The origins of European Court of Justice
Introduction
On 4 December 2016, the
Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) celebrated its 64th anniversary.
Indeed, during the last 14 years the judicial system of the EU has undergone
major reforms which, viewed as a whole, constitute a real transformation.
Reference can be made in this regard to the entry into force of the Treaty of
Nice, two enlargements which resulted in the institution’s workforce almost
doubling and in multiplication of the languages of the case and working
languages, the creation of the Civil Service Tribunal, substantial
modernisation of internal working methods, the entry into force of the Treaty
of Lisbon with the resulting extension of the Court’s jurisdiction, the
establishment of the urgent preliminary ruling procedure, and the
computerisation of procedure with the launch of the e-Curia system.
Overview
The Court of Justice of
the European Union (CJEU) rules on the interpretation and application of Union
law. There is no appeal against a judgement from the Court. It is assisted by a
General Court (previously the Court of First Instance -CFI), which deals with
most cases of direct action and those concerning the administration of the EU
institutions and competition law. Appeals to the CJEU against General Court
rulings are allowed on points of law. A Civil Service Tribunal was created in
2004 to ease the workload of the CFI. Appeals to the General Court against
Tribunal rulings are allowed on points of law.
The Court was -and is
-often referred to as the European Court of Justice, with the abbreviation ECJ
still frequently used in preference to CJEU.
The CJEU/ECJ is an EU
institution and has no relation to the European Court of Human Rights (Council
of Europe) based in Strasbourg, nor to the International Court of Justice
(United Nations) in The Hague.
The origins of
European Court of Justice (ECJ)
The Court of Justice of
the European Communities was set up in 1952 as part of the European Coal and
Steel Community (ECSC). With the advent of the European Economic Community
(EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC) in 1957, the Court was established
as a common Court for all three Communities. Articles 251-281 of the Treaty on
the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) set out the main provisions
concerning the Court.
The origins of European
Court of Justice (ECJ) should be seek in Treaty of Paris, signed on 18th of
April 1951, which established European Coal and Steal Community. Article 31 of this treaty stated that the
Court “shall ensure that in the interpretation and application of this Treaty,
and of rules laid down for implementation thereof, the law is observed”. In
other words it gave
the Court a general task
to interpret this
treaty and to be able to do that was given certain powers, which
included to be able to quash acts from the other institutions, hear appeals,
impose sanctions and order the
Community to pay
penalty costs on
wrongful acts (Arnull,
2006: 5). But it wasn’t before Treaty of Rome, signed in 1957, that ECJ,
officially became institution of the European Union. In article 4 it is
mentioned among the Assembly, the
Council and the Commission as a main power holder, which is responsible to
carry out the
tasks entrusted to
the Community. Its current action is based on Statute, which
was annexed to the Treaty of Niece, and Rules of Procedure. Its head office was
created in Luxemburg in Villa Vauban, a mansion named after great French
military engineer and is located there for this day.
European Court of
Justice originally consisted of seven Judges and two Advocates-General.
Fallowing the enlargement of the European Union their number has grown to
twenty seven Judges and eight Advocates-General. Each member of the EU has an entitlement to
choose one Judge. A chosen person is appointed by a common accord of the
governments of the member states. This solution is to ensure the case law of
the Court is somehow influenced by the legal cultures of each national system
and that the authority of the Court is reinforced in member states societies
(Arnell, 2006:8).
Advocates General task
is to deliver legal opinions on the cases brought before the Court in impartial
and in depended manner. Because of Treaty of Lisbon coming into force, there
will be a change in their number. From now on, there will be three additional
Advocates General: one from Poland and two nominated by the smaller and
medium-sized Member States. Judges as well as Advocates-General hold their office for renewable term of six years, but
each three years part of the members of the Courte change (13 and 14 judges
interchangeably, and each time 4 advocate general).
European Court of
Justice can hear cases in six different chambers, depending on the field,
importance and difficulty of the case. It can sits either as a Full Court (28 Judges,
on 5 three rare occasions), Grand Chamber (13 Judges, when Member States or an
institution that is party to the proceeding so request), the most effective
five Judge Chamber and three-Judge chamber, to which most straightforward cases
are assigned (Arnull, 2006:8-9).
The 28 Judges who are
assisted by 11 (as of 05/10/2016) Advocates-General. The Judges and
Advocates-General are appointed by common accord of the governments of the
member states and hold office for a renewable term of six years. The treaties
require that they are chosen from legal experts whose independence is
"beyond doubt" and who possess the qualifications required for
appointment to the highest judicial offices in their respective countries or who
are of recognised competence.
The Court sits as a
full court in the particular cases prescribed by the Court’s Statute (proceedings
to dismiss the European Ombudsman or a Member of the European Commission who
has failed to fulfil his or her obligations, etc.) and where the Court
considers that a case is of exceptional importance. It sits in a Grand Chamber
when a Member State or an Institution
which is a party to the proceedings so requests, and in particularly complex or
important cases. Other cases are heard by Chambers of three or five Judges. The
Presidents of the Chambers of five Judges are elected for three years, and
those of the Chambers of three Judges for one year. Court gives a single,
collective judgment, which formulated based on consensus which was reached during
the open discussion between the Judges.
One can notice that
roles and functions that European Court of Justice is known for are much
broader than what is said in the treaties. It resembles a national supreme
court and as such can be treated as an appeal court from the Court of First
Instance decisions. One can perceive it as a constitutional court, defining
“the balance between the powers exercised by the member states and those
exercised by the Community institutions. (Kennedy, 2006:131).
This assumption is a form
on the settled opinion that member states have already agreed on the particular
rules, and Court is only carrying out their will through the interpretation. It
is believed that organization and nature of the ECJ was inspired by French
Conseil D’Etat. The procedures of the appeal for annulment and the plenary
appeal are examples of that similarity.
As a result of this
fact in some cases it appears to have an administrative court’s features as
well (Josselin, Marcian, and 2007:69). Furthermore, ECJ is also identified as
an arbitration court, settling conflicts between the institutions,
organizations or Member States. The Court has no latitude to do as it pleases
in intervening, its actions need to take forms, which were defined and
formulated in the treaties. Its main functions limits to “ensuring observance by
the member states of their obligation under the Treaties, reviewing the
legality of the acts of the Community institutions and guaranteeing the uniform
application of the acts of European Community law in the member states”
(Kennedy, 2007:132).
When establishing ECJ
as the institution of the European Union it was decided that ECJ will not have any
power of initiative. It cannot decide upon matters which were not brought to it
by parts that have such authorization. Moreover, it has little or none competence
in the fields of second and third pillar (Common Foreign and Security Policy; Policy
and Judicial-Cooperation in Criminal Matters). Although European Court of
Justice in its case law put further its competences and functions, still in the
matter of treaties, ECJ is more reactive, than pro-active institution. How can
it be seen as a pro-integrative institution then? One need to first understand
a term “integration” to fully understand a complexity of this problem.
European
integration theories and the European Court of Justice.
Political integration
in general means that states, which were previously in depended and sovereign
are transmitting part of their legal power to supranational institutions, or organizations.
States are placed under common political authority of institutions, which can
make an authoritative decisions legally, binding political organs, as well as natural
persons.
According to Alter
legal integration (expansion and penetration of European law into the national
realm) is a process of negotiations between legal and political actors on
national and supranational level. (Alter, 2001:44) One can imagine the political integration
without courts, but in the same manner that courts are important in the administration
of law, they are also significant in the process of political integration. They
control and observe the implementation and use of agreed rules of law. In
European Union, European Court of Justice plays such a role. According to Jean
Pierre Colin’s theory, its is a very powerful institution in this aspect,
because its jurisdiction is permanent, obligatory and sovereign (Green,
1969:487).
Neo-functionalist
theory, presented by Anne-Marie Burley and Walter Mattli, concentrates on the
role of the Court in creating “pro-community constituency of private
individuals by giving them a direct stake in promulgation and implementation of
community law”. In this way it encourage actors within national legal systems
to pursuit their interest and thus promote the legal integration (Alter,
2001:41).
Stuart A. Scheingold,
as a representative of “functional” theory of jurisprudence, concentrates its
analysis once more on the role of judges.
In his theory “wise judge is the one who best uses the judicial process
to solve the political problem underlying the legal dispute”. He or she is
always aware of an underlying political controversy and have a proper solution,
which then can be clothed in suitable legal forms. One can notice that Scheingold
pays to much attention to what was in the back of mind of the judges when they
made a particular judgment. However, Scheingold notice a lack of his theory,
for example, in a matter of scope of judge’s decision-making variants. When
judge is too timid or too self-assured, and
disregard established rules too
far, then his political solution may not work, and in the same time integration
process can turn into de-integrative one (Green,1969:464).
One can say that
European Union has so-called “magic triangle”:
‘direct effect’, ‘supremacy’ and ‘preliminary ruling’. All these three
rules, together allow European Court of Justice to have a huge impact on
European integration process. According to Vauchez there is no “no effective European treaties
without the supremacy of European law over the law of Member States; no
supremacy without direct effect opposable to and by individuals; no direct
effect without preliminary rulings ensuring the uniform application of Euro-law throughout the European Union”. One might
think without these three pillars European Community would fall apart, because
there will be no power to put order in the heterogeneous and mulit-level
European public sphere. (Vauchez, 2008).
The European Union
Treaties.
The European Union is
based on the rule of law. This means that every action taken by the EU is
founded on treaties that have been approved voluntarily and democratically by
all EU member countries. For example, if a policy area is not cited in a
treaty, the Commission cannot propose a law in that area.
A treaty is a binding
agreement between EU member countries. It sets out EU objectives, rules for EU
institutions, how decisions are made and the relationship between the EU and
its member countries.
Treaties are amended to
make the EU more efficient and transparent, to prepare for new member countries
and to introduce new areas of cooperation – such as the single currency.
Under the treaties, EU
institutions can adopt legislation, which the member countries then implement.
The complete texts of treaties, legislation, case law and legislative proposals
can be viewed using the EUR-Lex database of EU law.
The Court of Justice of
the European Communities was set up in 1952 as part of the European Coal and
Steel Community (ECSC). With the advent of the European Economic Community
(EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC) in 1957, the Court was
establish held as a common Court for all three Communities.
The 1993 Treaty on
European Union gave the ECJ power to 'impose a lump sum or penalty payment' if a
Member State fails to comply with a judgement ordered.
The TEU also extended
the ECJ's right to review the legality of acts to include those adopted by the
European Parliament, and brought the European Central Bank under the Court's
jurisdiction.
The Treaty of Amsterdam
(see Summaries of EU legislation) gave the ECJ new responsibilities, covering:
Asylum
-police
and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (with restrictions)
The ECJ has made a
number of rulings which are significant for the Court itself and for EU law:
-
The
1963 Van Genden Loos judgement established the principle of 'direct effect', by
stating that: 'independently of the legislation of Member States, Community law
... not only imposes obligations on individuals but is also intended to confer
upon them rights which become part of their legal heritage.'
-
In
1964, in Costa v. ENEL,the Court ruled that Community law is supreme, taking
precedence over national law: 'the law stemming from the treaty ... could not,
because of its special and original nature, be overridden by domestic legal
provisions ... without being deprived of its character as Community law and
without the legal basis of the Community itself being called into question.'
-
The
1991 judgement in the Francovich case gives individuals the right -under
certain circumstances -to claim compensation for injury suffered where the
State fails to implement EC Directives punctually and properly.
To help ease the
workload of the ECJ, a Court of First Instance (CFI) was created by Decision
88/591 (after the 1986 Single European Act had given the Council power to
create such a court -see Summaries of EU legislation). The CFI began work on 25
September 1989 and heard its first case in November the same year.
In an article written
to mark the 20th anniversary of the Court, Marc Jaeger, President of the CFI,
wrote in is it time for reform? That the creation of the Court:
Pursued a threefold
objective: to equip the European legal system with a court for hearing actions
requiring close examination of complex facts; to establish a second court in
order to improve the judicial protection of individual interests; and to enable
the Court of Justice to concentrate its activities on its fundamental task of
ensuring uniform interpretation of Community law. This is how, initially, the
Court of First Instance was allocated the task of hearing, amongst others,
cases on competition law.
The Treaty of Lisbon
has extended the Court’s jurisdiction in a number of areas, as summarised in
the CJEU section of the Draft General budget of the European Union for the
financial year 2011:
The legal jurisdiction
of the institution, and more specifically the jurisdiction of the Court of
Justice and the General Court, has now been significantly extended in several
fields (the area of freedom, security and justice, police and judicial
cooperation in criminal matters, visas, asylum, immigration and other policies
linked to the movement of persons, the common foreign and security policy ...).
Furthermore, it is
worth noting that, with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union becomes a binding
legislative text and acquires the same legal status as the Treaties (the
Charter is however not binding on certain Member States to which derogations
apply)
It is reasonably
probable that this extension of the Court’s jurisdiction will, sooner or later,
have a direct effect on the Court’s level of activity.
The impact of the
application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and of the Union’s accession
to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms was highlighted in a January 2011 Joint communication from the CJEU
and ECHR:
As regards the Charter,
it was observed that it has swiftly become of primary importance in the recent
case-law of the CJEU. Since 1 December 2009, the date on which the Treaty of
Lisbon entered into force and the date on which that treaty conferred on the
Charter the status of primary law of the EU, it has been cited in some thirty
judgments. Thus the Charter has become the reference text and the starting
point for the CJEU's assessment of the fundamental rights which that legal
instrument recognises.
When new countries
joined the EU, the founding treaties were amended: www.europa.eu/european-union/law/treaties_en
1 -1973
(Denmark, Ireland, United Kingdom)
-1981
(Greece)
1 -1986
(Spain, Portugal)
1 -1995
(Austria, Finland, Sweden)
- 2004
(Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta Poland,
Slovakia, Slovenia)
-2007 (Bulgaria, Romania)
- -2013
(Croatia).
Legal
basis
Article 13 of the
Treaty on European Union (TEU) identifies the Court of Justice of the European
Union as one of the Union’s institutions.
Article
19 of the TEU gives an overview of the Court, with 19 (3) stating:
The
Court of Justice of the European Union shall, in accordance with the Treaties:
(a) Rule
on actions brought by a Member State, an institution or a natural or legal person;
(b) Give
preliminary rulings, at the request of courts or tribunals of the Member
States, on the interpretation of Union law or the validity of acts adopted by
the institutions;
(c) Rule
in other cases provided for in the Treaties.
In the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union (TFEU), provisions on the CJEU are set out in Articles
251-281.Articles 251-253 focus on the Court of Justice; Articles 254-256 concern
the General Court; Article 257 sets out provisions on specialised courts which
may be attached to the General Court; the remaining Articles address opinions,
actions, penalties, jurisdiction and similar matters.
Structure and
composition
The Court of Justice
currently comprises 28 judges -one per Member State -and eight
Advocates-General. All are appointed by agreement between the Member States,
for a six-year, renewable term; in common with the General Court, the
membership of the Court of Justice is partially renewed every three years.
Under Article 253:
The Judges and
Advocates-General of the Court of Justice shall be chosen from persons whose
independence is beyond doubt and who possess the qualifications required for
appointment to the highest judicial offices in their respective countries or
who are jurists of recognised competence;
The role of an
Advocate-General is to act with complete impartiality and independence, and
-under Article 252 -to:
Make, in open court,
reasoned submissions on cases which, in accordance with the Statute of the
Court of Justice of the European Union, require his involvement.
The submission- or
opinion -of an Advocate-General is made in court at the end of the oral
proceedings. It summarises the relevant legal issues and suggests how the case
should be resolved. Although the opinion of an Advocate-General is not binding
on the Court, it is usually a good guide to the final judgment.
Judges in boththe Court
of Justice and General Court elect a President to their respective Courts for a
three-year term. The President administers the work of the Court, fixes dates
and times of sittings, and presides at hearings and deliberations. A President
is elected to each of the Chambers in which the Court sits. There are eight
Chambers, which meet with either three or five judges. Presidents of the
three-judge Chambers are elected for one year; those of five-judge Chambers for
a three-year term.
Under terms first
agreed in the Treaty of Nice, the Court of Justice may sit in a Grand Chamber
comprising 13 judges (including the President of the Court and the Presidents
of the five-judge chambers) that will generally deal with cases previously
handled by the full Court in plenary session (used only in exceptionally
important cases, such as where it must compulsorily retire the European
Ombudsman or a Member of the European Commission who has failed to fulfil
his/her obligations).
Recently, for example,
Grand Chambers have sat and ruled on preliminary references on an extremely
important issue i.e. the legal basis upon which an EU citizen resident in
another Member State for more than 10 years could be deported Tsakourdis (2010)
and P.I. (2012).
Article 253 requires
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice (version of 25 September 2012) to
be approved by the Council.
The Statute of the
Court of Justice (March 2010 version) is laid down in a Protocol attached to
the TFEU, as required by Article 281 of the Treaty.
Regulation (EU,
Euratom) 741/2012 of 11 August 2012 ‘amending the Protocol on the Statute of
the Court of Justice of the European Union and Annex I thereto’ aimed to adapt
the working methods of the General Court and to ensure better distribution of
the Court's workload (see also Press Release PRES/12/350 and European
Parliament Library Briefing Amendment of the Statute of the Court of Justice).
General Court
Article 254 of the TFEU
states that the number of judges of the General Court (previously the Court of
First Instance or CFI):
Shall be determined by
the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The Statute may provide
for the General Court to be assisted by Advocates-General.
Under Article 48 of the
Statute (March 2010 version), the General Court has 28 judges. It has no
Advocates-General, but members (judges) may be asked to perform the task of an
Advocate-General.
Article 254 of the TFEU
requires that members of the General Court:
Shall be chosen from
persons whose independence is beyond doubt and who possess the ability required
for appointment to high judicial office.
The General Court has
eight Chambers, with judges usually sitting in Chambers of three or five
judges, but occasionally as a single judge and sometimes as a Grand Chamber of
13 judges or -when justified by the legal complexity or importance of a case
-as a full Court (plenary).
Under Article 254, the
General Court establishes its Rules of Procedure (version of 1 July 2013) in
agreement with the Court of Justice. The Rules require the approval of the Council.
Civil Service
Tribunal
In 2004, through
Decision 2004/752/EC, the Council established the European Union Civil Service
Tribunal, as a Judicial Panel attached to the CFI (now the general Court).
Created to relieve the pressure on the CFI, the Tribunal started work in 2005
and immediately took over 117 staff cases pending before the Court.
The Tribunal comprises
seven judges, who normally sit in Chambers of three. There are also provisions
for the Tribunal to sit in a Chamber of five Judges or as a single Judge.
Particularly difficult
or important cases may be referred to the full court. Tribunal Judges elect a
President for a renewable term of three years.
The Rules of Procedure
(version of 1 July 2011) of the Tribunal were first adopted in 2007.Following
the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Civil Service Tribunal is formally
a ‘specialised court’, under Article 257 of the TFEU. Specialised courts are attached
to the General Court and can be established by the European Parliament and the
Council.
Role
The European Community
is based on the rule of law. Its unique characteristic -which distinguishes it
from other international organisations -is that it creates legislation with
which members are bound to comply. In the words of the ECJ judgment in the case
of Van Gend en Loos:
The Community
constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the
[Member] States have limited their sovereign rights ..."
Under Article 19 of the
Treaty on European Union, the role of the Court is to:
Ensure that in the interpretation
and application of the Treaties the law is observed.
In clarifying and
expounding EU legal rights, the Court has often adopted a more liberal and much
wider interpretation of EU legislation than a mere literal reading would merit.
Many of its decisions
have had important consequences for the lives of individual citizens and
businesses.
For example:
Employment rights
The Defrenne case where
the Court held that the Treaty provisions prohibiting discrimination were so
fundamental that they could be enforced by an individual not only vertically
against their government but horizontally against their employer.
Consequently, a Belgian
air hostess was able to pursue a claim for equal pay for work of equal value
compared to her male colleagues.
In Dekker the ECJ
declared that a woman, who was refused employment because she was pregnant, had
been directly discriminated against contrary to Community law. This ruling was
expanded in the Hertz judgement to make it clear that it also applied during
the period of pregnancy and maternity leave and in Brown where the Court ruled
that dismissal of a woman employee during pregnancy for absences due to
pregnancy related illness was unlawful discrimination.
BECTU in which the
Court established that paid annual leave was the legal right of all employees
including those on short-term fixed contracts and in the Dominiguez decision,
which confirmed that such entitlement could not even be made conditional on a
minimum period of 10 days’ actual work.
The right to an
effective judicial remedy
In Johnston a woman
officer in the Northern Ireland police force alleged sex discrimination arising
out of a policy not to issue firearms to female staff purportedly on grounds of
public safety.
The procedure involved
was by way of Ministerial certificate which claimed not to be challengeable
before the courts. The policy led to the ending of full time contracts being
offered to women. The ECJ ruled thatexcluding review of this procedure by the
UK courts was contrary to the principle of a right to an effective judicial
remedy.
Trade
In the 1979 Cassis de
Dijon decision the Court clarified the Community principle of the free movement
of goods. As a result traders have the right to import into their own country
any product coming from another Member State, provided that it was lawfully manufactured
and marketed in the State of origin.
The right is however, subject to some very
strictly applied restrictions that may be necessary, for example, for the
protection of health or the environment.
Professional Sport
The Bosman decision in
1995 shook up the existing transfer regime in European soccer. The Court ruled
that professional sport was an economic activity and so governed by the
Community principle of the free movement of persons. Consequently, the exercise
of that activity was not be hindered by restrictive rules governing transfer or
using quotas for players who were nationals of other Member States. The Bosman
principle was expanded in later rulings to apply to professionals from third
countries which had entered into an association agreement (Deutscher
Handballbund) or a partnership agreement (Simutenkov) with the European
Communities.
Services
In Cowan a UK tourist
who was seriously injured following an assault on the Paris Metro was according
to the Court, as a tourist, a recipient of services and therefore could not be
discriminated against on the grounds of nationality under the French criminal
injuries scheme. Although the French rule denying compensation to non-French
nationals did not itself act as barrier to free movement to provide/receive
services, the Court ruled that non-discrimination in protection from harm had to
be a corollary of that right. As a result he was entitled to claim the same
criminal compensation as a French national.
Proceedings. Court
of Justice
The four most common
types of proceedings brought before the Court of Justice are:
Requests for a
preliminary ruling. Preliminary rulings help ensure that Community law is
interpreted in a standard way throughout the Member States. A 'preliminary
ruling reference' is made by a national court or tribunal which needs a
decision on a question of Community law before it itself can give a judgement.
The ECJ's decision is then applied to the national case. The ECJ is responsible
for ensuring uniform application of EU law within the EU and under the Treaty
of Nice in principle retains competence for investigating questions referred
for a preliminary ruling; however, pursuant to Article 256 of theTFEU the
Statute may entrust to the General Court the responsibility for preliminary
rulings in certain specific matters.
-
Proceedings
for failure to fulfil an obligation. The Commission can initiate these
proceedings if it has reason to believe that a Member State is failing to
fulfil its obligations under EU law. These proceedings may also be initiated by
another Member State. In either case, the Court investigates the allegations
and gives its judgment. The accused Member State, if it is found to be at
fault, must set things right at once.
-
Proceedings
for annulment. If any of the Member States, the Council, Commission or (under
certain conditions) Parliament believes that a particular EU law is illegal
they may ask the Court to annul it. These 'proceedings for annulment' can also
be used by private individuals who want the Court to cancel a particular law
because it directly and adversely affects them as individuals. If the Court
finds that the law in question was not correctly adopted or is not correctly
based on the treaties, it may declare the law null and void.
-
Proceedings
for failure to act. The Treaty requires the European Parliament, the Council
and the Commission to make certain decisions under certain circumstances. If
they fail to do so, the Member States, the other EU institutions and (under
certain conditions) individuals or companies can lodge a complaint with the
Court so as to have this violation officially recorded.
The Court of Justice
can only decide matters of EU law -it is not a court of appeal against
decisions of national courts.
The working language of
the Courts is French, which is used for judges' confidential deliberations. In
preliminary rulings, the ECJ uses the same language as the referring court; in
a direct action the language of the case is chosen by the applicant. The only
'authentic' text of a judgement is the one in the language of the case.
General Court
The General Court
(previously the European Court of First Instance) hears cases brought by
'natural or legal persons' in direct actions against EU institutions. It does
not hear cases brought by the institutions or Member States. Initially, the
ECFI's jurisdiction was limited to cases concerning competition, those
involving staff of the Community institutions, and those brought against the
European Commission under the ECSC Treaty which involved levies, production
quotas, prices, restrictive agreements or concentrations. However, the Treaty
on European Union and the Treaty of Nice extended the ECFI's jurisdiction.
Details of the current
jurisdiction of the General Court are set out in Article 256 of the TFEU.
According to the Court’s website, the Court has jurisdiction to hear:
-adopted in
the field of State aid, ‘dumping' and acts by which it exercises implementing
powers;
Civil Service Tribunal
Under Article 270 of
the TFEU, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear disputes between the EU and its
staff. Such disputes concern issues about working relations (e.g. pay, career
progress, recruitment, disciplinary measures) and social security (e.g.
sickness, old age, invalidity, accidents at work, family allowances).
According to the
Tribunal website, it also has jurisdiction: in disputes between all bodies or
agencies and their staff in respect of which jurisdiction is conferred on the
Court of Justice of the European Union (for example, disputes between Europol,
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) or the European
Investment Bank and their staff).
Bibliography:
Your questions on the Court of Justice of the
European Union.
The role and composition of the European Court
of Justice, including Article 234 references.
Court of Justice of the European
Union. University of Cardiff
European integration and European Court of
Justice. University of Copenhagen
europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/index_en.htm
europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/court-justice_en
europa.eu/european-union/law/treaties_en
From the European
Coal and Steel Community to the Common Market. Professor Vernon Bogdanor.
Research Professor at King's College London, a Fellow of the British
Academy and an Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies. gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/from-the-european-coal-and-steel-community-to-the-common-market
Documentary
on the Robert Schuman Declaration - The Birth of Europe
Comments
Post a Comment