Change of jurisdiction: The General Court will henceforth decide on excise duty and customs matters.

Since October 1, 2024, preliminary rulings in matters including the Customs Code, the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature, and excise duties are no longer the responsibility of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), but rather of the General Court of the European Union (GC). This change will have practical implications, not least for the length of proceedings.

Context

The Court of Justice of the European Union, as one of the seven EU institutions, is divided into the Court of Justice and the General Court, whose jurisdiction is governed, inter alia, by Article 256 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

One of the most important procedures for ensuring legal uniformity within the Union is the preliminary ruling procedure under Article 267 TFEU: National courts of the Member States refer questions concerning the interpretation of EU law to the Court of Justice of the European Union, questions that are relevant to the legal dispute pending before the referring court. Until now, the Court of Justice had exclusive jurisdiction over these preliminary ruling procedures. Due to the increasing workload of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2019 of 11 April 2024 transferred preliminary ruling procedures in certain areas to the General Court. This possibility has existed since the Treaty of Nice in 2003, but was only recently exercised. The new legal situation: Pursuant to the new Article 50b of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the General Court is now responsible, inter alia, for preliminary ruling procedures in the specific areas of the common system of value added tax, excise duties, the Customs Code, and the tariff classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature. This applies, however, only under two conditions: First, the questions referred by the national court must relate exclusively to one or more of these areas. Second, the questions referred must not concern independent questions of interpretation of the EU Treaties, international law, the general principles of EU law, or the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. If one or both conditions are not met, the Court of Justice has direct jurisdiction, as before. The second condition, in particular, is intended to ensure that fundamental questions of EU law continue to be decided by the Court of Justice. Despite this change, all requests for preliminary rulings will continue to be referred to the Court of Justice. The Court of Justice (or, according to its Rules of Procedure, its President) will then decide "as quickly as possible" whether the General Court or the Court of Justice has jurisdiction. If the Court of Justice has referred a case to the General Court and the General Court, upon closer examination, considers the Court of Justice to have jurisdiction, it must refer the case back. This new rule applies to all requests for preliminary rulings submitted since 1 October 2024. As part of this reform, further changes were made: For example, pleadings in preliminary ruling proceedings will henceforth be published after the conclusion of the proceedings unless the parties have previously objected. In addition, a middle chamber will be established at the General Court, alongside the small and large chambers, which will decide on preliminary ruling proceedings upon application by the parties.

Practical significance: Length of proceedings and appeals against decisions of the General Court

At first glance, the reform could indeed lead to a reduction in the length of proceedings for preliminary rulings: Previously, due to the Court's heavy workload, it took almost 1.5 years (an average of 16.8 months in 2023, cf. Court of Justice case law statistics) until the Court of Justice issued a ruling on the question referred. The court could now decide more quickly, particularly because there is already extensive case law from the Court of Justice on the transferred subject areas, which the court can use as a guide. On the other hand, the preliminary process of decision on the jurisdiction of the General Court and the Court of Justice is likely to significantly lengthen proceedings, at least in individual cases. It is unclear, in any event, how long the Court of Justice should need to decide on jurisdiction if this decision must be made "as soon as possible." The recitals of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2019 provide little clarity when they refer to a timeframe "which shall not exceed what is strictly necessary, taking into account the nature, duration and complexity of the case" (Recital 14). Furthermore, it is questionable whether and under what conditions the General Court's decision on the preliminary question will be reviewed by the Court of Justice. For the specific situation of preliminary ruling procedures delegated to the General Court, Article 256(3), third subparagraph, TFEU is applicable. According to this provision, a review of a General Court's decision by the Court of Justice is only provided for in exceptional cases where the decision affects "the unity or consistency of EU law." Pursuant to Article 62 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, only the First Advocate General at the Court of Justice is expressly authorized to initiate such a review of a General Court judgment by the Court of Justice. It remains to be seen whether the objectives pursued by the reform, in particular the reduction of proceedings, will be achieved. In any case, this represents a significant, yet largely unnoticed, change to the judicial framework of the Union in the areas of customs and excise law.