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

Competences of the Court of Justice of the European Union

This fact sheet describes the competences of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which consists of two courts, the Court of Justice proper and the General Court, and offers various means of redress, as laid down in Article 19 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), Articles 251-281 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Article 136 Euratom, 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 gives a ruling on proceedings against 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 state 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:

  • Confirming that the state has failed to fulfil its obligations, in which case the state is required to put an immediate end to the infringement.
  • If, after a further action is brought by the Commission, the Court finds that the Member State concerned has not complied with its judgment, it may impose on it a financial penalty (a fixed lump sum and/or a periodic penalty payment), the amount being determined by the Court 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 (annulment: 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 the Member States, the 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: the Court 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 actions against Commission decisions imposing penalties on firms (Article 261) are to be brought to the Court of Justice, as well as those provided for in the Statute for the Court of Justice (as last amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2019/629 of 17 April 2019). Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice provides that, by way of derogation from the rule laid down in Article 256(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, jurisdiction shall be reserved to the Court of Justice in the actions referred to in Articles 263 and 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union when they are brought by a Member State against:

  • An act of or failure to act by the European Parliament or the Council, or by those institutions acting jointly, except for:
    • decisions taken by the Council under the third subparagraph of Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;
    • acts of the Council adopted pursuant to a Council regulation concerning measures to protect trade within the meaning of Article 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;
    • acts of the Council by which the Council exercises implementing powers in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;
  • An act of or failure to act by the Commission under the first paragraph of Article 331 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Jurisdiction is also reserved to the Court of Justice in the actions referred to in the same Articles when they are brought by an institution of the Union against an act of or failure to act by the European Parliament, the Council, both those institutions acting jointly, or the Commission, or brought by an institution of the Union 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 normally responsible for applying EU law when a case so requires. However, when an issue relating to the interpretation of the 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. 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 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, or where the problem is hypothetical’. The Registry notifies the request to the parties to the national proceedings and also to the Member States and the institutions of the European Union. They have two months within which to submit any written observations to the Court of Justice.

C. Responsibility at second instance

The Court has the jurisdiction to review appeals limited to points of law in 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 system taking precedence over national legal provisions. The Court 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 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 ruled that EU law enjoyed 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 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 has confirmed these doctrines in later cases (see Case 106/77, Simmenthal (1978), Case 149/79, Commission v Belgium(1980), Cases C-46/93 & C-48/93, Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame II (1996), Case C-473/93, Commission v Luxemburg, (1996), Case C-213/07, Michaniki, (2008)). In this case-law, the Court has developed doctrinal instruments to give Member States’ courts a certain amount of discretion and to take their interests seriously. Also, the Court sometimes implicitly adjusts its own case-law in order to take concerns of Member States’ courts into account. Most famously, the Court 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 EC legal order (Case 36/59, Ruhrkohlen-Verkaufsgesellschaft (1960)). However, when constitutional courts of the Member States resisted, the Court changed course. Pre-empting judgments of the German Federal Constitutional Court and the Italian Constitutional Court, the Court of Justice held that fundamental rights ‘form an integral part of the general principles of law’ in the Internationale Handelsgesellschaft case.

B. In specific matters

  • Protection of human rights include the judgment of 14 May 1974 in Case 4-73 (Nold Kohlen- und Baustoffgroßhandlung v Commission of the European Communities), in which the Court 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: judgment of 20 February 1979 in Case 120/78 (Cassis de Dijon), in which the Court 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) stated that professional sport is an economic activity whose exercise may 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 Community regulations apply.
  • In its judgment of 19 November 1991 in Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 (Francovich and Others), the Court developed another fundamental concept: the liability of a Member State towards individuals for damage caused to them by an infringement by that Member State owing to its failure to transpose a directive into national law or to do so in good time.
  • Various judgments relating to social security (Case 43-75, Defrenne (1976), regarding equal pay for men and women) and health and safety of workers (Case C-173/99, BECTU (2001)).

Concerning the principle of proportionality, in its judgment of 16 June 2015 (Case C-62/14, Gauweiler and Others), the Court ruled that according to the settled case-law of the Court, 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 out of proportion to the objectives pursued[1].One of the great merits of the Court has been its statement of the principle that the Treaties must not be interpreted rigidly but must be viewed in the light of the state of integration 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: in its judgment of 13 September 2005 in Case C-176/03 (Commission v Council), the Court authorised the European Union to take measures relating to criminal law where ‘necessary’ in order to achieve the objective pursued as regards environmental protection.

The Judicial Network of the European Union (JNEU) was created on the initiative of the President of the CJEU and the Presidents of the constitutional and supreme courts of the EU Member States, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the signature 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 EU languages, pools the work carried out by the judges of the Court of Justice of the EU and national judges in the course of their judicial activities. Judges have access to a tool enabling them to make their case-law and 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 proper 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 the European 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 EU):

  • Actions for annulment of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the EU or for failure to act brought against the institutions by individuals or legal persons (Articles 263 and 265 TFEU);
  • Actions brought by Member States against the Commission;
  • 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 against 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 the jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings (Article 267 TFEU) in the areas laid down by the Statute (Article 256(3) TFEU). However, since no provisions have been introduced into the Statute in that regard, the Court of Justice currently has sole jurisdiction to give 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 Union 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 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 therefore repealed Council Decision 2004/752/EC, Euratom, 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, the procedural steps taken by the former Civil Service Tribunal in those cases remaining applicable.

A transitional regime was introduced in respect of appeals 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 is to continue to have jurisdiction to hear and determine such appeals. Accordingly, Articles 9 to 12 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court must remain applicable to the proceedings concerned.

Role of the European Parliament

According to 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 of the Court of Justice or at the request of the Court of Justice after consultation of 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 3, and the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure[2], may amend this Statute. The European Parliament is currently reviewing a proposal to amend Protocol 3.

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

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

This fact sheet is prepared by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs.

 

[1]Case C-493/17 (Weiss), paragraph 93.
[2]Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 741/2012 of 11 August 2012, Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/2422 of 16 December 2015 and Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2016/1192 6 July 2016 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Udo Bux / Mariusz Maciejewski