Legal Development
| Published date | 01 June 2015 |
| Date | 01 June 2015 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X1502200307 |
| Subject Matter | Legal Development |
22 MJ 3 (2015) 453
LEGAL DEVELOPMENT
A QUAGMIRE OF DELAYS AT THE EUROPEAN
GENERAL COURT: ANY ESCAPE?
C K*
§1. IN TRODUCTION
e European G eneral Court’s inabilit y to cope with an ever-expa nding caseload has
become an increasing ly visible dilemma, w ith no simple solutions in sight. e rising
workload stems from various s ources. Since its creation in 1989, the Genera l Court’s
jurisdiction has broadened a number of t imes. Initial ly limited only to competition
proceedings, Communit y civil service c ases, and actions for damages, t he General Court
is now also charged wit h, notably, hearing all direct act ions brought by natural and legal
persons against the EU i nstitutions’ acts. e number of case s before the General Court
has also markedly g rown due to the increase in tradema rk cases.1 e EU’s growing
legislative activit y has further contributed to the in ux of cases.
e total number of new cases issued at the Genera l Court has steadi ly increased
in the past years, f rom 474 cases in 2007, to 722 cases in 2011, to an unprecedented 912
cases in 2014.2 e General Court has been ill-equ ipped to deal with this mounting
workload, o en leading to long delays in delivering judg ments that are frustrating
to judges and parties a like. In response, a grow ing tide of complainants are pursui ng
compensation before the European Cou rts for damages result ing from prolonged
proceedings.
* Consu ltant ( Jones Day) a nd Visit ing Lec turer ( Universi té catho lique de L ouvai n). e author wishes to
thank Eric B arbier de La Serre (Part ner, Jones Day) and Bernard Amory (Par tner, Jones Day) for their
valuable comment s and review.
1 Intellectu al property ca ses represented 37% and 38% of cases before the G eneral Court i n 2013 and
2012. See Court of Ju stice of the Europea n Union, Annual Report 2013 (Synopsis o f the work of the Court
of Justice, the G eneral Court and the Civ il Service Tribunal), p.177.
2 Court of Justic e of the European Union, Annu al Report 2014 (Synopsis of the work of th e Court of Justice ,
the General Cour t and the Civil Servi ce Tribunal), Section A – General C ourt, p.1.
Cecelia Kye
454 22 MJ 3 (2015)
§2. THE STRUGGLE TO MANAGE THE GENERAL COURT’S
CASELOAD
A. INSUFFICIENT REMEDIES
Various initiatives over the past years have sought to address the issue of the General
Court’s ballooning volume of work. None of these, however, has su ced to enable the
General Court to e ectively mana ge its caseload.
In 2005, the Civi l Service Tribunal (CST) was created to a lleviate the number of
pending cases and to shor ten the duration of proceedings. While the new body i nitially
reduced the backlog at the Genera l Court, such improvement was ‘only eeting’, as no ted
by President Jaeger.1 Indeed, the number of new cases each year a gain quickly exceeded
the number of cases brought previous to t he transfer of jurisdiction to the C ST. e CST
itself has faced di cu lties in appointing its small nu mber of judges, again due to political
grappling that has delayed t he re-appointment of judges.
Other measures have been pursued to bolster the General Court’s ability to clear
cases. ese i nclude amendments to the Rules of Procedure that , for example, allowed the
General Court to proce ed to judgment in intellectual propert y cases without an oral par t
of the procedure.2 e General Court’s internal organ ization also under went changes
towards greater e ciency. i s included holding more hearings per week, assigni ng new
cases to those formations of the C ourt already responsible for case s raising the same
kind of legal quest ions, and upgrading IT resources to enable the i mmediate availability
of documents and allow for prompt exchanges bet ween the Chambers, the Regist ry, and
departments of the in stitution.3
ese various measures have contributed to the d isposal of a greater number of cases,
leading to the clear ing of a record 814 cases in 2014, which is a considerable increase
(16%) compared with the General C ourt’s average of the previous three years.4 However,
these gains have hardly su ced to enable t he General Court to keep pace with t he overall
increase in its workload . At the end of 2014, the General Court s till faced 1,423 pending
cases.
1 Court of Justic e of the European Union, Annual Report 2013, p.5.
2 Amendments to the Ru les of Procedure of the Cour t of First Instance of the Europ ean Communities,
[2008] OJ L 179/12.
3 See also Dra Rules of Procedure of the Gener al Court, COUR 12/I NST 157/JUR 164, 17March 2014,
Introductory E xplanatory Notes, p.5.
4 Court of Justic e of the European Union, Annual Report 2013, Sect ion A – General Court , p.1.
To continue reading
Request your trial