Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:32:19.550Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Appeal Procedure before the European Court of Justice Under the Looking Glass: A review of Corinna Bölhoff, The Appeal Procedure before the European Court of Justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Timo Tohidipur

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

With the implementation of the Court of First Instance (CFI) on 31 October 1989, a major change occurred in the judicial system of the European Communities. Article 225 EC (ex Article 168 a EEC) became the legal foundation for the new CFI. The main reason for establishing a new Court in the Judicial System of the European Communities was the rapidly growing workload and the increasing complexity of the cases before the Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ), which led to a great backlog of cases and a general increase in the average time the ECJ was taking to complete the cases submitted to it. The CFI is not yet a separate institution. In fact, it can instead be characterized as a new judicial body, which will become independent after the ratification of the Nice-Treaty (if and when this happens). The CFI consists of fifteen Judges appointed for renewable terms of six years. There is no assistance by Advocates General on a permanent basis but each Judge could be called upon to perform the function of Advocate General cases of significant difficulty or complexity. Only limited use has been made of this possibility.

Type
Other
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 3 , Issue 7 , July 2002 , E5
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 by German Law Journal GbR

References

This was based on Decision 88/591/ECSC, EEC, EURATOM, published at OJ 1989 C 215/1.Google Scholar
For an overview of the ongoing process of transfer of jurisdiction, see, Brown, L. Neville, Kennedy, Tom, THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 78 (5th Ed. 2000).Google Scholar
Published with NOMOS Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden, 2001.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Case C-185/95 (Baustahlgewerbe v. Commission), ECR 1998, I-8417 et seqq. and Cases C-395/96 P and C-396/96 P (Compagnie maritime belge transports SA and Compagnie maritime belge SA v. Commission), ECR 2000, I-1365 et seqq.Google Scholar
As the latest example of an interlocutory judgement of the CFI, see, Case T-177/01(Jégo-Quéré and Cie SA v. Commission), published 3 May 2002, available on the official webside of the ECJ: http://curia.eu.int; see, the commentary to this case by Dominik Hanf, in this issue, at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/current_issue.php?id=166.Google Scholar
Case C-30/90 (Lestelle v. Commission), ECR 1992, I-3755 et seqq.Google Scholar
Paul Craig, The Jurisdiction of the Community Courts Reconsidered, in THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE 183 (Gráinne de Búrca, J.H.H. Weiler eds., 2001) (explaining the reasons for the unchanged workload).Google Scholar
Id. ast 182.Google Scholar