Fact Sheets on the European Union
European Parliament
Please fill this field

Competences of the Court of Justice of the European Union

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) consists of two courts, the Court of Justice and the General Court, and it offers various means of redress, as laid down in Article 19 of the Treaty on European Union, Articles 251-281 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Article 136 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and Protocol No 3 annexed to the Treaties on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Court of Justice

A. Direct proceedings against Member States or an institution, body, office or agency of the European Union.

The Court of Justice gives rulings on proceedings against Member States or institutions that have not fulfilled their obligations under EU law.

1. Proceedings against a Member State for failure to fulfil an obligation

These actions are brought:

  • Either by the Commission, after a preliminary procedure (Article 258 TFEU): opportunity for the Member State concerned to submit its observations and reasoned opinion (1.3.8);
  • Or by a Member State against another Member State after it has brought the matter before the Commission (Article 259 TFEU).

Role of the Court of Justice:

  • Confirming that the Member State concerned has failed to fulfil its obligations, in which case the Member State is required to put an immediate end to the infringement;
  • If the Commission brings a further action and the Court of Justice finds that the Member State concerned has not complied with its judgment, it may impose a financial penalty on it (a fixed lump sum and/or a periodic penalty payment), the amount being determined by the Court of Justice on the basis of a Commission proposal (Article 260 TFEU).

2. Proceedings against the EU institutions for annulment and for failure to act

Subject: cases where the applicant seeks the annulment of a measure supposedly contrary to EU law (Article 263 TFEU) or, in cases of infringement of EU law, where an institution, body, office or agency has failed to act (Article 265 TFEU).

Referral: actions may be brought by Member States, the EU institutions themselves or any natural or legal person if the actions relate to a measure (in particular a regulation, directive or decision) adopted by an EU institution, body, office or agency and addressed to them.

Role of the Court of Justice: the Court of Justice declares the act void or declares that there has been a failure to act, in which case the institution at fault is required to take the necessary measures to comply with the Court’s judgment (Article 266 TFEU).

3. Other direct proceedings

As the General Court has jurisdiction in all first instance actions referred to in Articles 263, 265, 268, 270 and 272 TFEU, only certain cases are brought directly before the Court of Justice. These include actions against Commission decisions imposing penalties on firms (Article 261 TFEU) as well as those provided for in the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (as last amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2019 amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union). Article 51 of the Statute of the CJEU provides that, by way of derogation from the rule laid down in Article 256(1) TFEU, jurisdiction shall be reserved to the Court of Justice in the actions referred to in Articles 263 and 265 TFEU when they are brought by a Member State against:

  • An act of or failure to act by Parliament or the Council, or by those institutions acting jointly, except for:
  • An act of, or failure to act by, the Commission under the first paragraph of Article 331 TFEU.

Jurisdiction is also reserved to the Court of Justice in the actions referred to in the same Articles when they are brought by an EU institution against an act of, or failure to act by, Parliament, the Council, both those institutions acting jointly, or the Commission, or when they are brought by an EU institution against an act of, or failure to act by, the European Central Bank.

B. Indirect proceedings: question of validity raised before a national court or tribunal (Article 267 TFEU - preliminary rulings)

The national courts are responsible for applying EU law when a case so requires. However, when an issue relating to the interpretation of an EU law is raised before a national court or tribunal, the court or tribunal may seek a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice. If it is a court of last instance, it is compulsory to refer the matter to the Court of Justice. The national court submits the question(s) about the interpretation or validity of a provision of EU law, generally in the form of a judicial decision, in accordance with the national procedural rules. However, in its judgment of 11 December 2018 in Case C-493/17 (Weiss), the Court of Justice ruled that ‘it must refuse to give a ruling on a question referred by a national court where it is quite obvious that the interpretation, or the determination of validity, of a rule of EU law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it’. The Registry notifies the request for a preliminary ruling to the parties to the national proceedings, and also to the Member States and the EU institutions. They have two months within which to submit any written observations to the Court of Justice.

C. Responsibility at second instance

The Court of Justice has the jurisdiction to review appeals, limited to points of law, against rulings and orders of the General Court. The appeals do not have suspensory effect.

If the appeal is considered admissible and well-founded, the Court of Justice sets aside the General Court’s decision and decides the case itself, or else must refer the case back to the General Court, which is bound by the decision.

Achievements

The Court of Justice has shown itself to be a very important factor - some would say even a driving force - in European integration.

A. In general

Its judgment of 5 February 1963 in Case 26-62 (van Gend & Loos) established the principle that Community law is directly applicable in the courts of the Member States. Similarly, its judgment of 15 July 1964 in Case 6-64 (Costa v E.N.E.L.) was fundamental in defining Community law as an independent legal system that takes precedence over national legal provisions. The Court of Justice has always claimed ultimate authority in determining the relationship between EU and domestic law. In the landmark cases van Gend & Loos and Costa v E.N.E.L., the Court of Justice developed the fundamental doctrines of the primacy of EU law. According to these doctrines, EU law has absolute primacy over domestic law, and this primacy has to be taken into account by domestic courts in their decisions. In its judgment of 17 December 1970 in Case 11-70 (Internationale Handelsgesellschaft), the Court of Justice ruled that EU law enjoys primacy even vis-à-vis fundamental rights guaranteed in national constitutions. In point 3 of its grounds for a decision in this case, the Court of Justice stated: ‘The validity of a Community measure or its effect within a Member State cannot be affected by allegations that it runs counter to either fundamental rights as formulated by the constitution of that state or the principles of a national constitutional structure’. The Court of Justice confirmed these doctrines in later cases (see Case 106/77, Simmenthal SpA (1978), Case 149/79, Commission v Belgium(1980), Joint Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93, Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame II (1996), Case C-473/93, Commission v Luxemburg (1996), and Case C-213/07, Michaniki (2008)). In this case-law, the Court of Justice has developed doctrinal instruments to give Member States’ courts a certain amount of discretion and to take their interests seriously. Also, the Court of Justice sometimes implicitly adjusts its own case-law in order to take the concerns of Member States’ courts into account. Most famously, the Court of Justice developed case-law in the field of fundamental rights under the pressure of Member States’ courts: after the foundation of the European Communities, the Court of Justice had initially resisted the introduction of fundamental rights into the European Community legal order (Case 36/59, Ruhrkohlen-Verkaufsgesellschaft (1960)). However, when constitutional courts of the Member States resisted, the Court of Justice changed its position. Pre-empting judgments of the German Federal Constitutional Court and the Italian Constitutional Court, the Court of Justice held in the Internationale Handelsgesellschaft case that fundamental rights ‘form an integral part of the general principles of law’.

B. In specific matters

  • Protection of human rights: the judgment of 14 May 1974 in Case 4-73 (Nold Kohlen- und Baustoffgroßhandlung v Commission of the European Communities), in which the Court of Justice stated that fundamental human rights are an integral part of the general principles of law that it upholds (4.1.1).
  • Free movement of goods: the judgment of 20 February 1979 in Case 120/78 (Cassis de Dijon), in which the Court of Justice ruled that any product legally manufactured and marketed in a Member State must in principle be allowed on the market of any other Member State.
  • Free movement of persons: the judgment of 15 December 1995 in Case C-415/93 (Bosman), in which the Court of Justice stated that professional sport is an economic activity whose exercise must not be hindered by rules of football federations governing the transfer of players or restricting the number of nationals of other Member States.
  • The external jurisdiction of the Community: the judgment of 31 March 1971 in Case 22-70 (Commission v Council), which recognised the Community’s right to conclude international agreements in spheres where the Community has adopted common rules.
  • Liability for failure to transpose directives: the judgment of 19 November 1991 in Joint Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 (Francovich and Others) established another fundamental concept that a Member State can be held liable towards individuals for damage caused to them by that Member State’s failure to transpose a directive into national law or to do so in good time.
  • The principle of proportionality: the judgment of 16 June 2015 (Case C-62/14, Gauweiler and Others), in which the Court of Justice ruled that, according to its settled case-law, the principle of proportionality requires that acts of the EU institutions should be appropriate for attaining the legitimate objectives pursued by the legislation at issue and should not go beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives. EU institutions and bodies must therefore weigh up the various interests involved in such a way as to prevent disadvantages that are manifestly disproportionate to the objectives pursued (Weiss).
  • Interpretation of the Treaties: the judgment of 13 September 2005 in Case C-176/03 (Commission v Council), in which the Court of Justice held that the EU may adopt measures relating to criminal law where ‘necessary’ in order to achieve the objectives pursued in the area of environmental protection. This corresponds with the principle established by the Court of Justice that the Treaties must not be interpreted rigidly, but rather be viewed in the light of the level of integration achieved and of the objectives of the Treaties themselves. This principle has allowed legislation to be adopted in areas where there are no specific Treaty provisions, such as the fight against pollution.
  • The Court of Justice has also delivered various judgments relating to social security (Case 43-75, Defrenne (1976), regarding equal pay for men and women) and the health and safety of workers (Case C-173/99, BECTU (2001)).

C. Judicial Network of the EU

The Judicial Network of the EU (JNEU) was created at the initiative of the President of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the Presidents of the constitutional and supreme courts of the EU Member States, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Treaties of Rome in 2017.

It is designed to promote the exchange of information on jurisprudence between the participating national courts and the CJEU. On a site with limited access, the participating national courts and the CJEU publish information on their jurisprudence concerning EU law, on questions which the national courts had referred to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling, and on notes and studies.

The collaborative JNEU platform, available in all 24 official EU languages, pools the work carried out by the judges of the CJEU and national judges in the course of their judicial activities. Judges have access to a tool enabling them to make their case-law, research and analysis work available to their counterparts, with a view to sharing knowledge and improving efficiency.

It has more than 2 000 users in the constitutional and supreme courts of the Member States.

General Court (1.3.9)

A. Jurisdiction of the General Court (Article 256 TFEU)

The Court of Justice of the European Union consists of two courts, the Court of Justice and the General Court. As the Court of Justice has exclusive jurisdiction over actions between the institutions and those brought by a Member State against Parliament and/or against the Council, the General Court has jurisdiction, at first instance, in all other actions of this type, particularly in actions brought by individuals and those brought by a Member State against the Commission.

The TFEU provides that the General Court has jurisdiction to hear at first instance actions referred to in Articles 263, 265, 268, 270 and 272 TFEU, particularly in the areas set out below, unless the actions are brought by Member States, EU institutions or the European Central Bank, in which case the Court of Justice has sole jurisdiction (Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union):

  • Actions for annulment of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the EU, or for failure to act, brought against the EU institutions by individuals or legal persons (Articles 263 and 265 TFEU);
  • Actions brought by Member States against the Commission;
  • Requests for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU in specific areas (Article 50(b) of the Statute);
  • Actions for the reparation of damage caused by the institutions or the bodies, offices or agencies of the EU or their staff (Article 268 TFEU);
  • Disputes concerning contracts concluded by or on behalf of the Union which expressly give jurisdiction to the General Court (Article 272 TFEU);
  • Actions relating to intellectual property brought against the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and the Community Plant Variety Office;
  • Disputes between the Union and its servants, including disputes between all institutions and all bodies, offices or agencies, on the one hand, and their servants, on the other.

The Statute may extend the General Court’s jurisdiction to other areas.

In general, judgments given by the General Court at first instance may be subject to a right of appeal to the Court of Justice, but this is limited to points of law.

B. Preliminary rulings

The General Court has jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings (Article 267 TFEU) in the areas laid down by the Statute (Article 256(3) TFEU). In April 2024, new provisions were introduced into the Statute (Article 50(b)). In that regard, the General Court now also has, in specific cases, jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings. The partial transfer of jurisdiction for preliminary rulings to the General Court is intended to enable the Court of Justice to devote more time and resources to examining the most important requests for preliminary rulings.

C. Responsibility for appeals

Rulings made by the General Court, limited to points of law, may, within two months, be subject to an appeal to the Court of Justice.

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

On 1 September 2016, disputes between the EU and its servants were transferred to the General Court (1.3.9), which meant the dissolution of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal, created in 2004. Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2016/1192 on the transfer to the General Court of jurisdiction at first instance in disputes between the European Union and its servants therefore repealed the Council decision establishing the European Union Civil Service Tribunal. Cases pending before the Civil Service Tribunal were transferred to the General Court, which continues to deal with those cases as it finds them at that date, with the procedural steps taken by the former Civil Service Tribunal in those cases remaining applicable.

A transitional regime was introduced in respect of appeals that were under examination when jurisdiction was transferred on 1 September 2016, or brought after that date, against decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal. The General Court continues to have jurisdiction to hear and determine such appeals. Accordingly, Articles 9 to 12 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union must remain applicable to the proceedings concerned.

Role of the European Parliament

Under Article 257 TFEU, Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may establish specialised courts attached to the General Court to hear and determine at first instance certain classes of action or proceedings brought in specific areas. Parliament and the Council are required to act by means of regulations, either on a proposal from the Commission after consultation with the Court of Justice or at the request of the Court of Justice after consultation with the Commission.

According to Article 281 TFEU, the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union is laid down in a separate protocol, Protocol No 3, and Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may amend this Statute. Parliament and the Council have recently reviewed a request submitted by the Court to amend Protocol No 3.

Parliament is one of the institutions mentioned in Article 263 TFEU that may bring an action (as a party) before the Court of Justice.

In accordance with Article 218(11) TFEU, Parliament can request an opinion from the Court of Justice on whether an envisaged international agreement is compatible with the Treaties. Where the opinion of the Court of Justice is adverse, the agreement envisaged may not enter into force unless it is amended or the Treaties are revised.

 

JAGODA KAROLINA MACIEJEWSKA / Udo Bux / Mariusz Maciejewski