Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

The General Court of the European Union: Characteristic, Competences and Reform

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Judicial Power in a Globalized World

  • 943 Accesses

Abstract

The General Court of the European Union celebrates its 30th anniversary in 2019. During 30 years, it gained a significant impact on the functioning of the European Union institutions as well as enterprises and EU citizens. The General Court is essentially an administrative court that settles disputes between private parties and EU institutions, but this function does not exhaust its role, as the General Court deals also with some disputes between Member States and EU institutions. The case-law of the General Court has contributed significantly to the development of such domains of the EU law as competition and state aid law, EU intellectual property law, rules on EU liability for damages, rules governing the imposition of restrictive measures by the EU or issues regarding access to documents. The General Court has also played a special role in the development of the interpretation and application of the EU principle and right to good administration as well as the right to court being the problems which can appear in all areas in which the General Court has jurisdiction.

Nina Półtorak is Professor of the EU Law at the Jagiellonian University in Krakow and Judge at the General Court of the EU. All the views and opinions expressed in this article are personal views 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
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Council Decision of 24 October 1988 establishing a Court of First Instance of the European Communities (88/591/ECSC, EEC, Euratom), OJ L 319, 25.11.1988, pp. 1–8.

  2. 2.

    Council Decision 93/350/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of 8 June 1993 amending Council Decision 88/591/ECSC, EEC, Euratom establishing a Court of First Instance of the European Communities, OJ L 144, 16.6.1993, pp. 21–22.

  3. 3.

    Council Decision 1999/291/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 26 April 1999 amending Decision 88/591/ECSC, EEC, Euratom establishing a Court of First Instance of the European Communities to enable it to give decisions in cases when constituted by a single judge, OJ L 114, 01.05.1999, pp. 52–53.

  4. 4.

    Article 220 of the EC Treaty in the version from 2003 provided for in par. 1: “The Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance, each within its jurisdiction, shall ensure that in the interpretation and application of this Treaty the law is observed.”

  5. 5.

    See more Rodríguez Iglesias (2013), p. 39 et seq.; Granger and Guinchard (2017), p. 10 et seq.

  6. 6.

    Council Decision of 2 November 2004 establishing the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (2004/752/EC, Euratom), OJ L 333, 9.11.2004, pp. 7–11.

  7. 7.

    Article 225(3) of the EC Treaty in the version from 2003.

  8. 8.

    Council Decision of 26 April 2004 amending Articles 51 and 54 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice (2004/407/EC, Euratom), OJ L 132, 29.4.2004, p. 5.

  9. 9.

    Protocol (No 3) (to the Treaties) on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, OJ C 115, 9.5.2008, pp. 210–229 with amendments. In accordance with Article 281 TFEU, the Statute may be amended by the European Parliament and the Council acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure acting either at the request of the Court of Justice and after consultation of the Commission or on a proposal from the Commission and after consultation of the Court of Justice.

  10. 10.

    In this respect, there are doubts concerning the acts of the European Council and Committee of the Region—see more Lenaerts et al. (2014), p. 42.

  11. 11.

    Council Decision 2010/124 of 25 February 2010 relating to the operating rules of the panel provided for in Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ L 50, 27.2.2010, pp. 18–19.

  12. 12.

    See Article 256 TFEU and Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU.

  13. 13.

    There are some doubts about such competence in relation to the acts of the European Council—see more Lenaerts et al. (2014), p. 42.

  14. 14.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs, OJ L 3, 5.1.2002, pp. 1–24; Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark, OJ L 154, 16.6.2017, pp. 1–99.

  15. 15.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights, OJ L 227, 01.09.94, p. 1.

  16. 16.

    Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and 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, OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

  17. 17.

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2018 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency, and amending Regulations (EC) No 2111/2005, (EC) No 1008/2008, (EU) No 996/2010, (EU) No 376/2014 and Directives 2014/30/EU and 2014/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 552/2004 and (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91, OJ L 212, 22.8.2018, pp. 1–122.

  18. 18.

    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, OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, pp. 12–47. The General Court will also have competences to decide certain claims against the decisions of European Public Prosecutor on the basis of Council Regulation (EU) No 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’), OJ L 283, 31.10.2017, pp. 1–71.

  19. 19.

    Draft amendments to the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and to Annex I thereto z 7.04.2011, 2011/0901 (COD), http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8787-2011-INIT/en/pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2019.

  20. 20.

    In Case C-385/07 P, Der Grüne Punkt v. European Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2009:456, par. 188 and 195, the Court of Justice stated that the proceedings before the General Court were being carried out in breach of the requirements of a reasonable time of the proceedings and this could give rise to damages. Later, the compensations for excessive length of proceedings were granted in the judgments of the General Court in cases T-479/14, Kendrion v. European Union, ECLI:EU:T:2017:48; T-577/14, Gascogne Sack Deutschland v. European Union, ECLI:EU:T:2017:1 and T-673/15, Guardian Europe v. European Union, ECLI:EU:T:2017:377.

  21. 21.

    See also Sarmiento (2017), p. 238 et seq.; Albors-Llorens (2017), p. 126 et seq.

  22. 22.

    Council document of 7 April 2011, 2011/0901 (COD) containing the letter of the President of the Court of Justice concerning the amendments to the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU, http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8787-2011-INIT/en/pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2019.

  23. 23.

    Council document 2011/0901—see note 23 above, p. 8.

  24. 24.

    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 https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-05/8-en-reponse-274.pdf, available also in the Council document of 17 October 2014, 2011/0901B (COD), http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14448-2014-INIT/en/pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2019.

  25. 25.

    Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/2422 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union OJ L 341, 24.12.2015, pp. 14–17.

  26. 26.

    Recitals 1-3 and 5 of the Regulation 2015/2422.

  27. 27.

    Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2016/1192 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2016 on the transfer to the General Court of jurisdiction at first instance in disputes between the European Union and its servants, OJ L 200, 26.7.2016, pp. 137–139.

  28. 28.

    See recital 7 of the Regulation 2015/2422.

  29. 29.

    Rules of Procedure of the General Court, OJ L 105, 23.4.2015, pp. 1–66 amended e.g. in 2016.

  30. 30.

    See Decision (EU) 2016/2387 of the General Court of 14 September 2016 concerning the security rules applicable to information or material produced in accordance with Article 105(1) or (2) of the Rules of Procedure, OJ L 355, 24.12.2016, pp. 18–30.

  31. 31.

    Practice Rules for the Implementation of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court adopted by the General Court on 20 May 2015, OJ L 152, 18.6.2015, pp. 1–30 with amendments.

  32. 32.

    Decision of the General Court of 11 July 2018 on the lodging and service of procedural documents by means of e-Curia, OJ L 240, 25.9.2018, p. 72.

  33. 33.

    Press release of the Court of Justice of the EU, No 35/16, 4 April 2016, https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2016-04/cp160035en.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2019.

  34. 34.

    Press release of the Court of Justice of the EU, No 39/19, Judicial statistics 2018: the Court of Justice and the General Court establish record productivity with 1769 cases completed, Luxembourg, 25 March 2019, https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-03/cp190039en.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2019.

  35. 35.

    Press release of the Court of Justice of the EU, No 36/18, 23 March 2018, https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2018-03/cp180036en.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2019.

  36. 36.

    See Press release of the Court of Justice No 39/19, note 35 above.

  37. 37.

    See also Sarmiento (2017), p. 247 et seq.

  38. 38.

    Report submitted pursuant to Article 3 (2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/2422 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union; https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2018-01/en_2018-01-12_08-43-52_183.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2019.

  39. 39.

    Report, see note 39 above, p. 7.

  40. 40.

    See the presentation of the proposal in the Commission Opinion of 11.7.2018 on the draft amendments to Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, presented by the Court of Justice on 26 March 2018, COM/2018/534 final.

  41. 41.

    Commission Opinion of 11.7.2018, see note 41 above.

  42. 42.

    See the description of the proposal in Document of the Council of 31 October 2018, Amendment of Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union - General approach, 2018/0900(COD).

  43. 43.

    Document of the Council of 31 October 2018, Amendment of Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union - General approach, 2018/0900(COD), Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2019/629 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, OJ L 111, 25.4.2019, pp. 1–3.

  44. 44.

    Chapter 11a of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

  45. 45.

    See also Schwarze (2011), p. 117.

  46. 46.

    E.g. T-704/14, Marine Harvest ASA v. European Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2017:753, par. 581 and case law quoted there.

  47. 47.

    See Article 72 (3) of Regulation 2017/1001, note 15 above.

  48. 48.

    Article 91(1) of Regulation No 31 (EEC) laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ P 045 14.6.1962, p. 1385 with amendments) provides: “The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction in any dispute between the Union and any person to whom these Staff Regulations apply regarding the legality of an act affecting such person adversely within the meaning of Article 90(2). In disputes of a financial character the Court of Justice shall have unlimited jurisdiction.”

  49. 49.

    E.g. T-395/04, Air One SpA, v. European Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2006:123, par. 24 and the case law quoted there.

  50. 50.

    T-461/08, Evropaiki Dynamiki v. European Investment Bank, ECLI:EU:T:2011:494, par. 118.

  51. 51.

    294/83, Parti écologiste “Les Verts” v. European Parliament., ECLI:EU:C:1986:166, par. 23–25; T-461/08, Evropaiki Dynamiki, par. 46.

  52. 52.

    25/62, Plaumann & Co v. Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1963:17, par. 107; C-452/98, Nederlandse Antillen v. Council of the European Union, ECLI:EU:C:2001:623, par. 60.

  53. 53.

    C-386/96 P, Société Louis Dreyfus v. European Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1998:193, par. 43; T-198/95, T-171/96, T-230/97, T-174/98 and T-255/99, Comafrica SpA v. European Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2001:184, par. 96.

  54. 54.

    For explanation of the concept of implementing measures see e.g. C-622/16 P to C-624/16 P, Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori v. European Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2018:873, par. 58.

  55. 55.

    E.g. T-18/10, Inuit Tapiriit and others v. European Parliament and Council, ECLI:EU:T:2011:419, par. 45-46. The Court of Justice confirmed also that the concept of the regulatory acts extends to all non-legislative acts of general application and not only to certain subcategories of these acts, C-622/16 P to C-624/16 P, Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori, par. 28.

  56. 56.

    C-50/00 P, Unión de Pequenos Agricultores v. Council, ECLI:EU:C:2002:462 par. 41; C-263/02 P, European Commission v. Jégo-Quéré & Cie SA., ECLI:EU:C:2004:210, par. 31.

  57. 57.

    C-355/04 P, Segi, Araitz Zubimendi Izaga and Aritza Galarraga v. Council, ECLI:EU:C:2007:116, par. 56.

  58. 58.

    See more e.g. in Półtorak (2015), p. 15 et seq.

  59. 59.

    Judgment of ECtHR of 30.6.2005, 45036/98, Bosphorus v. Ireland, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:0630JUD004503698, par. 163 et seq.; see also judgments of 6.12.2012, 12323/11, Michaud v. France, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:1206JUD001232311 and of 23.05.2016, 17502/07, Avotiņš v. Latvia., ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0523JUD001750207.

  60. 60.

    C-247/11 P and C-253/11 P, Areva SA v. European Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2014:257, par. 171. See more Lasok (2011), p. 169 et seq.

  61. 61.

    E.g. C-246/11 P, Portugal v. European Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2013:118, p. 85 and the case law quoted there.

  62. 62.

    E.g. T-279/04, Éditions Odile Jacob SAS v. European Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2010:384, par. 338.

  63. 63.

    E.g. 261/78, Interquell Stärke-Chemie GmbH & Co. KG v. European Economic Community, ECLI:EU:C:1982:329, par. 11; T-110/07, Siemens AG v. European Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2011:68, par. 50.

  64. 64.

    C-389/10 P, KME Germany and Others v. Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2011:816 par. 131.

  65. 65.

    E.g. C-89/08 P, European Commission v. Ireland and others, ECLI:EU:C:2009:742, p. 34.

  66. 66.

    E.g. T-377/07, Evropaïki Dynamiki v. European Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2011:731, par. 22 and the case law quoted there. See also Lasok (2011), p. 190 et seq.

  67. 67.

    C-12/03 P, European Commission v. Tetra Laval, ECLI:EU:C:2005:87, par. 39; C-386/10 P, Chalkor AE v. Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2011:815 par. 54).

  68. 68.

    E.g. C-12/03 P, European Commission v. Tetra Laval, ECLI:EU:C:2005:87, par. 39.

  69. 69.

    E.g. C-525/04 P, Spain v. European Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2007:698, par. 58 and the case law quoted there.

  70. 70.

    C-389/10 P, KME Germany, par. 133; C-199/11, Otis and others, ECLI:EU:C:2012:684, par. 63; C-386/10 P, Chalkor, par. 67.

  71. 71.

    C-403/04 P and C-405/04 P, Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd and Nippon Steel Corp. v. European Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2007:52, par. 116; C-194/99 P, Thyssen Stahl AG v. European Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2003:527, par. 155). This formulation is a reference to ECtHR case law, see for example 18996/91, Garyfallou AEBE v. Greece.

  72. 72.

    C-185/95 P, Baustahlgewebe GmbH v. European Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1998:608 par. 29; see also C-385/07 P, Der Grüne Punkt.

  73. 73.

    C-185/95 P, Baustahlgewebe, par. 49; C-385/07 P, Der Grüne Punk, par. 190 and 196.

  74. 74.

    Case C-185/95 P Baustahlgewebe, par. 48.

  75. 75.

    C-58/12 P, Groupe Gascogne SA v. European Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2013:770, par. 83. Such damages have been already granted in the judgments of the General Court, see note 21 above.

References

  • Albors-Llorens, A. (2017). The Court of Justice in the aftermath of judicial reform. In E. Guinchard & M.-P. Granger (Eds.), The new EU judiciary. An analysis of current judicial reforms (pp. 123–141). Wolters Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granger, M.-P., & Guinchard, E. (2017). Introduction: The dos and don’ts of judicial reform in the European Union. In E. Guinchard & M.-P. Granger (Eds.), The new EU judiciary. An analysis of current judicial reforms (pp. 1–18). Wolters Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasok, K. (2011). The nature of judicial control. In De 20 ans à l’horizon 2020, bâtir le tribunal de demain sur de solides fondations. Actes du Colloque organisé le 25 septembre 2009 à Luxembourg - Célébration des 20 ans du Tribunal de 1e Instance de l’Union européennes (pp. 163–214). Luxembourg: Publication de la Cour de Justice de l’Union européenne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts, K., Maselis, I., & Gutman, K. (2014). EU procedural law. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Półtorak, N. (2015). European Union Rights in national courts. Wolters Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez Iglesias, G. C. (2013). L’évolution de l’architecture juridictionnelle de l’Union européenne. In A. Rosas, E. Levits, & Y. Bot (Eds.), The Court of Justice and the construction of Europe: Analyses and perspectives on sixty years of case-law - La Cour de Justice et la Construction de l’Europe: Analyses et Perspectives de Soixante Ans de Jurisprudence (pp. 37–48). Asser Press, Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarmiento, D. (2017). The reform of the General Court: An exercise in minimalist (but radical) institutional reform. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 19, 236–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarze, J. (2011). Access to the Courts under the rule of law. In De 20 ans à l’horizon 2020, bâtir le tribunal de demain sur de solides fondations. Actes du Colloque organisé le 25 septembre 2009 à Luxembourg - Célébration des 20 ans du Tribunal de 1e Instance de l’Union européennes (pp. 115–127). Luxembourg: Publication de la Cour de Justice de l’Union européenne.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland

    Nina Półtorak

Authors
  1. Nina Półtorak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nina Półtorak .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, France

    Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque  & Krzysztof Wojtyczek  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Półtorak, N. (2019). The General Court of the European Union: Characteristic, Competences and Reform. In: Pinto de Albuquerque, P., Wojtyczek, K. (eds) Judicial Power in a Globalized World. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20744-1_28

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20744-1_28

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20743-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20744-1

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation