What changed between the draft committee report and the plenary report

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

7 unchanged paragraphs

on the draft regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union

(07307/2022 – C9-0405/2022 – 2022/0906(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the request from the Court of Justice submitted to Parliament and the Council (07307/2022),

– having regard to Article 256(3) and the second paragraph of Article 281 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and Article 106a(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, pursuant to which the draft act was submitted to Parliament (C9-0405/2022),

– having regard to Article 294(3) and (15) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Changed:– having regard to the opinion of the European Commission (COM(2023)0135),

– having regard to Rules 50 and 59 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs,

Changed:– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A9-0000/2023),(A9-0278/2023),

1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice and the national parliaments.

Change 1

Removed:Draft regulation

Added:AMENDMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT*

Removed:Draft regulation

Added:to the draft by the Court of Justice

Removed:Draft regulation

Added:---------------------------------------------------------

Removed:Draft regulation

Added:REGULATION (EU, Euratom) 2022/… of THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

Removed:Draft regulation

Added:of

Removed:Draft regulation

Added:amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union

Removed:Draft regulation

Added:THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Removed:Draft regulation

Added:Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 256(3) and the second paragraph of Article 281 thereof,

Removed:Draft regulation

Added:Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a(1) thereof,

Removed:Draft regulation

Added:Having regard to the request of the Court of Justice of 30 November 2022,

Removed:Draft regulation

Added:After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,

Removed:Draft regulation

Added:Having regard to the opinion of the European Commission of …,

Removed:Draft regulation

Added:Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure,

Removed:Draft regulation

Added:Whereas:

Removed:Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union

Added:(1) At the invitation of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 December 2015, on 14 December 2017 the Court of Justice submitted to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission a report on possible changes to the distribution of jurisdiction to receive preliminary rulings under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. While, in that report, the Court of Justice took the view that there was no need, at that time, to propose changes as regards the manner of dealing with requests for preliminary rulings under Article 267, it nevertheless pointed out, in that same report, that a subsequent transfer of jurisdiction to the General Court to give preliminary rulings in certain specific areas could not be ruled out if the number and complexity of requests for a preliminary ruling submitted to the Court of Justice were to be such that the proper administration of justice required it. Furthermore, such a transfer is in line with the intentions of the authors of the Treaty of Nice, who sought to strengthen the efficiency of the judicial system of the Union by providing for the possibility of the General Court being involved in dealing with those requests.

Removed:Draft regulation

Added:(2) The statistics of the Court of Justice highlight the fact that both the number of pending preliminary ruling cases and the average duration to deal with those cases are increasing. As preliminary rulings have to be dealt with expeditiously in order to enable national courts to guarantee the right to an effective remedy, the current situation is not sustainable. That situation is attributable not only to the high number of requests for a preliminary ruling of which the Court of Justice is seised each year, but also to the great complexity and particularly sensitive nature of a growing number of questions put to that court. In order to allow the Court of Justice to continue to fulfil its mission, including in safeguarding and strengthening the unity and consistency of Union law, and to ensure the decisions of the Court of Justice are of the highest quality, it is necessary, in the interests of the proper administration of justice, to make use of the possibility provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 256(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and to transfer to the General Court jurisdiction to hear and determine questions referred for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, in specific areas laid down by the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the Statute’).

Removed:Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union

Added:(2a) The transfer to the General Court of part of the jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings should enable the Court of Justice to devote more time and resources to examining the most complex and sensitive requests for a preliminary ruling and, in that framework, to enhance the dialogue with European courts. This enhanced dialogue should in particular be based on a greater use of the mechanism provided for in Article 101 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, which allows it to request clarification from a referring court within a time limit prescribed by the Court, in addition to the statements of case or written observations submitted by interested parties, referred to in Article 23 of the Statute.

Removed:Draft regulation

Added:(2b) In this context, and as the Court of Justice is increasingly required to rule on matters of a constitutional nature and related to human rights and the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), the transparency and openness of the judicial process should be strengthened. To that end, the Statute should be modified to ensure that all documents deposited with the Registrar by the parties or by any third party in connection with an application are accessible to the public upon request. This would be in line with the principle of open decision-making. Transparency increases accountability and builds trust in the Union and in Union law. In preliminary ruling proceedings in particular, giving access to case-files will enable other national judges to better assess the necessity of referring additional references and thus reduce the overall workload on the Court of Justice. Such access should be granted in accordance with the arrangements and exceptions set out in the Statute, in order to preserve the calm and dignity of judicial deliberations and ensure that the public interest and fundamental rights, such as those laid down in Article 16 TFEU and Article 8 of the Charter which provide for the protection of personal data, Article 7 of the Charter which protects the right to private and family life and communications and Article 339 TFEU which requires the institutions to respect professional secrecy, are protected.

Removed:Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union

Added:(3) Following the reform of the Union’s judicial framework as a result of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/2422 of the European Parliament and of the Council1a, the General Court is currently in a position to be able to deal with the increase in workload that will follow from that transfer of jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings.

Removed:Draft regulation

Added:(4) For reasons of legal certainty, the areas in which jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings is conferred on the General Court must be clearly defined and sufficiently separable from other areas. Furthermore, those areas must have given rise to a substantial body of case-law of the Court of Justice which is capable of guiding the General Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings.

Removed:Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union

Added:(5) The specific areas must moreover be determined taking into account the need to relieve the Court of Justice from having to examine a sufficiently high number of preliminary ruling cases so as to have a real impact on its workload.

Removed:Draft regulation

Added:(6) The common system of value added tax, excise duties, the Customs Code and the tariff classification of goods under the Combined Nomenclature meet all of the abovementioned criteria to be regarded as specific areas within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 256(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Removed:Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union

Added:(7) The same is true of compensation and assistance to passengers and the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading. In addition to the fact that those two areas also meet the abovementioned criteria, the General Court is perfectly equipped to adjudicate on requests for a preliminary ruling in those areas, since their factual and technical context determines, to a large extent, the useful interpretation of the relevant provisions of Union law.