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.
Das könnte Sie ebenfalls interessieren
OLG Bamberg, Endurteil vom 18. März 2026, Az. 3 UKl 5/25 e | Erstmals hat ein Oberlandesgericht entschieden, dass die Pflichten zu Empfehlungssystemen und Meldeverfahren nach dem Digital Services Act verbraucherschützend sind und von Verbraucherverbänden per Unterlassungsklage durchgesetzt werden können. Der Senat konturiert dabei unbestimmte Rechtsbegriffe zur Ausgestaltung der De-Personalisierungsoption und des formellen Notice-and-Action-Verfahrens. Wir fassen die Entscheidung zusammen und geben Hinweise für die Praxis.
The EUIPO saw no problem with OBELIX on goods such as firearms and explosives. Les Éditions Albert René did. In its judgment of 13 May 2026 in Case T-24/25, the General Court sided with the publisher — finding EUIPO's assessment of both reputation and the required link between the marks to be fundamentally flawed.
Symbole wie „®“ oder Hinweise wie „Patentiert“ dürften allseits bekannt sein. Man begegnet ihnen nahezu täglich, etwa auf Produktverpackungen im Handel. Präziser werden sie auch als „Schutzrechtshinweise“ bezeichnet und gehören heutzutage in Deutschland zum festen Inventar des Wirtschaftsverkehrs. Gleichzeitig werden sie erstaunlich häufig missverstanden.
Nachdem im Zusammenhang mit Tafelschokoladen zuletzt die Herkunftsangabe „Dubai“ für gerichtliche Auseinandersetzungen sorgte, ist es dieser Tage ein anderes Merkmal der Tafelschokolade, das für Aufsehen sorgt: die Form.
