CJEU

Question 1

When was the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) originally established, and under what treaty?

Answer 1

December 4, 1952, under the Treaty of Paris (1951), establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). The first seven judges took their oaths at the Villa Vauban in Luxembourg.

Question 2

What were the original names of the CJEU?

Answer 2

Court of Justice of the European Coal and Steel Communities (ECSC, 1952). Renamed Court of Justice of the European Communities (CJEC) in 1958 when serving all three Communities (ECSC, EEC, Euratom). Current name ‘Court of Justice of the European Union’ (CJEU) adopted with Lisbon Treaty (2009).

Question 3

What was the Court of First Instance, and when was it created?

Answer 3

Created in 1988 by the Single European Act. Now called the General Court. It assumed jurisdiction over direct actions, competition law, state aid, trade, and technical cases to reduce the Court of Justice’s workload.

Question 4

What was the European Union Civil Service Tribunal, and what happened to it?

Answer 4

Established 2005 under the Treaty of Nice. It adjudicated disputes between the EU and its civil servants (approximately 150 cases/year). Dissolved September 1, 2016, with jurisdiction transferred to the General Court.

Question 5

What key changes did the Treaty of Lisbon (2009) make to the CJEU?

Answer 5

(1) Charter of Fundamental Rights acquired binding force; (2) CJEU acquired current name and structure; (3) Enhanced jurisdiction in criminal law cooperation; (4) Ordinary legislative procedure expanded to 85+ policy areas, increasing CJEU interpretive scope.

Question 6

How many judges and Advocates General comprise the Court of Justice?

Answer 6

27 judges (one per Member State) and 11 Advocates General. Five Member States (Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Poland) hold permanent AG positions; the remaining six positions rotate among other Member States (Declaration No. 38).

Question 7

What is the composition of the General Court?

Answer 7

54 judges—two per Member State (increased from one per Member State in September 2019). The General Court has no permanent Advocates General; when necessary, a judge performs that function.

Question 8

What are the appointment requirements for CJEU judges?

Answer 8

Six-year renewable terms. For Court of Justice: candidates must have qualifications for highest judicial offices or be jurisconsults of recognized competence. For General Court: candidates must have ability for high judicial office. All must be ‘persons whose independence is beyond doubt.’

Question 9

What is the Article 255 TFEU panel, and what role does it play?

Answer 9

A seven-member panel (former CJEU members, national supreme court members, lawyers of recognized competence) that reviews candidates’ suitability for CJEU appointment. Issues a non-binding opinion. While not binding, negative assessments are invariably followed by withdrawal.

Question 10

How are CJEU judges appointed?

Answer 10

Appointment is a three-stage process: (1) Member State government proposes candidate; (2) Article 255 TFEU panel issues opinion on suitability; (3) All Member States appoint by common accord. The Commission has no formal role.

Question 11

What are the different formations (chambers) in which the Court of Justice sits?

Answer 11

Chambers of three judges (most common), chambers of five judges, a Grand Chamber of 15 judges (cases of exceptional importance or when a Member State/institution party requests), and a Full Court (rarely). The Court of Justice elects a President and Vice-President for renewable three-year terms.

Question 12

What is the preliminary ruling procedure, and why is it fundamental to the CJEU?

Answer 12

A mechanism allowing national courts to refer questions about EU law interpretation to the CJEU. It’s the Court’s most distinctive function, enabling uniform EU law interpretation while preserving national courts’ role in applying that interpretation to facts. Established decentralized enforcement through private litigants and national courts.

Question 13

What are the main statistics on preliminary rulings at the CJEU?

Answer 13

In 2024, the Court received 573 new preliminary references (up 10.6% from 2023’s 518). Germany leads (66 in 2024, down from 94 in 2023), while Italy surged to 98 (highest since 1952). Average duration: 17.2 months (2024); urgent procedure (PPU): 3.3 months (down from 4.3 in 2023).

Question 14

What subjects predominate in preliminary rulings?

Answer 14

Area of freedom, security, and justice (82 in 2023, many on asylum); taxation (53); consumer protection (52); transport (40). In 2024, cases addressed consumer and environmental protection, social policy, transport, competition, state aid, and justice/home affairs matters.

Question 15

What did Van Gend en Loos (1963, 26/62) establish, and why was it revolutionary?

Answer 15

Established the doctrine of direct effect—individuals can invoke clear, precise, unconditional Treaty provisions directly before national courts. Rejected the Advocate General’s opinion and multiple Member States’ arguments. Called a ‘genuine revolution in European law’ because it created an alternative enforcement system enlisting private litigants and national courts.

Question 16

What did Costa v ENEL (1964, 6/64) establish?

Answer 16

Established the supremacy of EU law over national law. EU law cannot be ‘overridden by domestic legal provisions.’ Created the principle that EU law’s special nature requires it to take precedence over conflicting national law, ‘without being deprived of its character as Community law.’ Fundamentally distinguished EU law from traditional international law.

Question 17

What are the three conditions for state liability under Francovich (C-6/90 and C-9/90)?

Answer 17

(1) The rule of EU law infringed must be intended to confer rights on individuals; (2) The breach must be sufficiently serious; (3) There must be a direct causal link between the breach and damage sustained. Elaborated in Brasserie du Pêcheur/Factortame (C-46/93 and C-48/93): a sufficiently serious breach occurs when a Member State ‘manifestly and gravely disregarded limits on its discretion.’

Question 18

What did Kadi (2008, C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P) establish?

Answer 18

Held that fundamental rights form part of the foundations of the EU legal order and constrain all EU action, even implementation of UN Security Council resolutions. EU law is autonomous; international obligations cannot override constitutional principles of the Treaties. Positioned the CJEU as guardian of EU constitutional identity against external encroachment.

Question 19

What is the infringement procedure, and what is its purpose?

Answer 19

A mechanism enabling the Commission (or another Member State) to initiate legal action against Member States failing to fulfill EU law obligations. Purpose: ensuring Member State compliance. Approximately 90% of infringements are settled before CJEU referral, either after formal notice or reasoned opinion stage.

Question 20

What are the stages of an infringement proceeding?

Answer 20

(1) Letter of formal notice inviting Member State observations; (2) Reasoned opinion specifying infringement and requiring compliance; (3) Referral to CJEU if Member State fails to comply; (4) Court judgment; (5) If Member State ignores judgment, Commission can initiate Article 260 penalty proceedings seeking lump sum or daily penalties.

Question 21

What enforcement powers does the CJEU have under Article 260 TFEU for persistent non-compliance?

Answer 21

Can impose financial penalties—both lump sums and daily penalty payments. Penalties can be substantial; e.g., Poland faced €68.5 million in Turów mine case before retroactive annulment following belated compliance.

Question 22

What evidence does the CJEU accept in infringement proceedings?

Answer 22

Reports from UN bodies, Council of Europe mechanisms, EU agencies, NGOs. This evidentiary flexibility proved crucial in rule of law cases against Poland and Hungary, where Commission relied on assessments from European Network of Councils for the Judiciary, international human rights bodies, and civil society organizations.

Question 23

What is an action for annulment, and what is its function?

Answer 23

A procedure enabling judicial review of EU legislative and administrative acts for conformity with the Treaties and Charter of Fundamental Rights. Performs a double function: constitutional review (verifying conformity with primary law) and administrative review (verifying legality of individual decisions). Judgments declaring invalidity have erga omnes effect (bind everyone).

Question 24

What are the four grounds for annulment under Article 263(2) TFEU?

Answer 24

(1) Lack of competence: institution acted beyond conferred powers; (2) Infringement of essential procedural requirement; (3) Infringement of Treaties or rules relating to their application; (4) Misuse of powers: exercising power for purposes other than intended. Grounds 1-2 are raised ex officio even if parties omit them.

Question 25

Who has standing to bring annulment actions, and what are the differences?

Answer 25

Privileged applicants (Member States, European Parliament, Council, Commission) may challenge any EU act without demonstrating interest. Non-privileged applicants (individuals, companies) face stricter requirements: must show acts address them, are of 'direct and individual concern,' or are regulatory acts of direct concern not requiring implementing measures. The 'direct and individual concern' test is highly restrictive.

Question 26

What did the CJEU rule in the Poland and Hungary rule of law cases (February 2022)?

Answer 26

In Hungary v Parliament and Council (C-156/21) and Poland v Parliament and Council (C-157/21), decided February 16, 2022, the Court comprehensively upheld the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation (2020/2092). Rejected arguments lacking proper legal basis, circumventing Article 7 TEU, or violating legal certainty/proportionality. Affirmed the EU's commitment to rule of law as constitutional identity.

Question 27

What judicial independence requirements has the CJEU imposed on Member States?

Answer 27

Multiple rulings enforce Article 19(1) TEU (requiring effective judicial protection in EU law fields) and Article 47 Charter (right to effective remedy before independent, impartial tribunal). National laws preventing appellate review of irregular case assignments violate independence; judges appointed through flawed procedures lack requisite independence; disciplinary regimes exposing judges to sanctions for decisions undermine independence and must be disapplied.

Question 28

What compliance challenges has the CJEU faced with its rule of law rulings?

Answer 28

Poland did not comply with any CJEU rulings on judicial reforms throughout 2021-2023, particularly regarding the disciplinary regime. Hungary achieved only partial compliance with 'super milestones,' with ongoing concerns about judicial independence, Supreme Court composition, and preliminary reference obstacles. Commission activated Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation, withholding substantial funding from both countries.

Question 29

What was the 2024 CJEU reform, and why was it necessary?

Answer 29

Transfer of preliminary ruling jurisdiction in six specific matters from the Court of Justice to the General Court. Introduction of specialized chambers at the General Court for preliminary references and an intermediate chamber of nine judges. Procedures for the Court of Justice to screen appeals. Necessary because CJEU faced unprecedented workload: in 2024, received 1,706 new cases (20 more than prior record), completed 1,649 cases, but faced record 2,508 pending cases. Average duration rose to 17.2 months.

Question 30

What are the concerns about the 2024 CJEU reform?

Answer 30

Will the General Court develop as a legitimate 'mini-Court of Justice'? Will specialized chambers develop distinctive approaches, fragmenting jurisprudence? Will the existence of multiple preliminary ruling sources undermine uniformity—the very objective the preliminary reference system serves? Some scholars worry national judges may prefer dialoguing with national supreme courts or applying EU law autonomously without CJEU intervention.

Question 31

CJEU's role as 'motor of integration'

Answer 31

The CJEU has advanced integration through judicial interpretation when political actors proved unable or unwilling to act. This generated criticism during periods of legislative paralysis (1970s-1980s 'Eurosclerosis'), with critics arguing the Court pursues federalist objectives beyond democratic authorization. Defenders emphasize functional necessity and that the Court operates within constraints imposed by Member States (Treaty amendment power, selective compliance, appointment influence).

Question 32

tensions in the relationship between national courts and the CJEU

Answer 32

Despite cooperative rhetoric, hierarchical and conflictual elements exist. The CJEU positioned itself as superior through: (1) asserting EU law questions are EU law matters; (2) claiming exclusive authority to declare EU acts invalid; (3) developing acte clair doctrine purportedly limiting national courts' discretion. National courts resist through: (1) broad acte clair application; (2) judgments inconsistent with CJEU rulings; (3) constitutional review over EU measures (ultra vires review, constitutional identity review).

Question 33

new legal order principles

Answer 33

(1) Supranationality: EU law operates above national systems, taking precedence over national law including constitutions (with limited exceptions for constitutional identity). (2) Direct enforceability: EU law creates rights/obligations enforceable by individuals. (3) Uniform application: preliminary references ensure uniform interpretation. (4) Effectiveness: equivalence and effectiveness principles constrain national procedural autonomy. (5) Integration through law: judicial interpretation drives integration.

Question 34

key dates and developments for CJEU history

Answer 34

1952: ECSC Court established; 1963: Van Gend en Loos (direct effect); 1964: Costa v ENEL (supremacy); 1988: Court of First Instance created; 2005: Civil Service Tribunal established; 2009: Lisbon Treaty reforms; 2022: Poland/Hungary rule of law rulings; 2024: CJEU judicial architecture reform.

Question 35

distinctions between the Court of Justice and General Court

Answer 35

Court of Justice: supreme court, 27 judges + 11 AGs, hears preliminary rulings and infringement proceedings; General Court: first-instance tribunal, 54 judges, hears annulment actions and direct actions. Appeals from General Court go to Court of Justice (points of law only). Since 2024 reform, General Court hears six categories of preliminary references.