One proposition for reform is to transfer preliminary cases to the General Court, which may reduce the CJEU’s workload and thus reduce the delays in the procedure as a whole. This proposition is upheld by commentators Broberg and Fenger, who suggest that the transferring of preliminary cases to the General Court is already contained in the provision Article 256(3) TFEU, which states that the General Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine questions referred for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 in specific areas laid down by the statute. These “specific areas” would be laid down by the Courts’ Statute. Broberg and Fenger mention that to date the General Court has not actually been attributed any such preliminary cases and
…show more content…
It is contained in 194-5 Rules of Procedure. The provisions to cater for this transfer are already contained in the TFEU and Broberg and Fenger suggest that this is the possible solution to decrease the CJ’s …show more content…
In this system, a preliminary examination is carried out in order to decide whether to hear a case or simply let the lower courts’ decision stand without having been tried by the Supreme Court. This is suggested by Broberg and Fenger, and it is questioned whether the CJEU should apply a similar system. This would be in response to the expected growth in the number of preliminary references, and would be done with a view to reducing the number of cases of lesser importance. By allowing the CJEU to weed out, at a preliminary stage, the cases of lesser importance from the point of view of the uniformity and development of EU law, such a system would enable the Court to concentrate on the most notable issues of EU law. Turner and Storey assert that such a filtering of cases may undermine the co-operation between the ECJ and Member States’ courts and tribunals. This may deter national courts from seeking rulings in cases and may lead to inconsistency of interpretation in different Member States. However, this may be a small price to pay for the benefits that a docket control system would confer on the CJEU. Arguably, such a system would mean that the CJEU could weed out cases such as Foglia, wherein national courts abuse the preliminary reference procedure. A certiorari system would arguably be a means of filtration for the CJEU to concentrate on answering questions
It is contained in 194-5 Rules of Procedure. The provisions to cater for this transfer are already contained in the TFEU and Broberg and Fenger suggest that this is the possible solution to decrease the CJ’s …show more content…
In this system, a preliminary examination is carried out in order to decide whether to hear a case or simply let the lower courts’ decision stand without having been tried by the Supreme Court. This is suggested by Broberg and Fenger, and it is questioned whether the CJEU should apply a similar system. This would be in response to the expected growth in the number of preliminary references, and would be done with a view to reducing the number of cases of lesser importance. By allowing the CJEU to weed out, at a preliminary stage, the cases of lesser importance from the point of view of the uniformity and development of EU law, such a system would enable the Court to concentrate on the most notable issues of EU law. Turner and Storey assert that such a filtering of cases may undermine the co-operation between the ECJ and Member States’ courts and tribunals. This may deter national courts from seeking rulings in cases and may lead to inconsistency of interpretation in different Member States. However, this may be a small price to pay for the benefits that a docket control system would confer on the CJEU. Arguably, such a system would mean that the CJEU could weed out cases such as Foglia, wherein national courts abuse the preliminary reference procedure. A certiorari system would arguably be a means of filtration for the CJEU to concentrate on answering questions