Reform of the EU’s Court System
Legal Background
The reforms were implemented through Regulation (EU, EURATOM) 2024/2019 (‘Regulation’), Amendments to the Rules of Procedure of The General Court [2024/2095] and Amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice [2024/2094], which introduced changes to the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU, the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the EU and the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. The primary objectives of these reforms are to alleviate the workload of the CJEU and enhance the transparency of its judicial processes.
Key Changes
The reforms introduce several key changes, including:
- Transfer of Competencies: The General Court now has jurisdiction over preliminary rulings in six specific areas, including VAT, excise duties, and customs. The CJEU retains jurisdiction over cases involving the interpretation of primary law or fundamental EU rights. IP and IP-related subject matter is not among the competencies transferred to the General Court.
- Publication of Submissions: Submissions made in preliminary ruling proceedings will be published on the CJEU's website, increasing transparency. Parties involved have the right to object to the publication of their submissions. An objection to the publication does not need to contain reasons and cannot be challenged by another party.
- 'Pre-Approval' Mechanism Expansion: The mechanism for determining the admissibility of appeals to the CJEU has been broadened to encompass decisions from a wider range of EU bodies and agencies. However, for IP and IP-related subject matters this rule is not new but has already been introduced in May 2019.
- Statements from EU Bodies: The European Parliament, the Council, and the European Central Bank now have expanded rights to submit statements in preliminary ruling proceedings.
- Broadcasting of Hearings: The CJEU may now broadcast hearings, enhancing public access to its proceedings. But again, the parties may object to the broadcast but the Courts will ultimately decide on whether to broadcast or not.
Implications for Businesses
These reforms may have several implications for businesses dealing within the EU with IP and IP-related matters:
- Potential for Delays: The transfer of certain competencies to the General Court could lead to increased processing times for cases falling under its jurisdiction due to the additional workload.
- Transparency and Strategy: The publication of submissions and potential broadcasting of hearings increase transparency but may necessitate adjustments to litigation strategies.
- Strategic Considerations in Appeals: The expanded 'pre-approval' mechanism and broader rights for EU bodies to submit statements could influence strategic decision-making in appeal proceedings.
Conclusion
These reforms represent a significant shift in the functioning of the CJEU. While they aim to enhance efficiency and transparency, they may also lead to procedural adjustments and strategic considerations for businesses engaged in legal proceedings within the EU. It is crucial to stay informed about these changes and their potential impact on your business operations.
We are available to provide further advice and guidance on how these reforms may affect your specific circumstances. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns.
You might also be interested in this
Not only words, figurative elements and their combinations constitute signs that can potentially be registered as trademarks. Section 3 (1) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG) also refers to a variety of other signs that can potentially serve as an indication of origin and for which registration as a trademark is possible, such as sounds, three-dimensional designs and colours. The following article is dedicated to the latter.
Artificial intelligence is rightly on everyone's lips as it promises to change our everyday lives forever. However, it also poses major challenges to the law, which has traditionally lagged behind technological developments, particularly in the areas of data protection and copyright.
The law of jurisdiction contains a number of pitfalls which are often underestimated in practice, particularly at the interface between contractual and tort claims. In this article, we discuss a recent decision of the Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe (Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court), which had to rule on a claim brought by a journalist who had unsuccessfully challenged the blocking of his account on an internet platform on the grounds of a breach of the law on unfair competition (OLG Karlsruhe, Urt. v. 8.Mai 2024,Az.6U198/23).
So-called repeat filings, often intended to circumvent the obligation to put the trademark to genuine use and thus taking advantage of further grace periods for the refiled trademarks, might seem attractive in particular to reduce costs. However, they also involve the risk of finding bad faith at least under EU law. The concept of bad faith is not legally defined but is shaped by the respective case-law. In this respect, the “Monopoly” Judgment of the General Court sets forth relevant principles and provides important strategic guidelines. Furthermore, the recent decisions of the Cancellation Division of the EUIPO regarding the trademarks of the famous artist Banksy representing one of his best known artworks, the Flower Thrower, demonstrate the importance of having a sound strategy behind any trademark filing. In the following, we will have a closer look at these cases to illustrate the possible risks of repeat filings and to provide some advice on risk-minimizing trademark filing strategies.
