The Court of Justice of the European Communities is releasing its annual report, as it does every year. The annual report summarises the year's case-law and, in statistical form, the work of the Court.
This press release does not contain a summary of the case-law of the Court of Justice and Court of First Instance. It is to be noted, however, that, as in 1999, the judgments delivered concerned a wide variety of fields. The Court of Justice delivered a large number of judgments concerning the proper functioning of the internal market, equal treatment in the world of work and the responsibility of Member States for applying Community law correctly. The case-law was also developed by judgments of the Court of First Instance, in particular in the area of competition law applicable both to undertakings and to States.
The year 2000 was marked by events which are important for the institution, in particular renewal of the Court of Justice's membership, amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance and the reforms to the Community judicial system introduced by the Treaty of Nice.
Renewal
The year 2000 was marked by a substantial renewal of membership of the Court of Justice, which took place on 7 October. The term of office of five Judges was renewed for six years (Judges La Pergola, Edward, Puissochet, Jann and Colneric), while the Court welcomed three new Judges (Judges von Bahr, Cunha Rodrigues and Timmermans). The term of office of Advocate General Léger was renewed and three new Advocates General were appointed (Advocates General Tizzano, Geelhoed and Stix-Hackl).
In addition, the President of the Court of Justice, Mr Gil Carlos Rodríguez Iglesias, was re-elected by his peers for a third term as President.
Activity in figures
The Court of Justice of the European Communities maintained a high level of judicial activity: 870 cases were disposed of by the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance. The Court of Justice brought 526 cases to a close (an increase of 33.16% compared with 1999), while 503 new cases were lodged, around the average for the past years as litigation before the two Courts continues to grow. There was a slight reduction in the number of pending cases from 896 to 873, that is to say a reduction of 2.57%. The duration of proceedings was unchanged overall: on average, 21 months for references for a preliminary ruling (questions submitted by national courts), 24 months for direct actions and 19 months for appeals.
So far as concerns the Court of First Instance, 344 cases were disposed of as against 398 new cases lodged. The average duration of proceedings remained at 27 months, but was reduced to 15 months for staff cases.
Means: new lawyer-linguist posts
The need to reduce the period for dealing with cases and to contend with changes in a workload over which the institution has no control called for budgetary help. Measures designed only to improve the conduct of proceedings would remain of little effect if the Court of Justice did not ultimately have sufficient resources. The resources granted under the 2001 budget should enable it, first, to continue to make judgments available in all the languages on the actual day of delivery and, second, to reduce the backlog of texts to be translated which seriously affects the period within which cases are dealt. Thirty lawyer-linguist posts were made available to the institution by the 2000 budget, while the 2001 budget is to enable the creation of 37 new lawyer-linguists in the translation service.
AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE
Entry into force of new procedural provisions
Still pursuing the same objective of dispensing quality justice as swiftly as possible, the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance proposed amendments of their Rules of Procedure to the Council in order to introduce new mechanisms such as accelerated and simplified procedures for disposing of cases. Those amendments entered into force on 1 July 2000 (OJ 2000 L 122, p. 43) and 1 February 2001 (OJ 2000 L 322, pp. 1 and 4).
Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice
So far as concerns preliminary reference proceedings, the following new provisions are to be noted:
A simplified procedure (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure) allows the Court of Justice to give its decision by reasoned order where a question referred to it for a preliminary ruling is identical to a question on which it has already ruled, where the answer to such a question may be clearly deduced from existing case-law or where the answer to the question admits of no reasonable doubt. It did not take the Court long to make use of this new possibility, which enables the duration of proceedings to be reduced considerably in the circumstances specified (see order of 19 September 2000 in Case C-89/00 Bicakci).
The new version of the Rules of Procedure also allows the Judge-Rapporteur and/or the Advocate General to request from the parties all such information relating to the facts, and all such documents or other particulars, as they may consider relevant (Article 54a of the Rules of Procedure). In addition, the Court of Justice may request clarification from national courts which refer questions to it for a preliminary ruling (Article 104(5) of the Rules of Procedure).
At the request of a national court, the President of the Court of Justice may exceptionally decide to apply an accelerated procedure to a reference for a preliminary ruling where the circumstances referred to by the national court establish that a ruling on the question put to the Court of Justice is a matter of exceptional urgency (Article 104a of the Rules of Procedure).
Finally, with regard both to preliminary reference proceedings and to direct actions, the Court of Justice may henceforth issue practice directions relating in particular to the preparation and conduct of hearings and to the lodging of written statements of case or written observations (Article 125a of the Rules of Procedure) and may decide not to hold a hearing if none of the parties concerned submits an application setting out the reasons for which he wishes to be heard (Articles 44a and 104(4) of the Rules of Procedure).
So far as concerns direct actions, an expedited procedure is introduced, in which the written procedure is restricted to a single exchange of pleadings between the parties, while the oral procedure becomes mandatory and has decisive importance. The Court may also shorten the time-limit for intervening, a possibility which is linked to the expedited procedure (new Article 62a of the Rules of Procedure).
Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance
The new provisions henceforth allow the Court of First Instance to decide certain cases under a simplified procedure (Article 47 of the Rules of Procedure). Where the documents before the Court are sufficiently comprehensive to enable the parties to elaborate their pleas and arguments in the course of the oral procedure, the Court may decide that a second exchange of pleadings will not take place.
The new provisions also allow the Court of First Instance, having regard to the particular urgency and the circumstances of the case, to adjudicate under an expedited procedure (Article 76a of the Rules of Procedure). An application for a case to be decided under an expedited procedure must be made by a separate document lodged at the same time as the application initiating the proceedings or the defence, and the Court will make its decision on a case by case basis.
The time-limit for the intervention of third parties and the detailed rules governing their intervention have undergone consequential amendment (Articles 115(1) and 116(6) of the Rules of Procedure).
Finally, the transmission of documents by fax or other technical means of communication is now possible in relation to both Courts.
THE TREATY OF NICE
For the Court of Justice as for the other institutions, the year 2000 was marked by the Intergovernmental Conference which took place, devoted to institutional reform of the European Union with a view to its enlargement. Terminating in December 2000 at the European Council in Nice, this conference resulted, so far as concerns the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance, in a series of reforms which are along the lines of the ideas formulated by the Court of Justice itself, in particular the proposals set out in its discussion paper entitled "The Future of the Judicial System of the European Union (Proposals and Reflections)" which was presented by the President to the Council of the Ministers of Justice in May 1999.
The Treaty of Nice, which was signed on 26 February 2000, confers jurisdiction on the Court of First Instance (Article 225 of the new Treaty) to hear and determine most classes of direct actions, excluding those which will be reserved for the Court of Justice by its Statute or assigned to judicial panels whose creation is provided for by the new Treaty. The classes of actions concerned are those referred to in Articles 230 (annulment), 232 (failure to act), 235 (non-contractual liability), 236 (staff cases) and 238 (arbitration clauses). Actions brought by the Member States, the institutions and the European Central Bank are reserved for the Court of Justice.
The new Treaty also allows the Court of First Instance to be conferred jurisdiction to hear and determine questions referred for a preliminary ruling in specific areas which will be laid down by the Statute.
In addition, the creation of judicial panels attached to the Court of First Instance (on the initiative of the Commission or the Court of Justice) is intended to relieve the burden on the Court of First Instance. They will hear and determine at first instance certain classes of actions or proceedings brought in specific areas, such as litigation between the Community and members of its staff.
Because of these changes, review by the Court of Justice of decisions of the Court of First Instance will also be modified. Thus, the possibility of bringing an appeal before the Court of Justice may be subject to conditions and limits to be laid down by the Statute. Likewise, decisions which the Court of First Instance could be called on to give on questions referred for a preliminary ruling or in actions brought against decisions of the judicial panels will be subject to review by the Court of Justice only exceptionally, that is to say where there is a serious risk of the unity or consistency of Community law being affected. It will be for the First Advocate General to propose such review where he considers it necessary.
The Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, with the exception of Title I concerning Judges and Advocates General, will in future be amended by the Council acting unanimously at the request of the Court of Justice and after consulting the Commission and the European Parliament, or at the request of the Commission and after consulting the Court of Justice and the European Parliament.
With a view to enlargement of the Union, the new Treaty establishes an express link for the first time between the number of Member States and of Judges. In the Court of Justice, the number of Judges will have to be equal to the number of Member States and, in the Court of First Instance, it will have to be at least equal to that number, enabling the complement of members of the Court of First Instance to be increased if necessary.
With regard to the internal organisation and operation of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance, several innovations are introduced by the Treaty of Nice, in particular the election for three years of the Presidents of the Chambers of five Judges, the establishment, within the Court of Justice, of a Grand Chamber, presided over by the President of the Court and consisting of 11 Judges including the Presidents of the Chambers of five Judges, and the possibility for the Court of First Instance to sit in a Grand Chamber.
The judgment of cases by the Court of Justice in plenary session will no longer be the rule but will become the exception, since the Court of Justice will sit in plenary session only in the cases laid down by the Statute. It will, however, be able to sit in plenary session where it considers that a case is of exceptional importance.
It will also be possible for a case to be decided without an Advocate General's Opinion where the Court of Justice considers that it raises no new points of law (Article 20 of the Protocol).
Finally, accepting a proposal previously put forward by the Court of Justice at the time of the Intergovernmental Conference which led to the Maastricht Treaty, the new Treaty provides that amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance will henceforth require the approval of the Council acting by a qualified majority and no longer unanimously.
Unofficial document for media use which does not bind the Court of Justice.
Available in all the official languages.
For further information please contact Fionnuala Connolly, tel: (352) 4303 3355; fax: (352) 4303 2731.