- 1549 reads
Table of Contents: 1. Introduction. – 2. The Guichet Unique Mechanism: Practical functioning and scope of examination. – 3. Key figures and first review after nine months of implementation of the Reform. – 4. Concluding remarks.
Abstract: The present article offers an insider’s preliminary examination on the implementation of the CJEU Statute Reform on transfer of preliminary ruling jurisdiction to the General Court. First of all, the paper aims to provide certain reminders of the relevant provisions of the Statute of the Court of Justice and the Rules of Procedure introduced by the recent Reform. Furthermore, the paper highlights how the ‘Guichet Unique’ mechanism works in practice by providing insights into the concrete implementation of the provisions governing the partial transfer of preliminary ruling jurisdiction. Finally, the article includes an empirical assessment of the implementation of the Reform in light of the document published by the Court on September 2025. It reports on the number and nature of cases referred to the General Court or, conversely, retained by the Court for the remainder of the proceedings.
Keywords: EU judicial system – CJEU Statute – reform – transfer of jurisdiction – preliminary rulings – Guichet Unique mechanism.
1. Introduction
The year 2024 clearly marks a turning point in the reform of the judicial architecture of the European Union, materialised by the adoption and entry into force of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2019.[1] That piece of legislation comprises essentially three components.
The first part consists of two developments provided for in the Regulation amending the Statute of the Court of Justice, which will apply to all requests for preliminary rulings, irrespective of the subject matter concerned. In the first place, the Reform expanded the definition of ‘interested person’ under Article 23 of the Statute. As is already the case for all Member States and the Commission, all references for a preliminary ruling will be notified to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Central Bank so that they can determine whether they have a particular interest in the issues raised and whether they therefore wish to exercise their right to submit statements of case or written observations. In the second place, in order to enhance the transparency and openness of the preliminary ruling procedure and to enable a better understanding of the decisions delivered by the Court of Justice and by the General Court, it is provided that, in all references for a preliminary ruling, the statements or written observations lodged by an interested party referred to in Article 23 of the Statute are to be published on the website of the Court of Justice within a reasonable period after the case has been closed, unless that interested party objects to the publication of its statement in intervention or observations.[2]
Another aspect of the Reform aims to preserve the effectiveness of the appeal proceedings against decisions of the General Court, given the high number of appeals lodged with the Court of Justice. In order to enable the Court of Justice to focus on cases which raise important questions of law, the mechanism whereby appeals should first be allowed to proceed[3] is extended to other decisions delivered by the General Court. That mechanism concerns appeals in cases which have already been examined twice, first by an independent board of appeal of an EU body, office or agency and then by the General Court. With the amendment of the Statute, six independent Boards of Appeal established before 1 May 2019 are added to the previous four to which the mechanism of prior admission applies.[4]
But the most important and emblematic part of the Reform concerns the partial transfer of jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings from the Court of Justice to the General Court.[5]
This reform is indeed intended to reduce the workload of the Court of Justice in preliminary ruling proceedings and to allow it to continue to carry out, within a reasonable time, its mission under Article 19 TEU of ensuring that in the interpretation and application of the Treaties the law is observed.
In 2001, the authors of the Treaty of Nice had provided for the possibility of the General Court being involved in dealing with certain references for a preliminary ruling,[6] without the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union having been adapted for that purpose since then.[7]
Two convergent phenomena have certainly contributed to making effective the partial transfer of jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings to the General Court. On the one hand, over the past five years, there has been a structural and significant increase of the cases brought before the Court of Justice.[8] This ‘turnover’ development has been accompanied by an increase in the complexity and sensitivity of cases concerning, inter alia, constitutional issues.[9] On the other hand, the General Court, which now has two judges per Member State, is well equipped to absorb that additional workload and, therefore, to deal with the questions referred for a preliminary ruling within a reasonable time in such a way as to provide the national courts and interested parties with the same guarantees as those applied by the Court of Justice.
In such circumstances, the Reform will enable the Court of Justice, as the constitutional and supreme court of the Union, to focus on its task of protecting and strengthening the unity and consistency of European Union law.[10]
As clearly explained in other papers in this Special Issue,[11] the Reform consists of introducing, from 1 October 2024, a partial transfer of jurisdiction on preliminary references on a limited number of areas ‘clearly defined and sufficiently separable from other areas’[12] and which meet certain criteria.[13]
To that end, Article 50b was added to the Statute by Regulation 2024/2019. That article provides in paragraph 1 that the General Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine requests for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU which fall exclusively within one or several of the following specific areas: (a) the common system of value added tax; (b) excise duties; (c) the Customs Code; (d) the tariff classification of goods under the Combined Nomenclature; (e) compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding or of delay or cancellation of transport services; (f) the system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading. However, the second paragraph of that article specifies that the Court of Justice shall retain jurisdiction to hear and determine requests for a preliminary ruling raising independent questions of interpretation of primary law, public international law, general principles of EU law or the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
In connection with that core provision, Article 93a was added to the Rules of Procedure. That article lays down the detailed rules for the initial processing of requests for a preliminary ruling submitted to the Court under Article 267 TFEU in order to determine which court or tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with them.
It is apparent from those provisions that all requests for a preliminary ruling must be submitted to the Court of Justice in order for the President (after hearing the Vice-President and the First Advocate General) or the Court of Justice (in the General Meeting/Réunion générale) to determine whether the proceedings continue before the General Court or the Court of Justice.
For reasons of legal certainty and expedition, all requests for a preliminary ruling will therefore continue to be submitted to the Court of Justice, which will carry out a preliminary analysis of their subject matter.
In order for the transfer of competence to take place as efficiently and harmoniously as possible, the Guichet Unique mechanism (also known as the ‘One-stop shop’ mechanism) emerged as the appropriate solution on several grounds. First, the referring courts do not have to consider before which of the two courts they should be seised. Second, it makes it possible to verify that the questions referred do relate exclusively to one or more of the matters referred to in the first paragraph of Article 50b of the Statute and do not raise independent questions of interpretation within the meaning of the second paragraph of that article even before the substance of the request for a preliminary ruling is deeply examined. Third, it enables a number of internal players of the Institution to be involved (and to benefit from the synergies offered by cross views) in examining whether references for a preliminary ruling can be transferred to the General Court, while mobilising resources as rationally as possible. Indeed, one should always not lose sight of the fact that the ultimate aim of the Reform is to lighten the burden caused by the increase in the number and difficulty of cases brought before the Court of Justice.[14]
Against this backdrop, this contribution aims to provide some insights on the practical functioning of the Guichet Unique and to carry out a first review of that mechanism after almost nine months of implementation.
2. The Guichet Unique mechanism: practical functioning and scope of examination
As already outlined by Porchia in this Special Section,[15] the Court has to verify as quickly as possible whether the request exclusively comes within one or several of the specific areas laid down in Article 50b of the Statute. The salient elements of the Guichet Unique may be summarised as follows.
Any request for a preliminary ruling, including those which may be transferred, must be submitted to the Court in accordance with the rules for lodging procedural documents laid down in Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.[16] In practice, for reasons connected, in particular, with the need to ensure expeditious handling of the case and optimal communication with the referring court or tribunal, the Court of Justice recommends that national courts and tribunals use the e-Curia application.[17]
As soon as it is filed, the request is analysed by the Registry in order to establish, inter alia, whether it is ‘eligible’ for the transfer in the broad sense. At this stage, it is a question of identifying whether the request falls within one or more of the ‘specific matters’ referred to in Article 50b of the Statute. Once a request affects one of the specific subjects, it is examined by the Guichet Unique.
Until the decision is taken in this preliminary stage, the request for a preliminary ruling is not registered in the ‘C’ or ‘T’ register of cases. The request is internally identified by a ‘GU’ reference.
The request is then subject to a peculiar and very quick treatment. Indeed, the Cabinets of the President, Vice-President and First Advocate General are immediately informed of that request. A ‘provisional’ translation into the working language (French) is simultaneously distributed after verification by the administrator in charge. At the same time, the Research and Documentation Directorate is also involved in drawing up, as soon as possible, an analysis[18] aimed at clarifying the legal and factual context of the request for a preliminary ruling and, where appropriate, to establish close links with cases already settled or pending.
Once this analysis has been carried out, the Registry sends a form without delay to obtain the opinions of the Vice-President and the First Advocate General, and, taking these opinions into account, the decision is taken by the President.
In accordance with Article 50b of the Statute, two possibilities are available at the end of that examination.
If, after analysing the request for a preliminary ruling, the President of the Court, having heard the Vice-President and the First Advocate General, considers that that request falls exclusively within one or more of the specific areas referred to in point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 50b of the Statute, without raising independent questions within the meaning of the second paragraph of that article, the President will inform the Registry accordingly, which will immediately transmit the request to the Registry of the General Court. The latter will formally register the request and the proceedings will continue before the General Court, in accordance with the provisions of its Rules of Procedure.
However, if the preliminary analysis of the request leads the President, having heard the Vice-President and the First Advocate General, to consider that, although it falls within one or more specific areas, the request also covers other areas or raises independent questions of interpretation of primary law, public international law, general principles of EU law or the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, that request is immediately referred for further analysis to the General Meeting (Réunion générale) of the Court, which is held on a weekly basis and in which all the Judges and Advocates General of the Court participate.
Should that analysis ultimately lead the Court to consider that the request for a preliminary ruling falls exclusively within one or more of the specific areas referred to in the first paragraph of Article 50b of the Statute, that request is immediately transmitted by the Registry of the Court of Justice to the Registry of the General Court. The proceedings will then be continued before the General Court in accordance with the provisions of its Rules of Procedure. Otherwise, the proceedings will continue before the Court, in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice. The referring court will, of course, be immediately informed of the outcome of that analysis by the registry of the court concerned, which will then become its sole interlocutor. When the request is included in the General Meeting, it is therefore the Court which decides whether the request for a preliminary ruling must be registered in the register of the Court of Justice or whether it should instead be transferred to the General Court.[19]
Finally, it should not be forgotten that the transfer mechanism to the General Court is accompanied by a corrective tool, which has not yet been used. Where the General Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine a request for a preliminary ruling, it shall refer that request to the Court of Justice by order, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 54 of the Statute. Under the second subparagraph of Article 256(3) TFEU, the General Court may also, at any stage of the proceedings, decide to refer a request to the Court of Justice where it considers that it requires a decision of principle liable to affect the unity or consistency of EU law. The national court shall be informed immediately of the referral.
As regards the scope of the analysis carried out at the level of the Guichet Unique, it is important to clarify that such an examination conducted cannot encroach on the assessment on the merits to be carried out by the court designated as having jurisdiction (General Court or Court of Justice) on the request for a preliminary ruling. At this early stage, the assessment turns on the basis of the wording of the request. That analyses basically involves two steps. First, whether or not the request falls exclusively within one or more of the specific matters referred to in first paragraph of Article 50b of the Statute. Second, if so, whether or not the request raises independent questions of interpretation of the rules or principles referred to in the second paragraph of Article 50b of the Statute of the European Union. It is an objective and prima facie examination which does not take account of the referring court, of the possible importance of the case for the matter concerned or even of its specific scope.
3. Key figures and first review after nine months of implementation of the Reform
By addressing potential reservations that could arise with regard to the transparency and consistency of the approach followed in the process of designating the competent court, recital 15 of Regulation 2024/2019 states that ‘in the interests of legal certainty and greater transparency of court proceedings, the Court of Justice or the General Court should briefly set out in its preliminary ruling the reasons why it has jurisdiction to deal with a question referred for a preliminary ruling’.
In addition, again according to that recital, ‘the Court of Justice should publish and regularly update a list of examples illustrating the application of Article 50b of the Statute, as inserted by this amending Regulation’. In that regard, Article 3(1) of Regulation 2024/2019 states that ‘by 2 September 2025, the Court of Justice shall publish and periodically update a list of examples of the application of Article 50b of the Statute’.
The Court followed the latter provision by recently publishing a document entitled ‘Implementation of Article 50b of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union’.[20] This short document is highly informative.
First, it should be noted that, while the Court of Justice was (only) invited by the EU legislature to publish a ‘list of examples of the application of Article 50b of the Statute’, the document drawn up by the Court of Justice provides a synoptic table setting out all the requests for a preliminary ruling falling within one or more of the specific areas referred to in the first paragraph of Article 50b of the Statute which were lodged with the Court of Justice between 1 October 2024 and 30 June 2025 and setting out, in its last column, the reasons why some of those requests were not submitted to the General Court and are dealt with by the Court of Justice. That table therefore provides an exhaustive overview of the outcome of requests for a preliminary ruling in the specific areas covered by the partial transfer of jurisdiction in preliminary ruling proceedings.
Second, that document informs that, during the period from 1 October 2024 to 30 June 2025 (‘the reference period’) – that is to say, in the first nine months of implementation of the partial transfer of jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings – more than 66 requests for a preliminary ruling were examined within Guichet Unique (22 in 2024, 44 in 2025). According to the latest information brought to our attention, almost 80 files were examined within Guichet Unique during the first year (from 1 October 2024 to 1 October 2025). That figure corresponds more or less to the estimates which were expected, since the number of references for a preliminary ruling within the six matters listed in Article 50b of Statute introduced in recent years falls between 80 and 90.
Third, it is apparent from the list provided that, of the 66 files examined during the reference period, 57 were transferred to the General Court for the remainder of the proceedings. Only 9 requests for a preliminary ruling were thus ‘maintained’ at the Court. That shows that approximately 86 per cent of the cases referred to the Guichet Unique were transferred to the General Court.
As regards the areas covered by the 57 cases referred to the General Court, they relate, in descending order, to the common system of value added tax (21); excise duties (10); compensation and assistance to air passengers in the event of denied boarding, delay or cancellation of transport services (15); the Customs Code (6) and, finally, the tariff classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature (5). For the time being, none of the requests for a preliminary ruling transferred to the General Court relate to the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading.
The files transferred to the General Court will be treated in the same way as the Court of Justice. In that regard, the Rules of Procedure, the practical provisions relating to their implementation and the recommendations addressed to national courts on the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings were radically revised in 2024 to enable the General Court to exercise its new jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings.[21]
Moreover, it goes without saying that decisions of the General Court in preliminary ruling proceedings will have the same value as those of the Court of Justice. That said, since the third paragraph of Article 256(3) TFEU exceptionally provides for the possibility of a review by the Court, on a proposal from the First Advocate General, of the General Court’s preliminary rulings where there is a serious risk of the unity or consistency of EU law being affected, it is only in the absence of such a proposal, which must be made within one month of the decision of the General Court,[22] that the decision of the General Court will become final. Moreover, where the General Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine a request for a preliminary ruling, it is to make an order to the Court of Justice pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 54 of the Statute. Lastly, the General Court may, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 256(3) TFEU, decide to refer the case to the Court of Justice if it considers that it raises an issue of principle liable to affect the unity or consistency of EU law. To date, these “corrective” mechanisms have not been implemented.
It is also interesting to note that the requests for a preliminary ruling submitted to the General Court come from courts of 19 Member States, some of which are higher courts.[23] That shows that the prima facie and objective examination carried out within Guichet Unique, which is based above all on a substantive approach, fails to take account of the author of the request for a preliminary ruling, of the possible importance of the case for the matter in question or of its specific scope.
As regards the requests for a preliminary ruling maintained before the Court, it should be noted that, as is apparent from the logic underlying the application of Article 50b of the Statute, they are of two kinds. These are, first, requests for a preliminary ruling which could be described as ‘mixed’, since they also concern one or more matters other than those referred to in the first paragraph of that article, such as commercial policy (C-827/24), freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services (C-910/24 and C-405/25), consumer protection in the context of package travel (C-119/25) and public health (C-406/25). Second, there are requests raising independent questions of interpretation of primary law (C-308/25), public international law (C-167/25), general principles of EU law or the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (C-844/24 and C-465/25).
That brief panorama would probably incomplete unless we devote some words to the decisions already taken by the General Court.
In 2024, the General Court made considerable efforts to finalise and implement the reform of the judicial system of the European Union, initiated with the request for reform of the Statute made by the Court of Justice in November 2022. On 10 July 2024, the General Court adopted, in agreement with the Court of Justice and after approval by the Council, fundamental amendments to its Rules of Procedure[24], which also entered into force on 1 September 2024 and are intended, inter alia, to enable the General Court to exercise its new jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings from October 2024. The Practice Rules for the Implementation of the Rules of Procedure have been recast, while other texts, in particular concerning the use of e-Curia, have been amended.[25]
In addition, the General Court established a chamber designated to deal with requests for a preliminary ruling and which should remain in place until the General Court is partially replaced in September 2025, to be replaced by two chambers with jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings. It elected three judges (two full members and one alternate) to perform the duties of Advocate-General for the handling of requests for a preliminary ruling. It was decided that the judges involved in the handling of preliminary ruling cases are never appointed as rapporteurs for voluminous cases or groups of cases, the priority given to the rapid management of requests for a preliminary ruling, in accordance with the assurances given by the Court to the legislature at the time of the Reform.[26]
As to 15 October 2025, and with the exception of the adoption of orders to remove approximately 15 cases from the register following the withdrawal of requests for a preliminary ruling concerning, for the most part, compensation for air passengers, the General Court delivered an initial preliminary ruling on 9 July 2025 in Gotek,[27] which was also the first case to be examined by the Guichet Unique and transferred to the General Court. This case arose from a request for a preliminary ruling filed by the Upravni sud u Osijeku (Administrative Court, Osijek, Croatia) and concerned the interpretation of certain provisions of the Excise Duty Directive.[28] In essence, the Croatian court before which the trader brought an action asked whether the national legislation, as interpreted by the national authorities, which provides that excise duty is chargeable on the basis of a fictitious supply of excise goods appearing on falsified invoices, is compatible with EU law. In its judgment, the General Court answered in the negative. In particular, it pointed out that excise duty becomes chargeable when the goods are released for consumption, and the directive lays down an exhaustive list of those grounds. In that case, excise duty was imposed on account of an abuse of rights, involving the use of falsified invoices even though the petroleum products were not supplied, which does not fall within those situations (paras 28 to 34).
4. Concluding remarks
The fact that a preliminary ruling has been rendered by the General Court only nine months after the case was referred[29] is a particularly encouraging evidence about the smooth functioning of the partial transfer of jurisdiction on preliminary rulings to the General Court.
Admittedly, this case concerns a relatively targeted issue, obviously related to a specific area (the ‘excise duties’) within the meaning of Article 50b of the Statute, which is why it was probably not considered appropriate to have the benefit of an opinion from the Advocate General and an oral hearing.[30] However, the way it has been handled demonstrates the effectiveness of the mechanisms put in place to deal with the partial transfer of preliminary ruling jurisdiction as quickly as possible.
Such effectiveness is necessary in view of the increasing number of cases brought before the Court (920 cases in 2024), one of the highest numbers of its history, which has automatically led to an increase in the number of cases pending before the Court (1206 to 31 December 2024).[31] This data demonstrates more than ever the need and the significance of the legislative reform which has been introduced into force in September 2024 and promises to balance the workload between the Court of Justice and the General Court.
The number of files so far transferred to the General Court will certainly not suffice to absorb the increasing flow of cases. The fact remains, however, that the optimal functioning of that ‘new sharing’ between the Court of Justice and the General Court and the prospects it offers are of crucial importance. While only ‘The Future Will Tell’[32] and it is certainly too early to measure the overall impact of the changes introduced, which will be reported within three years,[33] the first experiences allow us to be optimistic.
-------------------
European Papers, Vol. 10, 2025, No 3, pp. 877-888
ISSN 2499-8249 - doi: 10.15166/2499-8249/858
* Référendaire at the Court of Justice of the European Union, leila.rezki@curia.europa.eu. The text has been written in a personal capacity and reflects solely the views of the author.
[1] Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute.
[2] For a thorough assessment on this aspect of the reform, see I Fevola and S Montaldo, ‘Access to Written Submissions in Preliminary Reference Proceedings: An Evaluation of the CJEU Statute Reform and its Contribution to Open Justice’ (2025) 10 European Papers 327.
[3] On the establishment in 2019 of the mechanism for determining whether appeals should be allowed to proceed, see Court of Justice of the European Union, ‘Press Release No 53/19: The Court of Justice adopts new rules on whether or not to allow appeals to proceed in cases which have already been considered twice’ (Luxembourg, 30 April 2019), at curia.europa.eu.
[4] Until now, that mechanism has concerned decisions issued by four Boards of Appeal and subsequently challenged before the General Court, which are mentioned in Art 58a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. With the amendment of the Statute, six new independent Boards of Appeal are added, bringing their total number to ten. These are the Boards of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO), the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), in addition to the Boards of Appeal of the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER), the Single Resolution Board (SRB), the European Banking Authority (EBA), the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA), the European Union Agency for Railways (ERA). Furthermore, the prior admission mechanism also applies to appeals brought against decisions of the General Court concerning a decision of an independent board of appeal established after 1 May 2019 within any other body, office or agency of the European Union, which must be seised before an action can be brought before the General Court. Finally, that mechanism is also extended to disputes relating to the performance of contracts containing an arbitration clause. The extensions of the mechanism for the determination of whether an appeal is allowed to proceed will apply is applicable since 1 September 2024.
[5] It is this aspect that has been commented on most extensively, sometimes critically, in the legal literature. See, inter alia, M Bobek, ‘Preliminary Rulings Before the General Court: What Judicial Architecture for the European Union?’ (2023) 60 Common Market Law Review 1515; T Tridimas, ‘Breaking with Tradition: Preliminary Reference Reform and the New Judicial Architecture’ in The 2024 Reform of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU (EU Law Live 2024) 5; D Sarmiento, ‘Gaps and “Known Unknowns” in the Transfer of Preliminary References to the General Court’ (2024) 3 Rivista del contenzioso europeo11.
[6] The first subparagraph of Art 256(3) TFEU provides for the possibility of transferring from the Court of Justice to the General Court jurisdiction to hear and determine questions referred for a preliminary ruling under Art 267 TFEU in specific areas laid down in the Statute of the Court of Justice.
[7] For a statement of the reasons why such a transfer had not previously been considered appropriate, see the Report submitted pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/2422 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, at curia.europa.eu.
[8] The structural increase in litigation before the Court of Justice has been noted on several occasions (see, inter alia, Court of Justice of the European Union, ‘Press Release No 59/24: Judicial statistics 2023: confirmation of the structural increase in litigation before the Court of Justice’ (Luxembourg, 22 March 2024), at curia.europa.eu).
[9] See, inter alia, Request submitted by the Court of Justice pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 281 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, with a view to amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, at curia.europa.eu.
[10] For a discussion on the concept of ‘constitutionalisation’ as a driver for the reform under analysis, see the reflections proposed by Alberti (J Alberti, ‘O Tell Me the Truth About the Transfer of Preliminary References to the General Court. Three Narratives to Be Questioned, Two Thorny Issues to Be Introduced and One Scenario to be Addressed as the Main Legacy of the Recent Reform of the CJEU Statute’ (2025) 10 European Papers 333) and Hilpold (T Hilpold, ‘The 2024 Reform of the EU Judicial System and the Transformation of the Court of Justice into a Constitutional Court’ (2025) 10 European Papers 837) in this Special Section.
[11] L Grossio and D Petrić, ‘EU Procedural Law Revisited: The Reformed EU Judicial Architecture between the Statute of the Court of Justice and the Rules of Procedure (2025) 10 European Papers 293; O Porchia, ‘The Reform for the Transfer of Competence for Preliminary Rulings to the General Court: Issues Concerning Its Implementation’ (2025) 10 European Papers 391. See also D Petrić, ‘The Preliminary Ruling Procedure 2.0’ (2023) 8 European Papers 25, 26.
[12] Regulation 2014/2019 (n 1) recital 4.
[13] Ibid, recitals 5 to 7.
[14] As has been pointed out, the choices made by the legislator are clear and are the result of a measured and rational approach. In particular, see J Wildemeersch and P Dermine, ‘La compétence préjudicielle de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne après son transfert partiel au Tribunal de l’Union européenne: défis et perspectives’ (2025) Journal des Tribunaux n. 7008, 34.
[15] Porchia (n 11).
[16] It should be noted that the content of any request for a preliminary ruling is determined identically in Art 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice and Art 199 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. In addition to the questions referred, the request for a preliminary ruling must contain (a) a summary of the subject-matter of the dispute in the main proceedings and the relevant findings of fact as determined by the referring court or tribunal or, at least, an account of the facts on which the questions referred for a preliminary ruling are based; (b) the tenor of any national provisions applicable in the case and, where appropriate, the relevant national case-law, and (c) a statement of the reasons which prompted the referring court or tribunal to inquire about the interpretation or validity of certain provisions of law (Recommendations to national courts and tribunals in relation to the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings (C/2024/6008), at: curia.europa.eu, para 15).
[17] Although situation is unlikely to occur in practice, where an application is lodged before the General Court, the Registry of the General Court shall forthwith transmit it to the Registry of the Court of Justice, as mandated by Art 207(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
[18] It should be remembered that the Research and Documentation Directorate generally conducts an early review of all requests for a preliminary ruling made to the Court, in order to identify, at an early stage of the proceedings, any problems relating, for example, to the admissibility of the reference, as well as to assess, where necessary, the need to deal with a case under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure, and a preliminary analysis of the appeals brought before the Court of Justice against the decisions of the General Court in some areas with a view to identifying as rapidly as possible those which could be dealt with by reasoned order. For further information on this aspect, see Court of Justice of the European Union, ‘Research and Documentation Directorate’, at curia.europa.eu.
[19] See Recommendations to national courts and tribunals in relation to the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings (n 16).
[20] Court of Justice of the European Union, ‘Implementation of Article 50b of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (1/10/2024 – 30/06/2025)’, at curia.europa.eu.
[21] Their consolidated versions are available at curia.europa.eu.
[22] As provided for by Art 62(2) of the Statute.
[23] Such as the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Supreme Court, Latvia), the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court, Germany), the Conseil d’État (Council of State, France), the Hof van Cassatie (Court of Cassation, Belgium), the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Supreme Administrative Court, Sweden), and the Înalta Curte de Casa, ie i Justitie (High Court of Cassation and Justice, Romania), the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court, Finland), the Kúria (Supreme Court, Hungary), the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Supreme Administrative Court, Poland), the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court, Portugal) and the Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court, Bulgaria).
[24] Amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the General Court (2024/L/2094).
[25] Recommendations to national courts and tribunals in relation to the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings (n 16) 4; Corrigendum to the practice rules for the implementation of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of 12 August 2024 (2024/L/90651). For an analysis, see MC Bottino, ‘Le nuove norme pratiche di esecuzione del regolamento di procedura del Tribunale’ (2024) Rivista del contenzioso europeo 1.
[26] See V Di Bucci, ‘Statistics concerning the judicial activity of the General Court – 2024’ (Luxembourg, March 2025), at curia.europa.eu.
[27] Case T‑534/24 Gotek, EU:T:2025:682.
[28] Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12).
[29] In 2024, the average time taken to deal with references for a preliminary ruling was 17,2 months: see Court of Justice of the European Union, ‘Annual Report 2024: Statistics concerning the judicial activity of the Court of Justice’ (Luxembourg, March 2025), at curia.europa.eu.
[30] Concerning the written part of the procedure, it appears that only the Croatian Government and the European commission have submitted observations.
[31] About statistics concerning the judicial activity of the Court of Justice in 2024, see: M-A Gaudissart, ‘Statistics concerning the judicial activity of the Court of Justice – 2024’ (Luxembourg, March 2025), at curia.europa.eu.
[32] The reference here is to M Bobek, ‘The Future Will Tell. Of Course It Will, But on What Criteria?’ in The 2024 Reform of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU (EU Law Live 2024) 41.
[33] The Court will have to submit, by 2 September 2028 at the latest, a report to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the reform of the Statute Regulation (see Regulation 2024/2019 (n 1) Art 3(2)).