Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

25 Years of the General Court: Looking Back and Forward

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
EU Competition and State Aid Rules

Part of the book series: Europeanization and Globalization ((EAG,volume 3))

Abstract

In this article, the author, the President of the General Court of the European Union since 2007, reflects on the past, current and future EU judicial architecture. The first part of the contribution focuses on the structural evolutions that the General Court has gone through, achieving revolutionary solutions as to how the way cases are dealt with can be improved. However, the success story of this jurisdiction has led to an increase in its workload, creating a worrying backlog. Therefore, the second part addresses the various solutions implemented to tackle this problem, from the entry into force of new procedural rules last July to the foreseeable impact of the structural reform that will double the number of judges of the General Court.

This article follows my contribution on the occasion of the 4th Petar Šarčević International Scientific Conference entitled ‘Rethinking the role of the General Court – EU competition and state aid rules: interaction between public and private enforcement’, which took place in Rovinj (Croatia) on 9 April 2015. I would like to thank Mr. Vivien Terrien for his precious assistance in writing this article, which reflects the situation as at 7 May 2015. It thus gives an updated view of my contribution ‘The EU General Court: institutional aspects and perspectives’, published in French in “Cours du Master international Droit de l’UE”, vol. 4 “Le Tribunal de l’UE”, Sofia 2014. All views expressed are strictly personal and are solely the responsibility of the author.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    P Corneille, Le Cid, Act II, Scene II (personal translation).

  2. 2.

    Single European Act [1987] OJ L169/1. The Single European Act was signed on 17 February 1986 in Luxembourg (by Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom) and on 24 February 1986 in The Hague (by Denmark, Italy and Greece). It entered into force on 1 July 1987.

  3. 3.

    From the ECJ’s establishment, the duration of proceedings regarding direct actions increased significantly from 8.5 months in 1970 to 24 months in 1988.

  4. 4.

    See, in this sense, the fourth, fifth and sixth recitals of Council Decision No 88/591/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of 24 October 1988 establishing a Court of First Instance of the European Communities [1988] OJ L 319/1:

    Whereas, in respect of actions requiring close examination of complex facts, the establishment of a second court will improve the judicial protection of individual interests;

    Whereas it is necessary, in order to maintain the quality and effectiveness of judicial review in the Community legal order, to enable the Court to concentrate its activities on its fundamental task of ensuring uniform interpretation of Community law;

    Whereas it is therefore necessary to make use of the powers granted by (…) Article 168a of the EEC Treaty (…) and to transfer to the Court of First Instance jurisdiction to hear and determine at first instance certain classes of action or proceeding which frequently require an examination of complex facts, that is to say actions or proceedings brought by servants of the Communities and also, (…) so far as the EEC Treaty is concerned, by natural or legal persons in competition matters, (…) (emphasis added).

  5. 5.

    Council Decision No 88/591/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of 24 October 1988 establishing a Court of First Instance of the European Communities [1988] OJ L319/1, Article 3(1). This text also transfers competences regarding actions introduced by undertakings and associations in the field of levies, production, prices, cartels and mergers within the framework of the ECSC Treaty. Note also that Article 3(3) set a two-year period (from the start of the CFI’s operation) to review, ‘in the light of experience, including the development of jurisprudence’, whether this transfer of competence could not also concern ‘actions brought against an institution of the Communities by natural or legal persons (…) and relating to measures to protect trade within the meaning of Article 113 of that Treaty in the case of dumping and subsidies’.

  6. 6.

    Council Decision No 93/350/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of 8 June 1993 amending Decision 88/591/ECSC, EEC, Euratom establishing a Court of First Instance of the European Communities (93/350/Euratom, ECSC, EEC).

  7. 7.

    Article 3 of Council Decision 93/350/ECSC, EEC, Euratom postponed the empowerment of the CFI in the field of trade protection measures (dumping and subsidies) to a later date and made it dependent upon the adoption of a specific decision by the Council. Accordingly, Council Decision 94/149/ECSC, EC of 7 March 1994 amending Decision 93/350/Euratom, ECSC, EEC amending Decision 88/591/ECSC, EEC, Euratom establishing a Court of First Instance of the European Communities [1994] OJ L 66/29 fixed the entry into force as 15 March 1994.

  8. 8.

    Treaty of Nice [2001] OJ C 80/1.

  9. 9.

    On the standard of review applied in competition law cases by the General Court, see Jaeger (2011a, b)

  10. 10.

    See Article 58(1) of Protocol (No 3) on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, annexed to the Treaties, as amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 741/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of [2012] OJ L 228/1, and by Article 9 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession to the European Union of the Republic of Croatia and the adjustments to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community [2012] OJ L 112/21.

  11. 11.

    See Court of Justice of the European Union, Annual Report 2014, pp 183 and 185, available via Curia http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-04/en_ecj_annual_report_2014_pr1.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2015.

  12. 12.

    See Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark [2009] OJ L78/1, and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark [1995] OJ L 303/1.

  13. 13.

    See Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market. https://oami.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/appeal. Accessed 30 Apr 2015.

  14. 14.

    Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC.

  15. 15.

    See European Chemicals Agency. http://echa.europa.eu/regulations/appeals. Accessed 30 Apr 2015.

  16. 16.

    Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on European Union macro-prudential oversight of the financial system and establishing a European Systemic Risk Board [2010] OJ L331/1; Council Regulation (EU) No 1096/2010 of 17 November 2010 conferring specific tasks upon the European Central Bank concerning the functioning of the European Systemic Risk Board [2010] OJ L331/162; Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/78/EC [2010] OJ L331/12; Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/79/EC [2010] OJ L331/48; Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/77/EC [2010] OJ L331/84; Directive 2010/78/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 amending Directives 98/26/EC, 2002/87/EC, 2003/6/EC, 2003/41/EC, 2003/71/EC, 2004/39/EC, 2004/109/EC, 2005/60/EC, 2006/48/EC, 2006/49/EC and 2009/65/EC in respect of the powers of the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) [2010] OJ L331/120.

  17. 17.

    See European Banking Authority. http://www.eba.europa.eu/about-us/organisation/joint-board-of-appeal. Accessed 30 Apr 2015; European Securities and Markets Authority. http://www.esma.europa.eu/page/board-appeal. Accessed 30 Apr 2015; European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority https://eiopa.europa.eu/Pages/About-EIOPA/Organisation/Board-of-Appeal/Board-of-Appeal.aspx. Accessed 30 Apr 2015. See also the Rules of Procedure of the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities, available via European Banking Authority.

    http://www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/15733/1_Rules_of_Procedure.pdf/6f607767-8d00-464a-8448-4f730671d7bc. Accessed 30 Apr 2015; the Guidelines to the Parties to Appeal Proceedings before the Joint Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities, available via European Banking Authority. http://www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/15733/2_Guidelines_to_the_Parties.pdf/6ecd4b5f-9504-4d18-9f7e-19205ffd12a7. Accessed 30 Apr 2015.

  18. 18.

    Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions [2013] OJ L287/63; Regulation (EU) No 1022/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) as regards the conferral of specific tasks on the European Central Bank pursuant to Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 [2013] OJ L 287/5.

  19. 19.

    Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 [2014] OJ L 225/1.

  20. 20.

    Treaty of Nice [2001] OJ C 80/1.

  21. 21.

    Treaty of Nice, Declaration on Article 225a of the Treaty establishing the European Community [2001] OJ C 80/1.

  22. 22.

    Council Decision No 2004/752/EC Euratom of 2 November 2004 establishing the European Union Civil Service Tribunal, [2004] OJ L 333/7, second recital and Article 1.

  23. 23.

    Council Decision No 2004/752/EC Euratom of 2 November 2004 establishing the European Union Civil Service Tribunal, [2004] OJ L 333/7, eighth recital.

  24. 24.

    The indicated figures are available in the annual reports of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which can be found via Curia http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_7000/. Accessed 30 Apr 2015.

  25. 25.

    Single European Act [1987] OJ L169/1, Article 168a, para 1.

  26. 26.

    Treaty of Nice [2001] OJ C 80/1, Article 225.

  27. 27.

    Treaty of Nice [2001] OJ C 80/1, Article 225, para 3.

  28. 28.

    Rules of procedure of the General Court [2015] OJ L 105/1.

  29. 29.

    Regulation (EU, Euratom) 741/2012 amending the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Annex I thereto [2012] OJ L 228/1.

  30. 30.

    On this topic, see Gaudissart (2012), p. 603.

  31. 31.

    Decision of the General Court of 14 September 2011 on the lodging and service of procedural documents by means of e-Curia [2011] OJ C 289/9.

  32. 32.

    See, for instance, Bodoni (2007), Croft (2011), Lambote (2015).

  33. 33.

    See the Court of Justice of the European Union, Annual Report 2014, p 123, available via Curia http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-04/en_ecj_annual_report_2014_pr1.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2015.

  34. 34.

    Amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities [2008] OJ L 179/12.

  35. 35.

    Amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities [2009] OJ L 184/10.

  36. 36.

    Jaeger (2009).

  37. 37.

    On the chronology of events related to the reform, see the MLex case file Amendment to Court of Justice Statute. Available via MLex http://www.mlex.com/EU/Content.aspx?ID=145077. Accessed 30 Apr 2015.

  38. 38.

    As last amended by Article 9 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession to the European Union of the Republic of Croatia and the adjustments to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community [2012] OJ L 112/21.

  39. 39.

    Council document 8787/11 of 7 April 2011. Available via European Council, Council of the European Union http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8787-2011-INIT/en/pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2015.

  40. 40.

    Commission opinion on the requests for the amendment of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, presented by the Court, COM(2011) 596 final, 30.9.2011. Available via European Parliament http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/documents/juri/dv/com_com%282011%290596_/com_com%282011%290596_en.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2015.

  41. 41.

    Rego (2011).

  42. 42.

    Croft and Newman (2013).

  43. 43.

    Croft and Newman (2014a).

  44. 44.

    Croft and Nylen (2014).

  45. 45.

    Seytre (2014).

  46. 46.

    Newman (2014).

  47. 47.

    Croft (2014a).

  48. 48.

    See Council document 14448/1/14, 20.11.2014. Available via European Council, Council of the European Union http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14448-2014-REV-1/en/pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2015.

  49. 49.

    Document entitled Response to the invitation from the Italian Presidency of the Council to present new proposals in order to facilitate the task of securing agreement within the Council on the procedures for increasing the number of Judges at the General Court, annexed to the letter from the President of the Court of Justice of the European Union to the Chairman of Coreper, dated 13 October 2014. Available via European Council, Council of the European Union. Accessed 30 Apr 2015.

  50. 50.

    Croft (2014b).

  51. 51.

    Croft and Newman (2014b).

  52. 52.

    Newman (2015a).

  53. 53.

    Newman (2015b).

  54. 54.

    Court of Justice of the European Union, Press Release, Reform of the EU’s court system, No 44/15 of 28 April 2015.

  55. 55.

    Compare Court of Justice of the European Union, Press Release, The President of the Court of Justice presents the Council of Justice Ministers with a number of proposals and ideas on the future of the judicial system of the European Union, No 36/99 of 28 May 1998 with Skouris (2008).

  56. 56.

    President E Tsouroulis’ letter regarding the appointment of Judges to the EU Courts, 26.3.2013. Available via CCBE http://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/NTCdocument/260313_EN__EU_Repsp1_1364893059.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2015.

References

  • Bodoni S (2007) Jaeger, new EU court head, says priority cutting case backlog. Bloomberg, 10 October 2007. Available via Bloomberg. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ayYfhR7ueZyw. Accessed 30 Apr 2015

  • Croft L (2011) Court General: the view from the bench. MLex Magazine (6) July-September

    Google Scholar 

  • Croft L (2014a) EU court will demand 28 more judges in new proposal. MLex Insight, 24 September 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • Croft L (2014b) EU states raise budget concerns about 28 new judges. MLex Insight, 10 November 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • Croft L, Newman M (2013) Proposal to double EU court judges to 56 finds little support. MLex Insight, 2 October 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • Croft L, Newman M (2014a) EU high court moves to unblock talks over appointing new judges. MLex Insight, 7 January 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • Croft L, Newman M (2014b) EU governments home in on deal to double judges at EU court. MLex Insight, 11 December 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • Croft L, Nylen L (2014) Push for more EU judges is ‘dead’, Rosas says. MLex Insight, 25 April 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaudissart M-A (2012) Le refonte du règlement de procédure de la Cour de justice. Cahiers de droit européen (CDE) 3:603–669

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger M (2009) Is it time for reform? The Court of First Instance of the European Communities is celebrating its 20th anniversary. Available via Curia. http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/P_52392/. Accessed 30 Apr 2015

  • Jaeger M (2011a) Standard of review in competition cases: can the General Court increase coherence in the EU judicial system? In: Today’s multilayered legal order: current issues and perspectives, Liber Amicorum, in honour of Arjen WH Meij, Zutphen, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger M (2011b) The standard of review in competition cases involving complex economic assessments: towards the marginalisation of the marginal review? J Eur Competition Law Pract 2(4):295–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambote S (2015) Adopter le réflexe du droit de l’Union européenne. Legimag (9) March

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman M (2014) EU states could tweak rules to streamline court appeals, senior judge says. MLex Insight, 28 April 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman M (2015a) EU judges should give testimony on court overhaul, lawmaker says. MLex Insight, 23 March 2015

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman M (2015b) EU judges dismiss plan to revamp General Court as ‘yesterday’s solution’. MLex Insight, 29 April 2015

    Google Scholar 

  • Rego AR (2011) Agreement on General Court reform by June ‘extremely difficult,’ Danish presidency official says. MLex Insight, 28 December 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Seytre D (2014) Communication, information et réformes à la cour. Le Jeudi, 22 May 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • Skouris V (2008) The Court of Justice and the challenges of the enlarged European Union. ERA Forum 9(1):99–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. General Court of the European Union, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Marc Jaeger (President)

Authors
  1. Marc Jaeger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc Jaeger .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. General Court of EU, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Vesna Tomljenović

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia

    Nada Bodiroga-Vukobrat

  3. Faculty of Law, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia

    Vlatka Butorac Malnar

  4. Faculty of Law, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia

    Ivana Kunda

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Jaeger, M. (2017). 25 Years of the General Court: Looking Back and Forward. In: Tomljenović, V., Bodiroga-Vukobrat, N., Butorac Malnar, V., Kunda, I. (eds) EU Competition and State Aid Rules. Europeanization and Globalization, vol 3. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47962-9_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47962-9_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-47961-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-47962-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation