- 6330 reads
Table of Contents: 1. Introduction. – 2. The partial transfer of jurisdiction in ‘certain specific areas’. – 3. Procedures to determine which judicial body has jurisdiction. – 4. The Chamber designated to deal with the request for a preliminary ruling. – 5. Corrective measures to the division of competences. – 6. The review procedure. – 7. Other changes introduced by the reform. – 8. Further reflections.
Abstract: This paper offers an insider’s preliminary assessment on the first implementation of the reform on transfer of preliminary ruling jurisdiction to the General Court. First of all, the paper reminds the rationale behind the reform and explains the latter’s development, legal basis and context. Thereafter, the paper follows the course of the procedure from its inception, underlining the criteria according to which a case is attributed to the Court or to the General Court and offering an insight into the ‘guichet unique’ mechanism and its inner workings. Furthermore, the paper casts light on the guarantees that the reform sets in place, such as the introduction of a permanent role for the Advocate General and of specialised chambers. Subsequently, attention is brought to the corrective mechanisms aimed at guaranteeing the division of competences between the Court and the General Court, discussing the ex ante control of the Court’s Registry and possible referrals to the Court of Justice. With regard to the safeguarding of the uniform interpretation of EU Law, the contribution then offers a critical appraisal of the re-examination procedure thereto predisposed. Moving onto the other innovations of the recent reform, the paper briefly presents other measures to enhance transparency, such as the publication of written observations and live broadcasting of certain proceedings. Finally, the paper presents some first conclusions on the future impact of the transfer of competences and the reform in general.
Keywords: EU judicial system – General Court – transfer of jurisdiction – preliminary rulings –procedural measures – implementation.
1. Introduction
Regulation 2024/2019 of 11 April 2024[1] amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which entered into force on 1 September 2024, introduced an important reform signaling a ‘fundamental step in the evolution of the EU judicial system’.[2] More specifically, this piece of legislation provides for certain changes to the distribution of jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings under Article 267 TFEU. This recent reform confers on the General Court jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings in ‘certain specific areas’ expressly identified by the Regulation.
In this regard, it is important to remember that the Nice Treaty had already provided for the possibility of an involvement of the General Court in preliminary ruling procedures. The provision, which is enshrined now into Article 256(3) TFEU, allows for this possibility in relation to ‘specific areas laid down by the Statute’. An intervention by the legislator was therefore necessary in order to identify these areas.
Only in 2022, the Court of Justice referred a proposal in this sense to the Union’s legislator. There are some reasons that could explain why it happened at this time. Indeed, it was only at that moment that the reform of the General Court introduced by Regulation 2015/2422,[3] which doubled the number of judges per Member State, was fully implemented. It therefore resulted in an improvement in the efficiency of the jurisdiction and its capacity to deal with an increasing workload. Furthermore, a strong common will to reduce the workload of the Court made it imperative to introduce the reform under analysis.[4] The lightening of this workload as a result of the reform would indeed enable the Court to continue fulfilling its mission of safeguarding and strengthening the unity and consistency of EU law, while guaranteeing the highest quality of its decisions. This is particularly important in our time, when the Court is constantly called upon to address questions arising in areas that, firstly, have not yet been extensively shaped by case-law and, secondly, comprise significant challenges for our society, such as threats to the international order and rule of law.[5] Consequently, the reform aims to allow the Court to treat the most complex and sensitive cases of a constitutional nature and thus includes the General Court in the dialogue with national courts without changing its role as the first judge of legality.[6]
For a better understanding of the context, it is important to underline that the Regulation provides for other changes, mainly related to the need to strengthen the transparency and openness of the judicial process.
Notwithstanding doubts expressed at the time of the proposal about the acceptance of such a reform by the Member States, especially by some supreme courts, the reform was adopted in a relatively short period of time. It could be said that its adoption expresses an example of good cooperation inside the institution, between the two jurisdictions (Court and General court) in the preparation of the proposal and among the EU institutions (Council, European Parliament, Commission and Court of Justice) throughout the legislative procedure.
The conferral of preliminary competence to the General Court is accompanied by some substantive and procedural guarantees.[7]Indeed, other than identifying the specific areas in which the General Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine preliminary questions, the reform sets in place important guarantees such as the introduction of specialised chambers, a permanent role for the Advocate General, and the adoption of procedural rules identical to those in force in the Court. Moreover, the reform defines a number of mechanisms, such as the possibility to refer the question back to the Court and the possibility of reviewing preliminary rulings issues by the General Court, according to Article 256(3) TFEU.
This paper aims to give a preliminary assessment of the implementation of the reform from an insider’s perspective. By exploring the structural changes that occurred within the General Court, it highlights the rapid response that the institution needed in order to adapt to the upcoming workload. More specifically, the paper refers to the first cases lodged under this reform and to the early steps taken by the General Court for their handling.
2. The partial transfer of jurisdiction in ‘certain specific areas’
As already outlined in other articles in this Special Section, the choice on the basis of the reform launched by the Court and accepted by the EU legislator consists of introducing a partial transfer of jurisdiction on preliminary references, on a limited number of areas.[8] In this regard, the recitals of Regulation 2024/2019 lay out a series of criteria. First, such areas shall be ‘clearly defined’ upon reading the preliminary ruling request and ‘sufficiently separable from other areas’, in order to avoid uncertainties as to the precise scope of the questions referred.[9] Secondly, there shall be a substantial body of case-law capable of guiding the General Court in the exercise of its power to hear and determine preliminary questions, to prevent the potential risk of inconsistencies or divergences in the case-law. However, the presence of this body of case-law is not sufficient to exclude systematically the obligation for a court of last instance to ask for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 267(3) TFEU.[10] Indeed, the presence of consistent case-law does not mean that all provisions, falling under the scope of the areas transferred to the General court are ‘clear’ in light of the CILFITdoctrine.[11] National judges, in particular of last instance, remain under the obligation to verify on a case-by-case approach whether or not they have to make a preliminary reference. Thirdly, these areas shall be related to a certain number of cases in order to make a significant difference in the reduction of the workload of the Court; and, lastly, they shall rarely give rise to issues of principles.[12]
The choice of these areas, accepted and shared by judges of the Court at the time of the proposal, could be intended as a first step towards a future larger reform.
According to these criteria, the reform has identified ‘six specific areas’ in which the General Court shall enjoy jurisdiction on preliminary rulings. This is the case when the question referred comes exclusively within one or several of the following specific areas:[13]
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.
Whenever the question referred exclusively comes within one or more of these areas, the General Court enjoys jurisdiction to hear and determine it, notwithstanding the national court from which the question arose, even if the latter is a supreme court.
However, the Court of Justice retains jurisdiction when the request for a preliminary ruling raises independent questions of interpretation of primary law, public international law, and general principles of Union law or of the Charter, due to the horizontal nature of these questions. This derogation also applies when the legal framework of the case in the main proceedings comes within one or more of the six specific areas.[14]
Lastly, the Court continues to adjudicate any preliminary references that, even if connected to one of the specific areas referred to in Article 50b of the Statute, also concern other subject matters.[15]
In this regard, the first cases transferred to the General Court do not confirm the concerns expressed by some scholars[16] that national courts may try to include broader horizontal issues in their references only with a view to having their case moved to the Court.[17] Indeed, upon examining current practice, national judges do not tend to include references to provisions that are not relevant in the cases.[18]
3. Procedures to determine which judicial body has jurisdiction
Every request made under Article 267 TFEU shall be submitted to the Court of Justice, as, for reasons of legal certainty and expedition, national courts cannot arbitrarily decide who has jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court has to verify as quickly as possible[19] whether the request exclusively comes within one or more of the specific areas laid down in Article 50b of the Statute. If it is clear that the question does not relate to any of the six specific areas, the case is immediately registered as ‘C’, as the Court enjoys full jurisdiction. On the contrary, when doubts arise whether the General Court has jurisdiction, the case has to be registered in the so-called ‘guichet unique’ system, expressly created for this kind of preliminary request.[20]
In particular, under Article 93a of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, when the Court receives a request for a preliminary ruling, which raises doubts as to the possible jurisdiction of the General Court, the Registry shall transmit it to the President, the Vice President and the First Advocate General.
Meanwhile, the question is subject to a preliminary analysis carried out by the Registry of the Court on the one hand, and by the Research and Documentation Directorate, in cooperation with the Directorate-General for Multilingualism, on the other. These assessments aim to determine whether the request for a preliminary ruling received covers one or more of the specific areas identified by Article 50b of the Statute.
More specifically, the Registry of the Court collects all the information and documents relevant to the case and carries out a first assessment to determine, prima facie, whether the case raises procedural questions that may allow for a simplified treatment of the case.
The analysis carried out by the Directorates leads to the adoption of a ‘pre-examination’ sheet. In particular, the latter identifies the essential subject matter of the case and the relevant provisions of national, EU and international law, thus allowing the President or, as the case may be, the General Meeting (Réunion Générale) of the Court, to determine whether the question falls within one of the ‘specific areas’ subject to devolution. Furthermore, the sheet sets out possible doubts or procedural matters arising from the case, relating to the jurisdiction of the Court or of the General Court, to the admissibility of the request or to the possibility of treating the case through the urgent preliminary ruling procedure or the expedited procedure. Lastly, the sheet lays out the relevant case-law, as well as any identical, connected or related case.
Once the ‘pre-examination’ sheet is drafted, it is transmitted by the Directorate for Research and Documentation to the Registry of the Court, as well as to the cabinets of the President and the Vice President of the Court and to that of the First Advocate General.
Following this preliminary analysis, the President, after hearing the Vice President and the First Advocate General, informs the Registry as to whether the question comes exclusively within one or more of the ‘specific areas’, or whether it also concerns other matters or raises independent questions of primary law, public international law, general principles of Union law or the Charter. In the first case, the Registry shall transmit the question to the Registry of the General Court and the proceedings continue before this judicial body. As for the second scenario, the question is referred to the General Meeting of the Court (Réunion Générale) for further analysis. This composition, consisting of all Judges and Advocates General of the Court, is convened to assess the question within a timeframe that shall not exceed what is strictly necessary, taking into account the nature, length, and complexity of the case.[21] If the General Meeting confirms the President’s opinion, the request stays within the Court of Justice; otherwise, it shall be transmitted to the General Court and the referring national court shall be informed.[22]
4. The Chamber designated to deal with the request for a preliminary ruling
According to the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the latter had to designate one or more chambers responsible for dealing with requests for preliminary rulings.[23] In this regard, on 9 October 2024, the Plenary Assembly of the General Court adopted its decision on the composition of the chamber for preliminary rulings for a transition period until August 2025, the date of the three-year renewal of the General Court.[24] As from September 2025, two new chambers with five judges each will be set up.
Once the request for a preliminary ruling is transmitted to the General Court, it shall be forwarded to the Chamber expressly designated for the treatment of such questions. In this regard, as soon as possible after the document initiating the proceedings has been lodged, the President of the General Court shall assign a case to one of the Chambers, with five judges sitting. The President of the Chamber proposes the designation of a Judge Rapporteur, which the President of the General Court has to accept.
However, the five-judge chamber may decide to refer the case to a Chamber sitting with a different number of judges, whenever the legal difficulty, the importance of the case or any other specific circumstance justifies it. In particular, the General Court may sit in the intermediate chamber, consisting of nine judges, or as a Grand Chamber, with 15 judges.[25] As the latter is limited to very specific cases, the intermediate chamber is meant to become the common formation of the General Court to deal with preliminary questions [26]. Nonetheless, the five-judge chamber may also refer the question to a smaller panel of judges, composed of only three members, if it considers that the case does not raise specific complex questions.[27]
Notwithstanding the composition of the chamber, when dealing with preliminary references, the General Court’s judges shall be assisted by an Advocate General.[28] In this regard, the judges shall elect from among themselves those who are to perform the duties of an Advocate General and the members who shall replace them if they are prevented from acting.[29] For each case, the Advocate General shall be selected from among the judges elected to perform that duty,[30] and shall belong to a different chamber than the one seized of that case.[31] The new Articles 31a and 31b of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court govern the procedure for appointing the Advocate General. The involvement in principle of the Advocate General aims to ensure an equivalent treatment as provided for by the Court. It does not mean a presumption iuris et de iure that preliminary questions always involve complex issues requiring the assistance of an Advocate General.[32] Indeed, the appointment of the Advocate General in all preliminary rulings does not imply that Opinions are delivered in all cases.
5. Corrective measures to the division of competences
As discussed before, the conferral of jurisdiction upon the General Court appears strictly linked to the Court’s assessment of the ‘exclusivity’ of the questions referred and their connection with the ‘specific areas’ laid down in Article 50b of the Statute[33]. This approach, which is conditional in nature, does not exclude the risk of conferring upon the ‘wrong’ court the preliminary question. However, this risk is limited by the possibility given to the General Court to refer the case back to the Court of Justice.
First, under Article 207(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, when a request for a preliminary ruling is introduced directly to the General Court in breach of Article 50b of the Statute, the Registry of the General Court has to forward it immediately to the Registry of the Court.
Furthermore, according to Article 54(2) of the Statute, when the General Court finds that it has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the case, it has to refer the proceedings back to the Court of Justice. In such circumstances, the General Court, acting on a proposal from the Judge Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate General, issues a reasoned order of referral, which cannot be subject to any appeal.[34]
Finally, at any stage of the proceedings, the Chamber appointed for the case may, after hearing the Advocate General, propose to the plenum that the case be brought before the Court of Justice where there is ‘a serious risk that the unity or consistency of Union law would be affected’. The procedure before the Court is regulated by Article 114b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.
6. The review procedure
Subject to some adjustments related to its specificity, the General Court will deal with requests for a preliminary ruling in the same way as the Court of Justice and will apply equivalent rules of procedure.[35]
The preliminary rulings of the General Court will also have the same effects as those of the Court of Justice. However, the judgements of the General Court will not take effect until the two-month period for the Court to make a decision on the review expires, as will be explained below.
According to Article 62 of the Statute, when there is a serious risk that the unity or consistency of EU law be affected, the judgments of the General Court may be exceptionally subject to a review.[36] This mechanism, available to the Court of Justice, is provided for by Article 256(3) TFEU. On a different note, a review mechanism had already been envisaged and put into force for the Civil Service Tribunal’s judgements, despite a very limited practice.[37] As for preliminary rulings, the mechanism operates upon proposal of the First Advocate General. If the Court, in the two-month period after the judgement, decides to open the review procedure, this judgement will only take effect when such a procedure has been finalised. Some scholars have expressed their concerns about the effects that such a delay would entail on the national procedure and, consequently, on the position of the parties. Indeed, throughout this time, while they do not enjoy any remedy, they should have no say on the matter and just await the final decision.[38] As a possible answer, it has been supposed that the parties, not satisfied with the ruling of the General Court, could try to convince a national court to introduce a new preliminary question with the aim to reach the Court before it has had the opportunity to review the judgement of the General Court itself.[39] Against this background, it is not clear how a further preliminary ruling, assuming it is admissible, could help to speed up the procedure as to put the national judge in a position to close rapidly the pending case. On the contrary, such a practice seems to add a layer of complexity to the overall procedure.
7. Other changes introduced by the reform
The reform introduces a series of other changes which do not all relate to the transfer of jurisdiction in the preliminary ruling procedure.
More specifically, Article 23(4) of the Statute now requires the publication of the written observations submitted by interested parties (ie, parties in national proceedings, Member States and the institutions listed in the second subparagraph of that provision) ‘within a reasonable period’ after the case has been closed. Exceptionally, when the parties object to the publication of their observations, the latter remain confidential. The initial request advanced by the Parliament in the context of the legislative procedure provided for open access to written observations, even in the course of judicial proceedings. This prerogative has been limited, shifting from an erga omnes right to access to an obligation of disclosure addressed to the Court, exclusively in closed cases of preliminary rulings, and only on the condition that the author of the act agrees to disclose it.[40]
The reform also amended Article 23 of the Statute by broadening the list of subjects entitled to receive from the Registry of the Court the notification of the national decision to stay proceedings and refer the case under Article 267 TFEU. This notification enables addresses to submit memoranda and observations. Accordingly, this right is now recognised to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Central Bank.[41] These three new subjects may submit memoranda and observations within two months from the notification, if they ‘consider that they have a particular interest in the questions raised by the request for a preliminary ruling’.
Finally, other changes were introduced to strengthen respect for the principle of transparency and good administration. Since 2022, the Court had already declared that the delivery of its judgements and the reading of the opinions of Advocates General would be broadcast live on its website and that hearings assigned to the Grand Chamber would, in principle, be subject to a later broadcast. After the reform, a live broadcast may take place when it relates to the delivery of judgements or opinions. However, when it relates to oral pleadings, the broadcast is transmitted later. Parties still enjoy the right to submit a request for the hearing not to be broadcast.
8. Further Reflections
The mechanism, which was only recently set up, is still in a running-in phase. Therefore, it is still too early to assess its overall performance and impact.
The reform appears to have struck a balance between the competing interests at stake: on the one hand, the need to reduce the Court’s workload in order to ensure more timely and efficient judgments; on the other hand, the necessity of continuing to safeguard the unity and consistency of Union law. Indeed, the reform provides for three control mechanisms, namely an ex-ante control with the ‘guichet unique’ system, an in itinere control, consisting of the possibility to refer the case back to the Court and, lastly, an ex-post control, namely the review procedure.
In this scenario, the concern raised by some scholars that national courts may become reluctant to refer preliminary questions does not seem to be justified.[42] Indeed, the carefully calibrated balance provided by the reform should offer reassurance to those sharing this apprehension, as the first cases demonstrate. In the view of the national judges, nothing has changed in the way they raise the questions before the Court. As long as the General Court ensures equivalent procedural rules to the ones applied by the Court of Justice, national judges seem to be reassured about the effective assessment of their preliminary questions. From a different and complementary perspective, they might also desire a different judicial body to adopt a different approach from the Court of Justice’s case-law, maybe by revisiting orientations which are not always well accepted.
It appears clear that much of the success of the reform that has just entered into force will also depend on how the Court of Justice interprets[43] the notions of ‘exclusivity’ of specific matters[44] and of the ‘independent question’[45] for the purposes of assigning cases to the General Court. For a better understanding of these questions, according to Article 3(1) of Regulation 2024/2019, the Court is invited to publish by September 2025 a list of examples where these categories were applied. This arrangement aims to clarify the mechanism under analysis, as it is quite sophisticated and it is difficult to predict all possible outcomes.
For the sake of illustration, some complexities could be foreseen in the field of VAT proceedings, which may give rise to questions of horizontal nature or other independent questions[46]. In this regard, European judges could find themselves in the position to determine whether the preliminary question involves questions regarding general principles (such as proportionality principle) and other treaty provisions immediately linked to this subject matter. This situation may somehow put into question the independent nature of the issue in light of Article 50b.[47] If this element arises during the procedure before the General Court, it is up to the latter to refer the case back to the Court as soon as possible.
The success of this reform relies not only on the ability of the Court to apply the ‘guichet unique’ system and the review procedure, but also on the General Court’s ability to exercise this new prerogative.[48]
In sum, the results of the first implementation, the strong engagement from the General Court, and the first reactions from national judges allow us to predict positive results. If this is the case, and the ‘mechanism’ works properly, we can expect a further development of the system towards a devolution of other subject matters to the General Court in line with Article 3(2) of the Regulation.
Finally, from the perspective of the EU judicial architecture, from one side, the reform could have the (unexpected) result of creating two “courts” within the General Court, one dealing with the preliminary rulings and the other with direct actions as first judge of legality. If that were the case, such a scenario would give rise to unforeseen hurdles. On the other side, the reinforcement of the role of the Court of Justice’s role in matters of a constitutional nature in preliminary rulings procedures has been perfectly combined with its role as the judge of last resort for direct actions.[49]
-------------------
European Papers, Vol. 10, 2025, No 2, pp. 391-403
ISSN 2499-8249 - doi: 10.15166/2499-8249/837
[1] Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2019 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, recital (2).
[2] E Coulon, ‘Summer 2024 reforms: A radical Overhaul of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU and the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice and the General Court’ (2024) 4 Concurrences 258.
[3] Regulation 2024/2019 (n 1) recital (5).
[4] As for now, the average length of time of dealing with preliminary rulings was about 17 months, and showed an upward trend. It has been estimated that the reform will reduce the workload of the Court of Justice of about 13–14 per cent, thus reducing the time of treatment of the cases as well. See in this regard: PJ Wattel, ‘The Transfer of Preliminary Ruling Jurisdiction to the General Court of the EU’, in G Kofler, M Lang, P Pistone, A Rust, J Schuch, K Spies, C Staringer, R Szudoczky and I Kuniga (eds), CJEU – Recent Developments in Value Added Tax 2023 (Linde Verlag 2024) 1.
[5] M Condinanzi and C Amalfitano, ‘Il Tribunale oltre il pregiudizio: le pregiudiziali al Tribunale’ (2024) Rivista del contenzioso europeo 1. See also 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), at eulawlive.com 5.
[6] Regulation 2024/2019 (n 1) recitals (2) and (3).
[7] Condinanzi and Amalfitano (n 5).
[8] Wattel (n 4). The author refers to this as a dormant competence, because it only exists in certain areas that have to be identified by the legislator.
[9] Ibid. For a critical discussion on this point, see 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.
[10] For a different reading of these parameters, see M Bobek, ‘Preliminary Rulings Before the General Court: What Judicial Architecture for the European Union?’ (2023) 60 Common Market Law Review 1515. The Author emphasises the ambiguity of the message sent to national courts of last instance about their obligations to make a reference, under the third subparagraph 267 TFEU, when dealing with a case in this area, ‘if the Court itself is stating there is nothing unclear or new to be discovered with that area of law and no potential threat to the unity of the EU law…?’.
[11] Case 282/81 CILFIT and Others, EU:C:1982:335; Case C-561/19 Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi (CILFIT II), EU:C:2021:799. See M Broberg and N Fenger, Preliminary References to the European Court of Justice (3rd edn, OUP 2021) 210–211. The Authors underline that, for the acte éclairé exception to apply, the question answered in a prior preliminary ruling must be materially identical in light of the circumstances of the case, in such a way as not to potentially prejudice the uniform application of EU law.
[12] Regulation 2024/2019 (n 1) recitals (5) to (7).
[13] Ibid. Art 1.
[14] Ibid. recital (13) and Art 50b(2).
[15] Ibid. recitals (12) and (13).
[16] Bobek (n 10). Inter alia, Case T-534/24 Gotek EU:T:2025:682 (the very first case transferred to the General Court).
[17] Inter alia, A Police, ‘La (giurisdizione della) Corte è mobile, qual piuma al vento’ (2024) 4 Eurojus 11. According to this Author, such a practice would allow national judges to ‘pick’ their judge, thus breaching the principle of the rule of law and the right to a fair trial, closely connected to the principle of the ‘natural judge pre-established by law’.
[18] On 14 March 2025, the Court retained only four cases, one because it refers to one of these other provisions, and the other three because they refer to fields other than those included in specific areas transferred.
[19] One month is the delay internally fixed and generally respected by the Court as of today.
[20] It shall however be observed that at this stage the case does not yet have a specific number.
[21] Regulation 2024/2019 (n 1) recital (14); Statute of the Court, Art 50b. In principle, it shall not take longer than one month.
[22] Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, as amended by the Amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice (2024/L/2094), Art 93a.
[23] Ibid, Arts 25(1) and 26(1).
[24] The chamber sits, as a rule, in five judges, appointed in accordance with a rotation system among the 10 designated, under the leading of the Vice-president.
[25] Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Art 50(2). See, Rules of Procedure of the General Court Art 28 (1). According to this article, the referral to the grand chamber and to the intermediate chamber is based on the same conditions (legal difficulty, importance the case or specific circumstances). As far as it concerns the intermediate chamber, Art 28 (8) states that the latter ‘shall rule when a Member State or an institution, that is a party of the proceedings requests so’.
[26] See, MF Orzan, ‘Un’ulteriore applicazione della ‘legge di Hooke’? Riflessioni a margine dell’entrata in vigore della recente riforma dello Statuto della Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea’ (2024) Rivista del contenzioso europeo 30. No referral to the intermediate chamber has yet been proposed so far as regards preliminary rulings. Indeed, as of today, only direct actions have been referred to the intermediate chamber (see the pending joined cases T-435/23 and T-224/24; T-132 and 133/23; T-139 and 140/23, case T-138/23, joined cases T-262 and 265/24, case T-15/24).
[27] Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art 28(6).
[28] Statute of the Court of Justice, Art 49a.
[29] On 9 October 2024, the General Court elected two judges called upon to perform the duties of Advocate General for the purpose of dealing with requests for a preliminary ruling for the transition period, as well as one Judge called upon to replace those Advocates General in the event of their being prevented from acting.
[30] These judges are elected for a term of three years, and can be re-elected once. In this transitional phase, the judges, taking on the role of Advocate General, are elected only for one year (renewable for a further three years).
[31] Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Art 49a. Rules of Procedure of the General Court, as amended by the Amendments to the Rules of Procedure of The General Court (2024/L/2095), Arts 31a and 31b.
[32] Condinanzi and Amalfitano (n 5).
[33] D Sarmiento, ‘Gasps and “Know Unknowns” in the Transfer of Preliminary references to the General Court’ (2024) 3 Rivista del contenzioso europeo11.
[34] Rules of Procedure of the General Court (n 31) Art 207(2). Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice (n 22), Art 114a.
[35] Through the reform, ‘Title VI – References for a preliminary ruling’ was added to the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. This Title reproduces for the most part the respective provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, with only certain amendments required by the structure of the General Court.
[36] Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice (n 22) Arts 193a and 194.
[37] Throughout the period of activities of the Civil Service Tribunal, out of more than 400 judgments issued by the General Court as the appeal judge, only six cases were reviewed by the Court, essentially when horizontal issues were in question. See Case C-197/09 RX-II M v EMEA, EU:C:2009:804; Case C-334/12 RX-II Arango Jaramillo v BEI, EU:C:2012:468; Case C-579/12 RX-II Commission v Strack, EU:C:2013:570; Case C-417/14 RX-II Misir Mamachi di Lusignano v Commission, EU:C:2015:588; Joined Cases C-542/18 and C-543/18 RX-II Simpson v Council, EU:C:2020:232. On the limits of review power exercised by the Court, see C-17/11 RX Commission v Petrilli, EU:C:2011:55. On this aspect, in literature, see S Iglesias, ‘Return of the Réexamen’ in The 2024 Reform of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU (EU Law Live 2024) 35.
[38] In case of preliminary ruling review, the Court does not refer the case to the General Court but it has to adopt a new judgement replacing the reviewed decision.
[39] Sarmiento (n 33).
[40] See in this respect, R Mastroianni, ‘Il trasferimento delle questioni pregiudiziali al Tribunale: una riforma epocale o un salto nel buio?’ (2024) 3 Rivista Quaderni AISDUE 41. For further analysis on this topic, 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.
[41] The European Parliament has already enjoyed this prerogative even if not expressly provided by the rules of procedure (eg Case C-62/14 Gauweiler v Deutscher Bundestag, EU:C:2015:400).
[42] For the concerns as to the possibility of national courts reducing the number of preliminary questions referred to the EU jurisdictions see: Condinanzi and Amalfitano (n 5); R Conti, ‘C’era una volta il rinvio pregiudiziale. Alla ricerca della fiducia – un po’ perduta – fra giudici nazionali ed europei’ in B Nascimbene and G Greco (eds), La riforma dello Statuto della Corte di giustizia (2024) Eurojus 118.
[43] On the possible interpretations of these criteria D Petrić, ‘The Preliminary Ruling Procedure 2.0’ (2023) 8 European Papers 25, 33.
[44] Looking at the first applications of the reform, one case of no ‘exclusivity’ of a question on customs has emerged, as the questions referred also involved other provisions such as rules of dumping (Case C-827/24 Direct Line Inox Impex).
[45] Among those pending cases which entail the interpretation of general principles – such as equal treatment – and of provisions of the Charter for fundamental rights, see Case C-119/25 Marabu Airlines, Case C-910/24 Calmit Hungária Mészművek, and Case C-844/24 Labroix. In particular, the latter case features an interesting situation in the field of custom duties, concerning the possibility to employ a statistic database to determine the custom value. In this framework, the referring judge asks whether the use of a European statistical database, which gathers data collected within the European Union, to assess the customs value of goods in accordance with the method of ‘last resort’ or ‘reasonable means’ provided for in Art 74(3) of the Union Customs Code complies with the guarantees afforded to individuals under Art 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In this respect, the national judge mentions the situation where, on the one hand, in criminal proceedings, those individuals are obliged to defend themselves in the light of statistical data and, on the other hand, the applicable national criminal law provides for a penalty consisting of a fine of between five and ten times the duties evaded, which are themselves determined on the basis of statistical data.
[46] For instance, in the field of the taxation of sharing economy platforms the previous determination of some horizontal elements could be necessary with a view to identify the tax status of the entities concerned. Inter alia, see, Cases C-434/15, Taxi v Uber, EU:C:2017:981; C-390/18 Airbnb Ireland, EU:C:2019:1112, related to the question whether a digital platform shall be regarded as a service provider. This issue could affect other questions such as those related to the rules on imposition of a VAT obligation on the platform. Other issues, concerning the rules on the sharing platform economy, could be foreseen in relation to the ‘VAT in the Digital Age’ package, which was recently adopted.
[47] For example, in the field of VAT carousels, the extent of the right to deduct, according to Art 168 of the VAT Directive, implies the previous definition of the extent of the assessment required for the trader. In other words, the interpretation appears strongly intertwined with the notion of participation in a fraud. These questions have to involve the good comprehension of principles such as effectiveness and proportionality (see the Joined Cases C-354/03, C-355/03 and C-484/03 Optigen, EU:C:2006:16).
[48] MF Orzan, ‘Le conseguenze per le giurisdizioni nazionali della recente riforma dello Statuto della Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea’ (Giustizia Insieme, 21 November 2024), at giustiziainsieme.it.
[49] Notwithstanding some changes in favour of an appeal filter mechanism. See Regulation 2024/2019 (n 1) recitals (23) and (24); Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice, Art 58a.