Pub Date : 2018-08-24DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198826255.003.0010
Caroline Naômé
Cross-appeals were not defined by the rules relating to appeals. They flourished with the development of the case-law and the needs of the parties. This chapter offers a classification of cross-appeals and tries to identify the difficulties faced by the parties which gave rise to cross-appeals. Among those difficulties, the chapter refers to the fact that a case in which the ECJ has quashed a judgment of the General Court may be referred back to the judges who had adopted that judgment and problems linked to the notion of res judicata, the authority of judgments of the Court, to the influence of rules of national law, or to the form and content of the judgments of the General Court. The chapter ends with a description of the attempts to improve the situation by adopting a recast of the Rules of Procedure and proposing advice to parties pleading before the Court.
{"title":"Cross-appeals","authors":"Caroline Naômé","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198826255.003.0010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198826255.003.0010","url":null,"abstract":"Cross-appeals were not defined by the rules relating to appeals. They flourished with the development of the case-law and the needs of the parties. This chapter offers a classification of cross-appeals and tries to identify the difficulties faced by the parties which gave rise to cross-appeals. Among those difficulties, the chapter refers to the fact that a case in which the ECJ has quashed a judgment of the General Court may be referred back to the judges who had adopted that judgment and problems linked to the notion of res judicata, the authority of judgments of the Court, to the influence of rules of national law, or to the form and content of the judgments of the General Court. The chapter ends with a description of the attempts to improve the situation by adopting a recast of the Rules of Procedure and proposing advice to parties pleading before the Court.","PeriodicalId":433818,"journal":{"name":"Appeals Before the Court of Justice of the European Union","volume":"65 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124524495","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-08-24DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198826255.003.0002
Caroline Naômé
The appeal is a form of action by which a party claims that the Court of Justice should set aside a decision of the General Court for infringement of a rule of law. It must be directed against a decision of the GCEU. In the context of the ECJ and its case-law, it is difficult to identify what constitutes a ‘decision’ of the General Court. The object of the appeal must be the setting aside of that decision and not a re-assessment of the substantive issue, a decision on a new claim or an amendment of the grounds of the decision. The appellant must submit a criticism of the decision under appeal. Accordingly, a new plea relating to the substance of the dispute is inadmissible, unless it concerns a matter of public policy. The Court of Justice does not review assessments of fact made by the General Court.
{"title":"The Concept of an ‘Appeal’","authors":"Caroline Naômé","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198826255.003.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198826255.003.0002","url":null,"abstract":"The appeal is a form of action by which a party claims that the Court of Justice should set aside a decision of the General Court for infringement of a rule of law. It must be directed against a decision of the GCEU. In the context of the ECJ and its case-law, it is difficult to identify what constitutes a ‘decision’ of the General Court. The object of the appeal must be the setting aside of that decision and not a re-assessment of the substantive issue, a decision on a new claim or an amendment of the grounds of the decision. The appellant must submit a criticism of the decision under appeal. Accordingly, a new plea relating to the substance of the dispute is inadmissible, unless it concerns a matter of public policy. The Court of Justice does not review assessments of fact made by the General Court.","PeriodicalId":433818,"journal":{"name":"Appeals Before the Court of Justice of the European Union","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129084478","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-08-24DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198826255.003.0001
Caroline Naômé
Chapter 1 describes the ECJ’s situation in the 1980s and the negotiations which led to the creation of the Court of First Instance and the transfer of certain areas of jurisdiction from the Court of Justice to that court. Those changes in the EU Court structure created the need for an additional legal remedy: the ‘appeal’. The appeals system was then adjusted to accommodate later developments, such as the creation of the Civil Service Tribunal and the recast of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice. Nowadays, it is the reform of the General Court which has the greatest impact on appeals before the Court of Justice.
{"title":"The Creation of the Court of First Instance and of the Appeal","authors":"Caroline Naômé","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198826255.003.0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198826255.003.0001","url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 1 describes the ECJ’s situation in the 1980s and the negotiations which led to the creation of the Court of First Instance and the transfer of certain areas of jurisdiction from the Court of Justice to that court. Those changes in the EU Court structure created the need for an additional legal remedy: the ‘appeal’. The appeals system was then adjusted to accommodate later developments, such as the creation of the Civil Service Tribunal and the recast of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice. Nowadays, it is the reform of the General Court which has the greatest impact on appeals before the Court of Justice.","PeriodicalId":433818,"journal":{"name":"Appeals Before the Court of Justice of the European Union","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125569348","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-08-24DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198826255.003.0012
Caroline Naômé
This chapter describes the characteristics of the ECJ appeal system, distinguishing it from comparable judicial remedies in national legal systems. One distinguishing feature is that it is a new remedy, created with a few rules that were not always clear. Lawyers working for the Court or pleading before it are not specialised in appeals and are influenced by national laws. Referral of a case back to the same judges as those who decided the quashed judgment is a possibility absent in many national systems. Judgments of the EU Courts have a specific style and content. The interpretation of EU law seems sometimes more important than a limited resolution of a dispute. The second section recalls the objectives underlying the creation of the Court of First Instance (General Court/GCEU) and assesses whether those objectives have been met as regards the ECJ’s caseload and the judicial protection of individuals.
{"title":"Appraisal of the Current Situation and Future Prospects","authors":"Caroline Naômé","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198826255.003.0012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198826255.003.0012","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter describes the characteristics of the ECJ appeal system, distinguishing it from comparable judicial remedies in national legal systems. One distinguishing feature is that it is a new remedy, created with a few rules that were not always clear. Lawyers working for the Court or pleading before it are not specialised in appeals and are influenced by national laws. Referral of a case back to the same judges as those who decided the quashed judgment is a possibility absent in many national systems. Judgments of the EU Courts have a specific style and content. The interpretation of EU law seems sometimes more important than a limited resolution of a dispute. The second section recalls the objectives underlying the creation of the Court of First Instance (General Court/GCEU) and assesses whether those objectives have been met as regards the ECJ’s caseload and the judicial protection of individuals.","PeriodicalId":433818,"journal":{"name":"Appeals Before the Court of Justice of the European Union","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116009357","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-08-24DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198826255.003.0011
Caroline Naômé
This chapter describes the procedure before the Court of Justice in appeals, i.e. the written part (appeal application, time-limits, representation, forms of order sought, response, reply, rejoinder, cross-appeal, interventions); the oral part (hearing, Opinion of the Advocate General); the deliberation and the judgment, the disposal of the case by reasoned order; legal aid, costs and other provisions relating to the procedure. The chapter also explains the handling of the case by the departments of the Court. The last section of the chapter deals with the workload of the ECJ and the discussions about introducing a filtering system for appeals, such as a ‘leave to appeal’ mechanism.
{"title":"The Procedure before the Court of Justice","authors":"Caroline Naômé","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198826255.003.0011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198826255.003.0011","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter describes the procedure before the Court of Justice in appeals, i.e. the written part (appeal application, time-limits, representation, forms of order sought, response, reply, rejoinder, cross-appeal, interventions); the oral part (hearing, Opinion of the Advocate General); the deliberation and the judgment, the disposal of the case by reasoned order; legal aid, costs and other provisions relating to the procedure. The chapter also explains the handling of the case by the departments of the Court. The last section of the chapter deals with the workload of the ECJ and the discussions about introducing a filtering system for appeals, such as a ‘leave to appeal’ mechanism.","PeriodicalId":433818,"journal":{"name":"Appeals Before the Court of Justice of the European Union","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122351030","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-08-24DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198826255.003.0006
Caroline Naômé
This chapter analyses the position of those participating in appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice (ECJ). It describes the parties entitled to bring an ordinary appeal, or an appeal against a refusal of leave to intervene or against an interlocutory decision. The possibility, for interveners at first instance, to bring an appeal is limited, because they must show that the decision of the General Court (GCEU) directly affects them. An exception to the general rules is allowed in the case of Member States and Union institutions, which, except in staff cases, may bring an appeal even if they were not parties to the proceedings at first instance. The chapter also describes the position of ‘other parties to the relevant case’ and of those who wish to intervene for the first time when the case is at the appeal stage.
{"title":"The Parties to Appeal Proceedings","authors":"Caroline Naômé","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198826255.003.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198826255.003.0006","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter analyses the position of those participating in appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice (ECJ). It describes the parties entitled to bring an ordinary appeal, or an appeal against a refusal of leave to intervene or against an interlocutory decision. The possibility, for interveners at first instance, to bring an appeal is limited, because they must show that the decision of the General Court (GCEU) directly affects them. An exception to the general rules is allowed in the case of Member States and Union institutions, which, except in staff cases, may bring an appeal even if they were not parties to the proceedings at first instance. The chapter also describes the position of ‘other parties to the relevant case’ and of those who wish to intervene for the first time when the case is at the appeal stage.","PeriodicalId":433818,"journal":{"name":"Appeals Before the Court of Justice of the European Union","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122527188","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-08-24DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198826255.003.0007
Caroline Naômé
The key characteristic specific to appeals before the Court of Justice (ECJ) is that review is confined to points of law. The Court has no jurisdiction to review the findings of fact or the assessment of the facts. This chapter describes how such a rule was adopted and how it is applied. Since its earliest days as an appellate court, the Court has reviewed the legal characterisation of facts and checked for distortion. It also reviews certain rules relating to evidence, the reasons stated for decisions and the grounds of judgments under appeal. Additionally, this chapter analyses the Court’s review in relation to fines in competition cases, to national law and to contracts. The conclusion reached is that the review confined to points of law limits the jurisdiction of the Court but that it can still review important parts of the General Court’s decision.
{"title":"Review Confined to Points of Law","authors":"Caroline Naômé","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198826255.003.0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198826255.003.0007","url":null,"abstract":"The key characteristic specific to appeals before the Court of Justice (ECJ) is that review is confined to points of law. The Court has no jurisdiction to review the findings of fact or the assessment of the facts. This chapter describes how such a rule was adopted and how it is applied. Since its earliest days as an appellate court, the Court has reviewed the legal characterisation of facts and checked for distortion. It also reviews certain rules relating to evidence, the reasons stated for decisions and the grounds of judgments under appeal. Additionally, this chapter analyses the Court’s review in relation to fines in competition cases, to national law and to contracts. The conclusion reached is that the review confined to points of law limits the jurisdiction of the Court but that it can still review important parts of the General Court’s decision.","PeriodicalId":433818,"journal":{"name":"Appeals Before the Court of Justice of the European Union","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116258237","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-08-24DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198826255.003.0004
Caroline Naômé
This chapter describes how the Court of Justice (ECJ) has dealt with appeals in which the appellants contested the admissibility of the action at first instance. The difficulty was that the appellants did not always have a legal interest in bringing proceedings. The summary of the case-law differentiates between particular situations: where the General Court had rejected the preliminary plea of inadmissibility, where it had joined that plea to the substance and where the inadmissibility had not been challenged before the General Court. A number of rules specific to that question were added in the 2012 recast of the Rules of Procedure.
{"title":"Contesting the Admissibility of the Action at First Instance","authors":"Caroline Naômé","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198826255.003.0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198826255.003.0004","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter describes how the Court of Justice (ECJ) has dealt with appeals in which the appellants contested the admissibility of the action at first instance. The difficulty was that the appellants did not always have a legal interest in bringing proceedings. The summary of the case-law differentiates between particular situations: where the General Court had rejected the preliminary plea of inadmissibility, where it had joined that plea to the substance and where the inadmissibility had not been challenged before the General Court. A number of rules specific to that question were added in the 2012 recast of the Rules of Procedure.","PeriodicalId":433818,"journal":{"name":"Appeals Before the Court of Justice of the European Union","volume":"112 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132852822","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-08-24DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198826255.003.0009
Caroline Naômé
The fact that a plea is well founded does not mean that the appeal is well founded. The ECJ may reject the plea as an ineffective plea or proceed with a substitution of grounds. If an appeal is well founded, the Court may give final judgment itself, where ‘the state of the proceedings so permits’, or refer the case back to the General Court. It is quite difficult to determine the scope and implications of the quashing of a judgment. The General Court is bound by the decision of the Court of Justice on points of law. However, parts of the first judgment of the General Court may remain valid and wield the authority of res judicata.
{"title":"Consequences of a Finding that the Plea/Appeal is Well Founded","authors":"Caroline Naômé","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198826255.003.0009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198826255.003.0009","url":null,"abstract":"The fact that a plea is well founded does not mean that the appeal is well founded. The ECJ may reject the plea as an ineffective plea or proceed with a substitution of grounds. If an appeal is well founded, the Court may give final judgment itself, where ‘the state of the proceedings so permits’, or refer the case back to the General Court. It is quite difficult to determine the scope and implications of the quashing of a judgment. The General Court is bound by the decision of the Court of Justice on points of law. However, parts of the first judgment of the General Court may remain valid and wield the authority of res judicata.","PeriodicalId":433818,"journal":{"name":"Appeals Before the Court of Justice of the European Union","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128218079","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：