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
The General Court also dismisses OpenAI’s action: No EU trademark protection for the word mark “OPENAI”—at least for now.
LG München I, judgment of 31.07.2026 – 42 O 763/25. In its second landmark judgment on the relationship between copyright and AI training, the Munich Regional Court (LG München I) has found the operator of the AI music generator Suno liable for infringement of copyright in six popular musical works. Notably, the 42nd Civil Chamber has, for the first time in a German judgment, applied the US fair use doctrine to AI training – and rejected it. We summarise the decision and set it in context.
In its judgment of 9 July 2026 (C-788/24), the ECJ followed the Opinion of Advocate General Rantos in the legal dispute concerning the online publication of “The Diary of Anne Frank”. At its core, the case centred on the question of whether geoblocking measures constitute effective technological protection measures against copyright infringements, even if they can be circumvented by VPN services. The Court has now answered this question with a clear ‘yes’.
The judgment ‘Obligation to Return VI’ (I ZR 123/25) of 3 June 2026 is – as the name suggests – the sixth judgment by the First Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) on the so-called obligation to return applicable to hire cars. Following the pronouncement of the judgement, it was widely reported that the BGH had confirmed the continued validity of one of the most controversial provisions of passenger transport law. In the meantime, the dust has settled somewhat and it is becoming clear that this interpretation falls far short of the mark. Indeed, it follows from the grounds of the judgement that maintaining the obligation to return contravenes EU law if one takes its traditional objective and justification as a basis.
