On the Proposed amendments to Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union
AFCO-PA-749876
Committee on Constitutional Affairs · Rapporteur: Sven Simon
Written by a language model from the full text only; every figure comes from the text. The paragraph links open the paragraph a statement rests on — check the text itself before relying on it.
The Committee on Constitutional Affairs gives its opinion on the proposed amendments to Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.¶¶ It welcomes efficiency proposals but disputes the data, noting only a 7% increase in cases since 2017 and that the Court itself rejected transfers in 2017.¶ It raises concerns about transferring preliminary ruling jurisdiction to the General Court, including unclear legal areas, unequal treatment, divergent decisions, and friction with national courts.¶¶¶ It does not believe the transfer is warranted now and proposes amending Article 23 instead of Article 50, plus revising the Court's Rules of Procedure Article 93a with admissibility criteria.¶¶¶
Committee position. The Committee on Constitutional Affairs does not believe the transfer of preliminary ruling jurisdiction to the General Court is warranted now. It proposes amending Article 23 instead of Article 50, and revising the Court's Rules of Procedure Article 93a with admissibility criteria.¶¶¶
Key points
- Welcomes proposals to increase the efficiency of Court of Justice proceedings.¶
- Disputes the data, stating there has only been a 7% increase in cases since 2017, and notes the Court rejected transfers in 2017.
- Questions why specific legal areas should be transferred, citing 298 VAT decisions in five years with only 29 reasoned orders, and low case numbers in ETS trading, excise duties, Customs Code and customs classification.¶
- Questions equal treatment of preliminary rulings, as the proposal lets one judge act as advocate general, which is not comparable to existing advocates general.¶
- Notes risk of divergent decisions when different courts have simultaneous jurisdiction over identical questions.¶
- Concerns that Article 256(3) TFEU requires case-by-case jurisdiction decisions, giving referring courts power to determine jurisdiction and creating friction with national courts over the right to a lawful judge.¶
- Does not believe transfer of preliminary ruling jurisdiction to the General Court is warranted now; the Court should instead strengthen admissibility procedures.¶
- Proposes amending Article 23, not Article 50, of the Statute to reduce the ECJ's workload, and revising the Court's Rules of Procedure Article 93a.¶¶
- Recommends codifying admissibility criteria for preliminary rulings, allowing courts to submit revised requests after rejection.
- Admissibility criteria include clarified facts, non-hypothetical question, clear national legal framework, specific EU law provision, relevance to main proceedings, and differing outcomes from interpretations.¶¶¶
- Further criteria: referral is the referring court's own opinion, sufficient justification for interpretation and for its own interpretation, consideration of previous case law, and evidence of in-depth examination with diverse interpretations.¶¶¶
Who is affected
- Court of Justice of the European Union: would see its workload addressed through admissibility criteria rather than transfers.¶¶
- General Court: would not receive transferred preliminary ruling jurisdiction under this opinion.
- National courts: would face new admissibility criteria and potential jurisdiction issues.¶¶
Figures and deadlines
Legal basis: Article 256(3) TFEU¶