composition of the Grand Chamber; increase the quorum for decisions by the Grand Chamber and the full Court; abolish the reading at the hearing of the report presented by the Judge-Rapporteur. The Commission supports all the proposals made in relation to the Court of Justice, but suggests: stating in which cases the President of the Court can be replaced by the Vice-President; ensuring more stability in the composition of the enlarged Grand Chamber. The Commission suggests a rule that three Presidents of Chambers of five Judges must always form part of this Grand Chamber. The Rules of Procedure would contain conditions governing the participation of judges in each case, probably involving a system of two rotating lists (instead of a single list as is the case at the moment): one consisting of the Presidents of the Chambers of five Judges and the second one consisting of the other judges. The General Court: in order to cope with the increase in its caseload and the resulting increase in the time taken to handle cases, it is proposed that the number of judges be increased to 39. The Commission approves the amendments, subject to comments and proposals regarding: the replacement of judges; the number of specialised chambers, with a minimum of two; the need for an office of Vice-President of the General Court, as proposed for the Court of Justice; a transitional provision stating that the new judges will take up their posts immediately before their first six-year term has formally started, and . also determining the effective duration of terms of each new judge; Civil Service Tribunal: the Court requests that it be assigned three temporary judges upon whom it could call in the event that a judge is prevented from attending for a long period of time. The Commission approves the amendments, subject to comments on the need to lay down the order in which the three temporary judges are required to undertake judicial duties when, in accordance with the conditions laid down, one of the member judges is unable to attend. The Court proposes that in the event of the return of the judge who was absent, the Tribunal can decide on a discretionary basis that a temporary judge should continue to perform his duties until the cases in which he has been sitting are completed. The Commission has some criticism to make about this approach since it could weaken the independence of temporary judges given that the permanent judges with whom they work would decide whether or not they continue to perform their duties. For this reason, it considers that it would be more appropriate to adopt an objective criterion to determine the cases which the temporary judge would continue to handle even after the return of the judge he is replacing. Amendments relating to all three Courts: lastly, the Court proposes dropping the provision on the ten-day fixed period of grace based on considerations of distance on the grounds that it is no longer justified in this era of new technology. The Commission states that if the ten-day grace period is dropped, it would recommend extending some specific periods set down in the Statute, amongst them, the period set down for submitting written observations on cases referred to the Court of Justice, and the period for appealing against certain decisions of the General Court and of the Civil Service Tribunal.
- DG {'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/legal_service/', 'title': 'Legal Service'}, BARROSO José Manuel
-
COM(2011)0596
summary
-
2011/04/07
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
-
2011/03/28
Legislative proposal
-
02074/2011
summary
PURPOSE: to submit to the EU legislature draft amendments to the Statute of the Court of Justice and Annex I thereto. PROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council. LEGAL BASIS: Article 19(2), second paragraph, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. (TFUE); first paragraph of Article 254, the first and second paragraphs of Article 257 and the second paragraph of Article 281 TFEU; Article 106a(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community. CONTENT: the Court of Justice submits to the European Union legislature draft amendments to the Statute of the Court of Justice and its Annex I. This single text incorporates separate proposals in respect of each of the three jurisdictions which comprise the Court of Justice of the European Union. 1) Proposals relating to the Court of Justice: the Court considers it desirable to establish the office of Vice-President of the Court of Justice and to amend the rules relating to the composition of the Grand Chamber. The current structure of the Grand Chamber and the rules determining how it operates - a quorum of nine Judges together with the participation in every case of the President of the Court and the Presidents of the Chambers of five Judges - are the product of amendments introduced by the Treaty of Nice, which entered into force on 1 February 2003. Since that date, there have been a number of changes affecting the work of the Court: (i) the accession of 12 new Member States; (ii) the transition from two to three Chambers of five Judges in May 2004 and to four Chambers of five Judges in October 2006; (iii) the introduction of the urgent preliminary ruling procedure in March 2008; and (iv) the introduction of the review procedure following the establishment of the Civil Service Tribunal. At present, the President of the Court and the Presidents of the Chambers of five Judges have a very heavy workload, whereas other Judges sit in relatively few cases assigned to the Grand Chamber. The proposal provides for : broader participation by the Judges in cases assigned to the Grand Chamber, allowing them to sit far more frequently than at present (in almost half, instead of a third, of all cases). That would be achieved by the amendment of Articles 16 and 17 of the Statute so as to increase to 15 the number of Judges constituting the Grand Chamber and to end the automatic participation of the Presidents of Chambers of five Judges in Grand Chamber cases. Corresponding adjustments must be made to the rules relating to the quorum of the Grand Chamber and of the full Court; the establishment of the office of Vice-President: the latter would sit, like the President, in every case assigned to the Grand Chamber. The permanent presence of two persons, together with the more frequent participation of the other Judges in the work of the Grand Chamber, would ensure that its case-law is consistent. In addition to sitting in every Grand Chamber case, the Vice-President would also assist the President of the Court in his duties. 2) Proposals relating to the General Court: for several years now, the number of cases disposed of by the General Court has been lower than the number of new cases, so that the number of pending cases is rising constantly. At the end of 2010, there were 1 300 cases pending, whereas, in the same year, 527 cases were disposed of. In addition to the number of cases currently pending, the likely increase in the number of cases brought before the General Court must be taken into account: there was an increase of 65% between 2000 and 2010. In addition to those areas of litigation, further litigation will be generated by the application of the numerous regulations establishing European Union agencies, in particular the REACH Regulation The current increase in workload is due to (i) the devolution of jurisdiction, since 2004, to rule on certain classes of action or proceedings brought by the Member States; (ii) to the increase in litigation following the 2004 and 2007 accessions; (iii) to the litigation engendered by the increase, resulting from greater European integration, in the number and variety of legislative and regulatory acts of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the EU; and (iv) to the growth of litigation relating to Community trade mark applications. The Court of Justice believes that a structural solution is urgently required. The Treaties offer two possible routes to reform: (a) to establish specialised courts with jurisdiction to hear and determine direct actions in a specific area, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 257 TFEU. The field of intellectual property has been mooted in that regard; (b) increasing the number of Judges of the General Court by means of an amendment to Article 48 of the Statute in accordance with the mechanism provided for in the second paragraph of Article 281 TFEU. Having weighed up the two options at length, the Court of Justice has come to the conclusion that an increase in the number of Judges is clearly preferable to the establishment of a specialised court in the field of intellectual property. Its reasons relate to the effectiveness of the proposed solution, the urgency of the situation, the flexibility of the measure envisaged and the consistency of European Union law. The Court of Justice therefore considers that an increase in the number of Judges by at least 12, bringing the number of General Court Judges to 39, is necessary. 3) Proposals relating to the Civil Service Tribunal: the European Union Civil Service Tribunal comprises seven Judges. Owing to that limited composition, the functioning of the Tribunal can be seriously affected if one of its members, for an extended period of time, is prevented on medical grounds from performing his duties, without however suffering from disablement within the meaning of Article 10 of Council Regulation No 422/67/EEC, No 5/67/Euratom. In order to ensure that the Civil Service Tribunal is not placed in a situation of difficulty such as to prevent it from carrying out its judicial functions, it is proposed to amend Article 62c of the Statute of the Court by providing, in general terms, for the possibility of attaching temporary Judges to the specialised courts. The rules governing the appointment of temporary Judges, their rights and obligations, the conditions under which they are to perform their duties and the circumstances in which they will cease to perform those duties are laid down in a separate draft regulation, which would supplement Annex I to the Statute.
- DG {'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/legal_service/', 'title': 'Legal Service'}, BARROSO José Manuel
-
02074/2011
summary
Documents
- Legislative proposal published: 02074/2011
- Document attached to the procedure: COM(2011)0596
- Committee draft report: PE475.771
- Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A7-0185/2012
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 47 |
2011/0901(COD)
2011/11/11
AFCO
32 amendments...
Amendment 10 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 a (new) (9a) There should be the possibility for a Judge to announce, during the Court's deliberations, that he intends to deliver a dissenting opinion as to the judgment or the reasons on which it is based, to be published together with the judgment. This possibility, which exists in numerous constitutional courts of Member States of the European Union and in the European Court of Human Rights, ensures that the public is aware of the fact that there is not a sole answer to the question before the Court and that legally sound alternatives are conceivable, and may thus have an influence on future judicial practice. It contributes, moreover, to a better understanding and, in a legal system which is largely based on case-law such as that of the European Union, to a better interpretation and application of the Court's findings. Dissenting opinions must be utilised in a way that ensures the necessary authority of the Court and does not compromise the secrecy of deliberations. They must be the sole initiative and responsibility of the Judge concerned. At the same time, they enable the majority to give the reasons for their decision in a clear and straightforward manner. Experience has shown that they do not undermine the reputation of those courts in which they are delivered, as the modalities of their delivery are entirely a matter for the court concerned.
Amendment 11 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 a (new) (9a) Once the number of Judges of the General Court has been increased, the question of their appointment will naturally arise. Regarding the system for appointing Judges, Member States should agree on rules offering every guarantee as regards the independence and impartiality and the competence and suitability of the persons appointed, as well as making for equality and balance in terms of their home Member States.
Amendment 12 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 a (new) (9a) The arrangement for nominating judges to the General Court should be modified to reflect a balance between the objective of ensuring the best possible representation of all national legal systems and the need to respond to the requirements of a General Court which is structured more in terms of specialised chambers for each subject. To that end, half of the new Judges (in other words, six of them) should be nominated in line with a procedure that meets this need for specialisation.
Amendment 13 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 a (new) (9a) In cases of major importance before the Court of Justice, namely cases concerning fundamental questions pertaining to the legal order of the European Union, there should be the possibility for a Judge to announce, during the Court's deliberations, that he intends to deliver a dissenting opinion as to the judgment or the reasons on which it is based, to be published together with the judgment. This possibility, which exists in numerous constitutional courts of Member States of the European Union and in the European Court of Human Rights, ensures that the public is aware of the fact that there is not a sole answer to the question before the Court and that legally sound alternatives are conceivable, and may thus have an influence on future judicial practice. It contributes, moreover, to a better understanding and, in a legal system which is largely based on case-law such as that of the European Union, to a better interpretation and application of the Court's findings. Dissenting opinions must be utilised in a way that ensures the necessary authority of the Court and does not compromise the secrecy of deliberations. They must be the sole initiative and responsibility of the Judge concerned. At the same time, they enable the majority to give the reasons for their decision in a clear and straightforward manner. Experience has shown that they do not undermine the reputation of those courts in which they are delivered, as the modalities of their delivery are entirely a matter for the court concerned.
Amendment 14 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 b (new) (9b) To enable the General Court to operate more efficiently and ensure that proceedings can be dealt with and adjudicated on within a reasonable time, the General Court may set up specialised Chambers where this is warranted by the number of proceedings in a given field.
Amendment 15 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 b (new) (9b) The basic principle should be that the General Court should comprise at least one Judge and at most two Judges having the nationality of each Member State.
Amendment 16 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 c (new) (9c) As regards the internal organisation of the General Court, the office of Vice- President should, following the approach adopted for the Court of Justice, be established for the purpose of assisting the President.
Amendment 17 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 d (new) (9d) In proceedings before the Court of Justice, a Judge should be permitted to announce, during the Court’s deliberations, that he intends to deliver a dissenting opinion as to the judgment or the reasons on which it is based, to be published together with the judgment. That possibility exists in several national and international courts, and their reputation and authority have not been undermined as a result. On the contrary, this is a solution which helps to advance judicial practice, offers guarantees of greater transparency, and serves to strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the courts, as it is particularly important to do in this instance, given that the judicial system concerned is one with a strong case law component.
Amendment 18 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 Amendment 19 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 (10) In order to enable the specialised courts to continue to function satisfactorily in the absence of a Judge who, while not suffering from disablement deemed to be total, is prevented from participating in judicial business for an extended period of time, provision should be made for the possibility of attaching temporary Judges to those courts. The appointment of temporary Judges should offer every guarantee as regards the independence and impartiality and the competence and suitability of the persons appointed, as well as making for equality and balance in terms of their home Member States.
Amendment 20 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 a (new) (10a) In order to avoid any doubts as to the authority of the temporary Judges, it is of the utmost importance that they be elected in a way which does not compromise the authority of the Court and which ensures their total independence,
Amendment 21 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 - subparagraph 2 The Vice-President shall assist the President of the Court. He shall take the latter’s place when he is prevented from attending
Amendment 22 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new) 1a. The first paragraph of Article 9 shall be replaced by the following: 'When, every three years, the Judges are partially replaced, 20 and 19 Judges shall be replaced alternately.'.
Amendment 23 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 a (new) Amendment 24 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 a (new) 4a. The following paragraph shall be added to Article 35: ‘In cases concerning fundamental questions pertaining to the legal order of the European Union, where a Judge has declared, in the deliberations of the Court of Justice, his disagreement with the judgment to be delivered or the reasons on which that judgment is based, he shall be entitled to deliver a dissenting opinion. That opinion shall be published together with the judgment. Implementing rules relating to the admissibility, and the detailed procedure for the delivery, of such opinions shall be laid down in the Rules of Procedure.’.
Amendment 25 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new) 6a. The first paragraph of Article 47 shall be replaced by the following: Articles 9a, 14, and 15, Article 17, first, second, fourth, and fifth paragraphs, and Article 18 shall apply to the General Court and its members.
Amendment 26 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 7.
Amendment 27 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 a (new) 7a. The following paragraph shall be added to Article 48: The Council shall draw up an asymmetrical rotation list for the election of the additional Judges. Six of the 12 Judges' posts shall be allocated to the biggest Member States on a permanent basis, the remaining ones shall be allocated to the remaining Member States on a rotating basis.
Amendment 28 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 b (new) 7b. The following paragraph shall be added to Article 48: Member States shall be represented by at least one Judge but by no more than two Judges of their nationality.
Amendment 29 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 a (new) Amendment 30 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 Amendment 31 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 The Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with Article 257 TFEU, may attach temporary Judges to the specialised courts in order to cover the absence of Judges who, while not suffering from disablement deemed to be total, are prevented from participating in judicial business for an extended period of time. In that event, the Parliament and the Council shall lay down the conditions under which the temporary Judges shall be appointed, their rights and duties, the detailed rules governing the performance of their duties and the circumstances in which they shall cease to perform those duties. In order to guarantee the uncompromised authority of the Court's judgments, those provisions shall ensure, moreover, that the temporary Judges enjoy the same rights regarding their professional activities as permanent Judges.
Amendment 32 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 The Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with Article 257 TFEU, may attach temporary Judges to the specialised courts in order to cover the absence of Judges who, while not suffering from disablement deemed to be total, are
Amendment 33 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 The Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with Article 257 TFEU, may attach temporary Judges to the specialised courts in order to cover the absence of Judges who, while not suffering from disablement deemed to be total, are prevented from participating in judicial business for an extended period of time. In that event, the Parliament and the Council shall lay down the conditions under which the temporary Judges shall be appointed, their rights and duties, the detailed rules governing the performance of their duties and the circumstances in which they shall cease to perform those duties.
Amendment 34 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 Amendment 35 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 Points 4, 6
Amendment 36 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. The 12 judges appointed following the entry into force of this Regulation shall take up their posts immediately once they have taken the oath. Six of them shall be chosen at random and their term of office shall end six years after the first partial replacement of the General Court following the entry into force of this Regulation. The term of office of the other six Judges shall end six years after the second partial replacement of the General Court following the entry into force of this Regulation.
Amendment 5 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 1 (1) In order to
Amendment 6 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 1 a (new) (1a) Increased resources could provide an opportunity for reorganisation of proceedings in the 'other cases' category by order of priority, in particular competition cases, where special care must be taken to adhere to a reasonable deadline.
Amendment 7 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 1 b (new) (1b) An increase in the number of judges is not enough to remedy delays. It is also necessary for some of the chambers to be run on more specialised lines, improving flexibility and output in the General Court.
Amendment 8 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 (9) Consequently, the necessary measures should be taken to address this situation, and the possibility, provided for by the Treaties, of increasing the number of Judges of the General Court is such as to enable both the volume of pending cases and the excessive duration of proceedings before the General Court to be reduced within a short time. Similarly the more effective allocation of the General Court's caseload to the appropriate chambers could significantly limit delays in proceedings.
Amendment 9 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 (9) Consequently, the necessary measures should be taken to address this situation, and the possibility, provided for by the Treaties, of increasing the number of Judges of the General Court from 27 to 39 is such as to enable both the volume of pending cases and the excessive duration of proceedings before the General Court to be reduced within a short time.
source: PE-475.880
2012/01/12
JURI
11 amendments...
Amendment 14 #
Draft regulation Recital 9 a (new) (9a) Once the number of Judges of the General Court has been increased, the question of their appointment will naturally arise. Regarding the system for appointing Judges, Member States should agree on rules offering every guarantee as regards the independence, impartiality, competence and suitability of the persons appointed, and ensuring a balanced composition of the General Court on as broad a geographical basis as possible from among nationals of the Member States.
Amendment 15 #
Draft regulation Recital 9 a (new) (9a) To ensure an appropriate balance between Member States as regards the additional Judges of the Court, Declaration 38 attached to the final act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Lisbon Treaty should be used as a guide. The additional Judges should include one from among the nationals of each of the six most populated Member States. The six other additional Judges should be appointed from among the nationals of the other Member States, according to a rotation based on equality between them.
Amendment 16 #
Draft regulation Recital 9 b (new) (9b) To enable the General Court to operate more efficiently and ensure that proceedings can be dealt with and adjudicated on within a reasonable time, the General Court may set up specialised Chambers where this is warranted by the number of proceedings in a given field.
Amendment 17 #
Draft regulation Recital 9 c (new) Amendment 18 #
Draft regulation Recital 9 d (new) (9d) In proceedings before the Court of Justice, a Judge should be permitted to announce, during the Court’s deliberations, that he intends to deliver a dissenting opinion as to the judgment or the reasons on which it is based, to be published together with the judgment. That possibility exists in several national and international courts, and their reputation and authority have not been undermined as a result. On the contrary, this is a solution which helps to advance judicial practice, offers guarantees of greater transparency, and serves to strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the courts, as it is particularly important to do in this instance, given that the judicial system concerned is one with a strong case law component.
Amendment 19 #
Draft regulation Recital 10 (10) In order to enable the specialised courts to continue to function satisfactorily
Amendment 20 #
Draft regulation Recital 10 a (new) (10a) The rotation system for the appointment of Judges to the General Court should guarantee the stability of the composition of the General Court and the efficient and smooth operation of the institution, ensuring as far as possible an adequate representation of the different weight of the Member States' judicial systems.
Amendment 21 #
Draft regulation Article 1 – point -1 (new) Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union Article 9 – paragraph 2 a (new) -1. The following paragraph shall be added to Article 9: 'The Court of Justice shall include at least one Judge but not more than two Judges per Member State'
Amendment 22 #
Draft regulation Article 1 – point 4 a (new) Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union Article 35 – paragraph 1 a (new) Amendment 23 #
Draft regulation Article 1 – point 2 Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union Article 16 – paragraph 2 2. Article 16, second paragraph, shall be
Amendment 24 #
Draft regulation Article 1 – point 7 a (new) 7a. The following Article 48a shall be inserted: 'Article 48a The Council shall draw up an asymmetrical rotation list for the appointment of the Judges. At all times, there shall be two Judges from each of the six most populous Member States. The rotation list shall determine when each of the remaining Member States is entitled to nominate a second Judge.'
source: PE-478.661
2012/02/02
AFCO
4 amendments...
Amendment 37 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 5 (5) As a consequence of the progressive expansion of its jurisdiction since its creation, the number of cases before the General Court is now constantly increasing and delays in proceedings are also rising.
Amendment 38 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 (9) Consequently, the necessary measures should be taken to address this situation, and the possibility, provided for by the Treaties, of increasing the number of Judges of the General Court is such as to enable it to increase its efficiency and reduce both the volume of pending cases and the excessive duration of proceedings
Amendment 39 #
(10a) Temporary Judges must be subject to obligations of independence, impartiality, competence and aptitude and enjoy the same rights, in the performance of their duties, as permanent Judges.
Amendment 40 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 b (new) (10b) Whilst there is a need for the Court of Justice to introduce a mechanism allowing dissenting opinions to be expressed, this must not jeopardise the independence of Judges; a thorough debate on this issue is needed between experts, practitioners and other interested parties.
source: PE-480.658
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
| activities/7/type |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
Debate scheduled |
| activities/8 |
|
| procedure/title |
Old
Court of Justice: statute (amend.)New
Court of Justice: statute (amend. Protocol and Annex I) |
| activities/6 |
|
| activities/5/committees |
|
| activities/5/type |
Old
Vote scheduled in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading |
| activities/2/body |
Old
EPNew
EC |
| activities/2/commission |
|
| activities/2/date |
Old
2012-01-10T00:00:00New
2011-09-30T00:00:00 |
| activities/2/docs |
|
| activities/2/type |
Old
Deadline AmendmentsNew
Document attached to the procedure |
| activities/3 |
|
| activities/3/date |
Old
2011-03-28T00:00:00New
2011-11-29T00:00:00 |
| activities/3/docs |
|
| activities/3/type |
Old
EP officialisationNew
Committee draft report |
| activities/4 |
|
| activities/8 |
|
| activities/9 |
|
| activities/8/type |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
EP 1R Plenary |
| activities/9 |
|
| activities/10 |
|
| activities/8/date |
Old
2012-06-12T00:00:00New
2012-06-13T00:00:00 |
| procedure/legal_basis |
|
| activities/4 |
|
| activities/4/date |
Old
2012-04-26T00:00:00New
2011-11-29T00:00:00 |
| activities/4/docs |
|
| activities/4/type |
Old
EP 1R CommitteeNew
Committee draft report |
| activities/7 |
|
| activities/8/date |
Old
2012-04-26T00:00:00New
2012-05-31T00:00:00 |
| activities/3/docs/0/text/0 |
Old
The Commission presents its Opinion on the requests for the amendment of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU, presented by the Court in two requests on 28 March 2011. The proposed amendments concern to varying degrees the three courts currently making up the Court of Justice of the European Union: the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal. The Court also proposes an amendment that would affect the three courts in the same way, namely dropping the provision on periods of grace based on considerations of distance, which would in fact result in the disappearance of the ten-day fixed period which is currently added to the procedural deadlines. Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, these provisions should, for the first time, be adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Court of Justice: the amendments are intended to:
The Commission supports all the proposals made in relation to the Court of Justice, but suggests:
The General Court: in order to cope with the increase in its caseload and the resulting increase in the time taken to handle cases, it is proposed that the number of judges be increased to 39. The Commission approves the amendments, subject to comments and proposals regarding:
Civil Service Tribunal: the Court requests that it be assigned three temporary judges upon whom it could call in the event that a judge is prevented from attending for a long period of time. The Commission approves the amendments, subject to comments on the need to lay down the order in which the three temporary judges are required to undertake judicial duties when, in accordance with the conditions laid down, one of the member judges is unable to attend. The Court proposes that in the event of the return of the judge who was absent, the Tribunal can decide on a discretionary basis that a temporary judge should continue to perform his duties until the cases in which he has been sitting are completed. The Commission has some criticism to make about this approach since it could weaken the independence of temporary judges given that the permanent judges with whom they work would decide whether or not they continue to perform their duties. For this reason, it considers that it would be more appropriate to adopt an objective criterion to determine the cases which the temporary judge would continue to handle even after the return of the judge he is replacing. Amendments relating to all three Courts: lastly, the Court proposes dropping the provision on the ten-day fixed period of grace based on considerations of distance on the grounds that it is no longer justified in this era of new technology. The Commission states that if the ten-day grace period is dropped, it would recommend extending some specific periods set down in the Statute, amongst them, the period set down for submitting written observations on cases referred to the Court of Justice, and the period for appealing against certain decisions of the General Court and of the Civil Service Tribunal. New
The Commission presents its Opinion on the requests for the amendment of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU, presented by the Court in two requests on 28 March 2011. The proposed amendments concern to varying degrees the three courts currently making up the Court of Justice of the European Union: the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal. The Court also proposes an amendment that would affect the three courts in the same way, namely dropping the provision on periods of grace based on considerations of distance, which would in fact result in the disappearance of the ten-day fixed period which is currently added to the procedural deadlines. Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, these provisions should, for the first time, be adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Court of Justice: the amendments are intended to:
The Commission supports all the proposals made in relation to the Court of Justice, but suggests:
The General Court: in order to cope with the increase in its caseload and the resulting increase in the time taken to handle cases, it is proposed that the number of judges be increased to 39. The Commission approves the amendments, subject to comments and proposals regarding:
Civil Service Tribunal: the Court requests that it be assigned three temporary judges upon whom it could call in the event that a judge is prevented from attending for a long period of time. The Commission approves the amendments, subject to comments on the need to lay down the order in which the three temporary judges are required to undertake judicial duties when, in accordance with the conditions laid down, one of the member judges is unable to attend. The Court proposes that in the event of the return of the judge who was absent, the Tribunal can decide on a discretionary basis that a temporary judge should continue to perform his duties until the cases in which he has been sitting are completed. The Commission has some criticism to make about this approach since it could weaken the independence of temporary judges given that the permanent judges with whom they work would decide whether or not they continue to perform their duties. For this reason, it considers that it would be more appropriate to adopt an objective criterion to determine the cases which the temporary judge would continue to handle even after the return of the judge he is replacing. Amendments relating to all three Courts: lastly, the Court proposes dropping the provision on the ten-day fixed period of grace based on considerations of distance on the grounds that it is no longer justified in this era of new technology. The Commission states that if the ten-day grace period is dropped, it would recommend extending some specific periods set down in the Statute, amongst them, the period set down for submitting written observations on cases referred to the Court of Justice, and the period for appealing against certain decisions of the General Court and of the Civil Service Tribunal.
|
| activities/3/docs/0/url |
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=596
|
| activities/4/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE475.771
|
| activities/7/type |
Old
EP 1R CommitteeNew
Vote scheduled in committee, 1st reading/single reading |
| activities/7/type |
Old
Vote scheduled in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
EP 1R Committee |
| activities/3/docs/0/url |
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=596
|
| activities/3/docs/0/url |
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=596
|
| activities/3/docs/0/text/0 |
Old
The Commission presents its Opinion on the requests for the amendment of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU, presented by the Court in two requests on 28 March 2011. The proposed amendments concern to varying degrees the three courts currently making up the Court of Justice of the European Union: the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal. The Court also proposes an amendment that would affect the three courts in the same way, namely dropping the provision on periods of grace based on considerations of distance, which would in fact result in the disappearance of the ten-day fixed period which is currently added to the procedural deadlines. Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, these provisions should, for the first time, be adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Court of Justice: the amendments are intended to:
The Commission supports all the proposals made in relation to the Court of Justice, but suggests:
The General Court: in order to cope with the increase in its caseload and the resulting increase in the time taken to handle cases, it is proposed that the number of judges be increased to 39. The Commission approves the amendments, subject to comments and proposals regarding:
Civil Service Tribunal: the Court requests that it be assigned three temporary judges upon whom it could call in the event that a judge is prevented from attending for a long period of time. The Commission approves the amendments, subject to comments on the need to lay down the order in which the three temporary judges are required to undertake judicial duties when, in accordance with the conditions laid down, one of the member judges is unable to attend. The Court proposes that in the event of the return of the judge who was absent, the Tribunal can decide on a discretionary basis that a temporary judge should continue to perform his duties until the cases in which he has been sitting are completed. The Commission has some criticism to make about this approach since it could weaken the independence of temporary judges given that the permanent judges with whom they work would decide whether or not they continue to perform their duties. For this reason, it considers that it would be more appropriate to adopt an objective criterion to determine the cases which the temporary judge would continue to handle even after the return of the judge he is replacing. Amendments relating to all three Courts: lastly, the Court proposes dropping the provision on the ten-day fixed period of grace based on considerations of distance on the grounds that it is no longer justified in this era of new technology. The Commission states that if the ten-day grace period is dropped, it would recommend extending some specific periods set down in the Statute, amongst them, the period set down for submitting written observations on cases referred to the Court of Justice, and the period for appealing against certain decisions of the General Court and of the Civil Service Tribunal.
New
The Commission presents its Opinion on the requests for the amendment of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU, presented by the Court in two requests on 28 March 2011. The proposed amendments concern to varying degrees the three courts currently making up the Court of Justice of the European Union: the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal. The Court also proposes an amendment that would affect the three courts in the same way, namely dropping the provision on periods of grace based on considerations of distance, which would in fact result in the disappearance of the ten-day fixed period which is currently added to the procedural deadlines. Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, these provisions should, for the first time, be adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Court of Justice: the amendments are intended to:
The Commission supports all the proposals made in relation to the Court of Justice, but suggests:
The General Court: in order to cope with the increase in its caseload and the resulting increase in the time taken to handle cases, it is proposed that the number of judges be increased to 39. The Commission approves the amendments, subject to comments and proposals regarding:
Civil Service Tribunal: the Court requests that it be assigned three temporary judges upon whom it could call in the event that a judge is prevented from attending for a long period of time. The Commission approves the amendments, subject to comments on the need to lay down the order in which the three temporary judges are required to undertake judicial duties when, in accordance with the conditions laid down, one of the member judges is unable to attend. The Court proposes that in the event of the return of the judge who was absent, the Tribunal can decide on a discretionary basis that a temporary judge should continue to perform his duties until the cases in which he has been sitting are completed. The Commission has some criticism to make about this approach since it could weaken the independence of temporary judges given that the permanent judges with whom they work would decide whether or not they continue to perform their duties. For this reason, it considers that it would be more appropriate to adopt an objective criterion to determine the cases which the temporary judge would continue to handle even after the return of the judge he is replacing. Amendments relating to all three Courts: lastly, the Court proposes dropping the provision on the ten-day fixed period of grace based on considerations of distance on the grounds that it is no longer justified in this era of new technology. The Commission states that if the ten-day grace period is dropped, it would recommend extending some specific periods set down in the Statute, amongst them, the period set down for submitting written observations on cases referred to the Court of Justice, and the period for appealing against certain decisions of the General Court and of the Civil Service Tribunal. |
| activities/3/docs/0/url |
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=596
|
| activities/4/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE475.771
|
| activities/3/docs/0/url |
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=596
|
| activities/3/docs/0/text/0 |
Old
The Commission presents its Opinion on the requests for the amendment of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU, presented by the Court in two requests on 28 March 2011. The proposed amendments concern to varying degrees the three courts currently making up the Court of Justice of the European Union: the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal. The Court also proposes an amendment that would affect the three courts in the same way, namely dropping the provision on periods of grace based on considerations of distance, which would in fact result in the disappearance of the ten-day fixed period which is currently added to the procedural deadlines. Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, these provisions should, for the first time, be adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Court of Justice: the amendments are intended to:
The Commission supports all the proposals made in relation to the Court of Justice, but suggests:
The General Court: in order to cope with the increase in its caseload and the resulting increase in the time taken to handle cases, it is proposed that the number of judges be increased to 39. The Commission approves the amendments, subject to comments and proposals regarding:
Civil Service Tribunal: the Court requests that it be assigned three temporary judges upon whom it could call in the event that a judge is prevented from attending for a long period of time. The Commission approves the amendments, subject to comments on the need to lay down the order in which the three temporary judges are required to undertake judicial duties when, in accordance with the conditions laid down, one of the member judges is unable to attend. The Court proposes that in the event of the return of the judge who was absent, the Tribunal can decide on a discretionary basis that a temporary judge should continue to perform his duties until the cases in which he has been sitting are completed. The Commission has some criticism to make about this approach since it could weaken the independence of temporary judges given that the permanent judges with whom they work would decide whether or not they continue to perform their duties. For this reason, it considers that it would be more appropriate to adopt an objective criterion to determine the cases which the temporary judge would continue to handle even after the return of the judge he is replacing. Amendments relating to all three Courts: lastly, the Court proposes dropping the provision on the ten-day fixed period of grace based on considerations of distance on the grounds that it is no longer justified in this era of new technology. The Commission states that if the ten-day grace period is dropped, it would recommend extending some specific periods set down in the Statute, amongst them, the period set down for submitting written observations on cases referred to the Court of Justice, and the period for appealing against certain decisions of the General Court and of the Civil Service Tribunal. New
The Commission presents its Opinion on the requests for the amendment of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU, presented by the Court in two requests on 28 March 2011. The proposed amendments concern to varying degrees the three courts currently making up the Court of Justice of the European Union: the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal. The Court also proposes an amendment that would affect the three courts in the same way, namely dropping the provision on periods of grace based on considerations of distance, which would in fact result in the disappearance of the ten-day fixed period which is currently added to the procedural deadlines. Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, these provisions should, for the first time, be adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Court of Justice: the amendments are intended to:
The Commission supports all the proposals made in relation to the Court of Justice, but suggests:
The General Court: in order to cope with the increase in its caseload and the resulting increase in the time taken to handle cases, it is proposed that the number of judges be increased to 39. The Commission approves the amendments, subject to comments and proposals regarding:
Civil Service Tribunal: the Court requests that it be assigned three temporary judges upon whom it could call in the event that a judge is prevented from attending for a long period of time. The Commission approves the amendments, subject to comments on the need to lay down the order in which the three temporary judges are required to undertake judicial duties when, in accordance with the conditions laid down, one of the member judges is unable to attend. The Court proposes that in the event of the return of the judge who was absent, the Tribunal can decide on a discretionary basis that a temporary judge should continue to perform his duties until the cases in which he has been sitting are completed. The Commission has some criticism to make about this approach since it could weaken the independence of temporary judges given that the permanent judges with whom they work would decide whether or not they continue to perform their duties. For this reason, it considers that it would be more appropriate to adopt an objective criterion to determine the cases which the temporary judge would continue to handle even after the return of the judge he is replacing. Amendments relating to all three Courts: lastly, the Court proposes dropping the provision on the ten-day fixed period of grace based on considerations of distance on the grounds that it is no longer justified in this era of new technology. The Commission states that if the ten-day grace period is dropped, it would recommend extending some specific periods set down in the Statute, amongst them, the period set down for submitting written observations on cases referred to the Court of Justice, and the period for appealing against certain decisions of the General Court and of the Civil Service Tribunal.
|
| activities/4/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE475.771
|
| activities/3/docs/0/text/0 |
Old
The Commission presents its Opinion on the requests for the amendment of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU, presented by the Court in two requests on 28 March 2011. The proposed amendments concern to varying degrees the three courts currently making up the Court of Justice of the European Union: the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal. The Court also proposes an amendment that would affect the three courts in the same way, namely dropping the provision on periods of grace based on considerations of distance, which would in fact result in the disappearance of the ten-day fixed period which is currently added to the procedural deadlines. Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, these provisions should, for the first time, be adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Court of Justice: the amendments are intended to:
The Commission supports all the proposals made in relation to the Court of Justice, but suggests:
The General Court: in order to cope with the increase in its caseload and the resulting increase in the time taken to handle cases, it is proposed that the number of judges be increased to 39. The Commission approves the amendments, subject to comments and proposals regarding:
Civil Service Tribunal: the Court requests that it be assigned three temporary judges upon whom it could call in the event that a judge is prevented from attending for a long period of time. The Commission approves the amendments, subject to comments on the need to lay down the order in which the three temporary judges are required to undertake judicial duties when, in accordance with the conditions laid down, one of the member judges is unable to attend. The Court proposes that in the event of the return of the judge who was absent, the Tribunal can decide on a discretionary basis that a temporary judge should continue to perform his duties until the cases in which he has been sitting are completed. The Commission has some criticism to make about this approach since it could weaken the independence of temporary judges given that the permanent judges with whom they work would decide whether or not they continue to perform their duties. For this reason, it considers that it would be more appropriate to adopt an objective criterion to determine the cases which the temporary judge would continue to handle even after the return of the judge he is replacing. Amendments relating to all three Courts: lastly, the Court proposes dropping the provision on the ten-day fixed period of grace based on considerations of distance on the grounds that it is no longer justified in this era of new technology. The Commission states that if the ten-day grace period is dropped, it would recommend extending some specific periods set down in the Statute, amongst them, the period set down for submitting written observations on cases referred to the Court of Justice, and the period for appealing against certain decisions of the General Court and of the Civil Service Tribunal.
New
The Commission presents its Opinion on the requests for the amendment of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU, presented by the Court in two requests on 28 March 2011. The proposed amendments concern to varying degrees the three courts currently making up the Court of Justice of the European Union: the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal. The Court also proposes an amendment that would affect the three courts in the same way, namely dropping the provision on periods of grace based on considerations of distance, which would in fact result in the disappearance of the ten-day fixed period which is currently added to the procedural deadlines. Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, these provisions should, for the first time, be adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Court of Justice: the amendments are intended to:
The Commission supports all the proposals made in relation to the Court of Justice, but suggests:
The General Court: in order to cope with the increase in its caseload and the resulting increase in the time taken to handle cases, it is proposed that the number of judges be increased to 39. The Commission approves the amendments, subject to comments and proposals regarding:
Civil Service Tribunal: the Court requests that it be assigned three temporary judges upon whom it could call in the event that a judge is prevented from attending for a long period of time. The Commission approves the amendments, subject to comments on the need to lay down the order in which the three temporary judges are required to undertake judicial duties when, in accordance with the conditions laid down, one of the member judges is unable to attend. The Court proposes that in the event of the return of the judge who was absent, the Tribunal can decide on a discretionary basis that a temporary judge should continue to perform his duties until the cases in which he has been sitting are completed. The Commission has some criticism to make about this approach since it could weaken the independence of temporary judges given that the permanent judges with whom they work would decide whether or not they continue to perform their duties. For this reason, it considers that it would be more appropriate to adopt an objective criterion to determine the cases which the temporary judge would continue to handle even after the return of the judge he is replacing. Amendments relating to all three Courts: lastly, the Court proposes dropping the provision on the ten-day fixed period of grace based on considerations of distance on the grounds that it is no longer justified in this era of new technology. The Commission states that if the ten-day grace period is dropped, it would recommend extending some specific periods set down in the Statute, amongst them, the period set down for submitting written observations on cases referred to the Court of Justice, and the period for appealing against certain decisions of the General Court and of the Civil Service Tribunal. |
| activities/3/docs/0/url |
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=596
|
| activities/4/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE475.771
|
| activities/7/date |
Old
2012-05-22T00:00:00New
2012-04-26T00:00:00 |
| activities/7/type |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote scheduled in committee, 1st reading/single reading |
| activities/8/date |
Old
2012-03-27T00:00:00New
2012-06-12T00:00:00 |
| activities/8/type |
Old
EP 1R CommitteeNew
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading |
| activities/3/docs/0/text/0 |
Old
The Commission presents its Opinion on the requests for the amendment of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU, presented by the Court in two requests on 28 March 2011. The proposed amendments concern to varying degrees the three courts currently making up the Court of Justice of the European Union: the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal. The Court also proposes an amendment that would affect the three courts in the same way, namely dropping the provision on periods of grace based on considerations of distance, which would in fact result in the disappearance of the ten-day fixed period which is currently added to the procedural deadlines. Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, these provisions should, for the first time, be adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Court of Justice: the amendments are intended to:
The Commission supports all the proposals made in relation to the Court of Justice, but suggests:
The General Court: in order to cope with the increase in its caseload and the resulting increase in the time taken to handle cases, it is proposed that the number of judges be increased to 39. The Commission approves the amendments, subject to comments and proposals regarding:
Civil Service Tribunal: the Court requests that it be assigned three temporary judges upon whom it could call in the event that a judge is prevented from attending for a long period of time. The Commission approves the amendments, subject to comments on the need to lay down the order in which the three temporary judges are required to undertake judicial duties when, in accordance with the conditions laid down, one of the member judges is unable to attend. The Court proposes that in the event of the return of the judge who was absent, the Tribunal can decide on a discretionary basis that a temporary judge should continue to perform his duties until the cases in which he has been sitting are completed. The Commission has some criticism to make about this approach since it could weaken the independence of temporary judges given that the permanent judges with whom they work would decide whether or not they continue to perform their duties. For this reason, it considers that it would be more appropriate to adopt an objective criterion to determine the cases which the temporary judge would continue to handle even after the return of the judge he is replacing. Amendments relating to all three Courts: lastly, the Court proposes dropping the provision on the ten-day fixed period of grace based on considerations of distance on the grounds that it is no longer justified in this era of new technology. The Commission states that if the ten-day grace period is dropped, it would recommend extending some specific periods set down in the Statute, amongst them, the period set down for submitting written observations on cases referred to the Court of Justice, and the period for appealing against certain decisions of the General Court and of the Civil Service Tribunal. New
The Commission presents its Opinion on the requests for the amendment of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU, presented by the Court in two requests on 28 March 2011. The proposed amendments concern to varying degrees the three courts currently making up the Court of Justice of the European Union: the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal. The Court also proposes an amendment that would affect the three courts in the same way, namely dropping the provision on periods of grace based on considerations of distance, which would in fact result in the disappearance of the ten-day fixed period which is currently added to the procedural deadlines. Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, these provisions should, for the first time, be adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Court of Justice: the amendments are intended to:
The Commission supports all the proposals made in relation to the Court of Justice, but suggests:
The General Court: in order to cope with the increase in its caseload and the resulting increase in the time taken to handle cases, it is proposed that the number of judges be increased to 39. The Commission approves the amendments, subject to comments and proposals regarding:
Civil Service Tribunal: the Court requests that it be assigned three temporary judges upon whom it could call in the event that a judge is prevented from attending for a long period of time. The Commission approves the amendments, subject to comments on the need to lay down the order in which the three temporary judges are required to undertake judicial duties when, in accordance with the conditions laid down, one of the member judges is unable to attend. The Court proposes that in the event of the return of the judge who was absent, the Tribunal can decide on a discretionary basis that a temporary judge should continue to perform his duties until the cases in which he has been sitting are completed. The Commission has some criticism to make about this approach since it could weaken the independence of temporary judges given that the permanent judges with whom they work would decide whether or not they continue to perform their duties. For this reason, it considers that it would be more appropriate to adopt an objective criterion to determine the cases which the temporary judge would continue to handle even after the return of the judge he is replacing. Amendments relating to all three Courts: lastly, the Court proposes dropping the provision on the ten-day fixed period of grace based on considerations of distance on the grounds that it is no longer justified in this era of new technology. The Commission states that if the ten-day grace period is dropped, it would recommend extending some specific periods set down in the Statute, amongst them, the period set down for submitting written observations on cases referred to the Court of Justice, and the period for appealing against certain decisions of the General Court and of the Civil Service Tribunal.
|
| activities/3/docs/0/text/0 |
Old
The Commission presents its Opinion on the requests for the amendment of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU, presented by the Court in two requests on 28 March 2011. The proposed amendments concern to varying degrees the three courts currently making up the Court of Justice of the European Union: the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal. The Court also proposes an amendment that would affect the three courts in the same way, namely dropping the provision on periods of grace based on considerations of distance, which would in fact result in the disappearance of the ten-day fixed period which is currently added to the procedural deadlines. Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, these provisions should, for the first time, be adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Court of Justice: the amendments are intended to:
The Commission supports all the proposals made in relation to the Court of Justice, but suggests:
The General Court: in order to cope with the increase in its caseload and the resulting increase in the time taken to handle cases, it is proposed that the number of judges be increased to 39. The Commission approves the amendments, subject to comments and proposals regarding:
Civil Service Tribunal: the Court requests that it be assigned three temporary judges upon whom it could call in the event that a judge is prevented from attending for a long period of time. The Commission approves the amendments, subject to comments on the need to lay down the order in which the three temporary judges are required to undertake judicial duties when, in accordance with the conditions laid down, one of the member judges is unable to attend. The Court proposes that in the event of the return of the judge who was absent, the Tribunal can decide on a discretionary basis that a temporary judge should continue to perform his duties until the cases in which he has been sitting are completed. The Commission has some criticism to make about this approach since it could weaken the independence of temporary judges given that the permanent judges with whom they work would decide whether or not they continue to perform their duties. For this reason, it considers that it would be more appropriate to adopt an objective criterion to determine the cases which the temporary judge would continue to handle even after the return of the judge he is replacing. Amendments relating to all three Courts: lastly, the Court proposes dropping the provision on the ten-day fixed period of grace based on considerations of distance on the grounds that it is no longer justified in this era of new technology. The Commission states that if the ten-day grace period is dropped, it would recommend extending some specific periods set down in the Statute, amongst them, the period set down for submitting written observations on cases referred to the Court of Justice, and the period for appealing against certain decisions of the General Court and of the Civil Service Tribunal.
New
The Commission presents its Opinion on the requests for the amendment of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU, presented by the Court in two requests on 28 March 2011. The proposed amendments concern to varying degrees the three courts currently making up the Court of Justice of the European Union: the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal. The Court also proposes an amendment that would affect the three courts in the same way, namely dropping the provision on periods of grace based on considerations of distance, which would in fact result in the disappearance of the ten-day fixed period which is currently added to the procedural deadlines. Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, these provisions should, for the first time, be adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Court of Justice: the amendments are intended to:
The Commission supports all the proposals made in relation to the Court of Justice, but suggests:
The General Court: in order to cope with the increase in its caseload and the resulting increase in the time taken to handle cases, it is proposed that the number of judges be increased to 39. The Commission approves the amendments, subject to comments and proposals regarding:
Civil Service Tribunal: the Court requests that it be assigned three temporary judges upon whom it could call in the event that a judge is prevented from attending for a long period of time. The Commission approves the amendments, subject to comments on the need to lay down the order in which the three temporary judges are required to undertake judicial duties when, in accordance with the conditions laid down, one of the member judges is unable to attend. The Court proposes that in the event of the return of the judge who was absent, the Tribunal can decide on a discretionary basis that a temporary judge should continue to perform his duties until the cases in which he has been sitting are completed. The Commission has some criticism to make about this approach since it could weaken the independence of temporary judges given that the permanent judges with whom they work would decide whether or not they continue to perform their duties. For this reason, it considers that it would be more appropriate to adopt an objective criterion to determine the cases which the temporary judge would continue to handle even after the return of the judge he is replacing. Amendments relating to all three Courts: lastly, the Court proposes dropping the provision on the ten-day fixed period of grace based on considerations of distance on the grounds that it is no longer justified in this era of new technology. The Commission states that if the ten-day grace period is dropped, it would recommend extending some specific periods set down in the Statute, amongst them, the period set down for submitting written observations on cases referred to the Court of Justice, and the period for appealing against certain decisions of the General Court and of the Civil Service Tribunal. |
| activities/7/type |
Old
Vote scheduled in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
EP 1R Committee |
| activities/3/docs/0/url |
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=596
|
| procedure/legal_basis/1 |
Old
TFEU 281-p2New
Treaty on the Functioning of the EU TFEU 281-p2 |
| activities/3 |
|
| activities/3 |
|
| activities/3 |
|
| activities/3 |
|
| activities/4 |
|
| activities/3 |
|
| activities/3 |
|
| activities/0 |
|
| activities/1/type |
Old
Legislative proposal publishedNew
Legislative proposal |
| activities/6 |
|
| activities/7 |
|
| activities/8 |
|
| activities/0/body |
Old
New
unknown |
| activities/2/commission/0 |
|
| activities/2/commission/0 |
|
| activities/7 |
|
| activities/7 |
|
| other/0 |
|
| other/0 |
|
| activities/8 |
|
| activities/8 |
|
| activities/10 |
|
| procedure/legal_basis/1 |
TFEU 281-p2
|
| procedure/legal_basis/1 |
Treaty on the Functioning of the EU TFEU 281-p2
|
| activities/3 |
|
| activities/3 |
|
| activities/4 |
|
| committees/1/rapporteur/0 |
|
| committees/1/rapporteur/0 |
|
| activities/3 |
|
| activities/3 |
|
| committees/1/rapporteur/0 |
|
| committees/1/rapporteur/0 |
|
| committees/2 |
|
| committees/2 |
|
| activities/3 |
|
| activities/3 |
|
| committees/1/rapporteur/0 |
|
| committees/1/rapporteur/0 |
|
| committees/2 |
|
| committees/2 |
|
| activities/3 |
|
| activities/3 |
|
| activities/4/docs/0/url |
Old
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=0596&model=guichetiNew
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=0596 |
| committees/0/committee_full |
Old
Constitutional AffairsNew
Constitutional Affairs |
| committees/1 |
|
| committees/1 |
|
| committees/2 |
|
| committees/2 |
|
| activities |
|
| committees |
|
| links |
|
| other |
|
| procedure |
|