我要吃瓜

Citation

Beaumont P (1995) II. European Court of Justice and Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 44 (1), pp. 218-221. https://doi.org/10.1093/iclqaj/44.1.218

Abstract
Council Decision 93/350 of 8 June 1993' provided for a further extension to the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance by amending Council Decision 88/591 of 24 October 1988. All actions brought by natural or legal persons, other than the member States, the Commission, Council and European Parliament, under Articles 178 and 181 of the EC Treaty arc to be brought before the Court of First Instance rather than the European Court of Justice. Previously, actions for the non-contractual liability of the Community under Article 178 came before the Court of First Instance only if linked to an Article 173 or 175 action. The natural or legal person bringing the Article 178 action had to bring concurrently an action before the Court of First Instance for annulment of a measure under Article 173 or for failure to act under Article 175 and the compensation for damage sought in the Article 178 action had to be for damage caused by a Community institution as a consequence of that measure or the failure to enact that measure. Article 181 of the Treaty gives jurisdiction to the Court pursuant to any arbitration clause in a contract concluded by or on behalf of the Community. By order of 27 September 1993 the Court of Justice was able to transfer 451 cases to the Court of First Instance, of which 380 concerned the non-contractual liability of the Community with regard to milk quotas. This had a dramatic effect on the backlog of cases pending in both Courts. At the end of 1992, 736 cases were pending before the Court of Justice and only 168 before the Court of First Instance. The situation had almost been reversed by the end of 1993:433 cases were pending before the Court of Justice and 657 cases before the Court of First Instance. The extension of the Court of First Instance's jurisdiction is a little worrying given its present productivity in dealing with cases. In 1993 it gave only 47 judgments, 13 fewer than in 1992, and disposed of 106 cases. Apart from the 451 cases the Court of First Instance received from the Court of Justice, 145 new cases were brought before it in 1993. The Court of First Instance is now developing a backlog of cases and takes on average 23.3 months to dispose of direct actions—longer than the Court of Justice, which takes 22.9 months.

Keywords
EU Law; Brussels and Lugano Conventions

Journal
International and Comparative Law Quarterly: Volume 44, Issue 1