Annual Report 2014 Synopsis of the work of the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal 1 01 2015 1831-8444 2315-2311 978-92-829-1977-4 978-92-829-1954-5 http://www.curia.europa.eu Court of Justice of the European Union General Court Civil Service Tribunal 2925, Luxembourg Luxembourg +352 4303-1 2015 European Union Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. The photographs may be reproduced only in the context of this publication. For any other use, authorisation must be sought from the Publications Office of the European Union. printed in Belgium Foreword Foreword

This report is intended to provide a succinct yet accurate presentation of the institution's activity in 2014. As usual, a substantial part of the report is devoted to accounts of the main judicial activity of the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal, providing an overview of developments in the case-law.

In addition, statistics provide details, for each court, of the nature and quantity of the cases which were brought before them. A new record was achieved in 2014 with a total of 1 691 cases brought before the three courts, that is to say, the highest number since the judicial system of the European Union was created. On the other hand, as 1 685 cases were completed, the institution's productivity was likewise the highest recorded in its history. This increased productivity also had its counterpart in the duration of proceedings, which was reduced.

This good performance confers no protection, however, against the risk of the system becoming clogged up in the future. Whilst the courts' constant workload, and especially the increase in the number of the cases before the General Court, is undeniably proof of the system's success, it may also compromise its effectiveness.

Furthermore, since 1 December 2014, following the transitional period introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon as regards the judicial review of acts of the European Union in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, the Court of Justice has had full jurisdiction under Article 258 ofthe Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) to decide infringement proceedings against any Member State - with one exception - where they breach provisions of EU law in that field.

For those reasons, means of improving the effectiveness of the judicial system of the European Union, whether legislative in nature or relating to working methods, are constantly and continuously sought.

An important step in that direction was taken in 2014 with the draft of the new Rules of Procedure of the General Court, which was favourably received by the Council. These new Rules of Procedure include measures designed to improve the effectiveness of the General Court's work, and they also provide a means of ensuring that information or material pertaining to the security of the European Union or its Member States or to the conduct of their international relations is protected when it is dealt with by the General Court.

An even more important step remains to be taken in the future. After being invited to do so bythe Italian Presidency of the Council in the second half of 2014, the Court submitted to the Council a proposal to double the number of General Court judges in three successive stages extending until 2019. As this proposal was agreed to in principle by the Council, it will have to be developed in the first months of 2015.

On 20 and 21 November 2014, the institution celebrated the 25th anniversary of the establishment of the General Court. The events organised in that context enabled this enriching period for the judicial system of the European Union to be appraised, but also enabled future prospects to be considered.

The year 2014 also provided the opportunity to mark the 10th anniversary of the European Union's enlargement on 1 May 2004 through the accession of 10 new Member States, by holding a conference on 5 June 2014 entitled 'The Court of Justice from 2004 to 2014: a retrospective'.

This foreword to the annual report is the last that I will have the honour of signing as president of the institution. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues in the Court of Justice for the confidence that they have repeatedly placed in me, and the members of the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal for their contribution to the task with which our institution has been entrusted. I also thank all those who, in the background but playing a crucial role, in the chambers or the departments of the institution, ensure that the Court of Justice of the European Union can state the law.

V. Skouris President of the Court of Justice The General Court The General Court A - Proceedings of the General Court in 2014

By Mr Marc Jaeger, President of the General Court

In 2014, the Court celebrated its 25th anniversary fittingly, marking it in the company of its former members on the occasion of a day of reflection that offered both illumination and a hospitable ambience, while also appreciating the major accomplishments of the past year.

Unusually, the composition of the Court remained entirely unchanged, leading to efficiency and tranquillity and inevitably having an influence on the unprecedented results recorded in 2014. This continuity enabled the Court to derive the maximum benefit from, on the one hand, the efforts made and reforms implemented over several years and, on the other, the reinforcement represented by the recruitment of nine additional legal secretaries (one per Chamber) at the beginning of the year.

The Court was thus able to complete 814 cases, which is truly satisfying. That is not only a record, but above all a considerable increase (16%) compared with the average of the previous three years, themselves the most productive in the history of the Court. More broadly, an analysis of this three-year average from 2008 shows productivity gains of more than 50% (an increase from 479 in 2008 to 735 in 2014).

The major increase in the volume of the Court's activity is also reflected in the number of cases pleaded in 2014 (a significant proportion of which will be completed in 2015), which reached 390, a rise of more than 40% compared with 2013.

The number of new cases brought also increased significantly (owing, in particular, to large sets of related cases concerning State aid and restrictive measures), reaching an unprecedented level (912 cases). Therefore, in spite of an exceptional performance, the number of cases pending before the Court (1 423 cases) rose by nearly 100 compared with 2013. On the other hand, it is interesting that the ratio of the number of cases pending to the number of completed cases (which gives an indication of the theoretical prospective duration of proceedings) is the lowest recorded for almost 10 years.

This positive trend is reflected in the average duration of cases completed in 2014, which fell by 3.5 months (from 26.9 months in 2013 to 23.4 months in 2014), that is to say, a change of more than 10%, returning to the figures recorded a decade ago.

The Court thus succeeded in containing the impact of the constant increase in the number of cases brought before it, relying on change in its working methods and a moderate increase in its resources. In addition, it will soon be able to count on the modernisation of its procedural arrangements, as the work relating to its draft new Rules of Procedure was completed, within the Council, at the end of 2014. This instrument, which is expected to enter into force in 2015, will contain many new provisions, enabling the Court to make further improvements to the efficiency of its procedures and to respond to the problems caused by its changing case-load. Examples of these new provisions include the possibility of assigning intellectual property cases to a single judge, the power to adjudicate by judgment without a hearing, the framework for the system of intervention, and rules on the treatment of information or material pertaining to the security of the European Union or that of its Member States.

In a constant state of change, the Court thus continues along its path, wholly committed to satisfying the fundamental rights of those subject to its jurisdiction and guided by the desire to achieve the fine balance that must be struck between speed and quality in the performance of its judicial role.

I. Proceedings concerning the legality of measures Admissibility of actions brought under Article 263 TFEU

In 2014, the case-law of the General Court provided clarification of the concepts of a measure against which an action may be brought and of a regulatory act not entailing implementing measures, for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU.

1. Concept of a measure against which an action may be brought

In the judgment of 13 November 2014 in Spain v Commission (T-481/11, ECR, EU:T:2014:945), the Court addressed the concept of a purely confirmatory measure when ruling on an action for annulment in part of an implementing regulation relating to an agricultural matter.

The Court observed that it has consistently been held that a measure is regarded as merely confirmatory of a previous measure if it contains no new factor as compared with the previous measure and was not preceded by a re-examination of the circumstances of the person to whom the previous measure was addressed. That case-law, which relates to individual measures, must be applied also in the case of legislative measures, as there is no justification for drawing a distinction between those different types of measures. According to the Court, a measure is regarded as adopted after a re-examination of the circumstances where it was adopted, either at the request of the person concerned or at the initiative of its author, on the basis of substantial factors which had not been taken into account at the time of adoption of the preceding measure. On the other hand, the Court continued, if the matters off act or law on which the new measure is based are not different from those which justified the adoption of the preceding measure, that new measure is purely confirmatory of the preceding measure.

As regards the circumstances in which factors may be regarded as new and substantial, the Court explained that a factor must be classified as new, whether or not that factor existed at the time of adoption of the preceding measure, if, for whatever reason, including a failure by the author of the earlier measure to act diligently, that factor was not taken into consideration when the earlier measure was adopted. In order for the factor in question to be substantial, it must be capable of substantially altering the legal situation as considered by the authors of the earlier measure.

The Court further observed that it must be possible to request the re-examination of a measure which depends on whether the factual and legal circumstances which led to its adoption continue to apply, in order to establish whether its retention is justified. According to the Court, a re-examination seeking to verify whether a previously adopted measure remains justified in the light of a change in the legal or factual situation which has taken place in the meantime leads to the adoption of a measure which is not purely confirmatory of the earlier measure, but constitutes a measure open to challenge which can be the subject of an action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU.

 2. Concept of a regulatory act not entailing implementing measures

The Court had occasion to address the concept of a regulatory act not entailing implementing measures, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, in the judgment of 26 September 2014 in Dansk Automat Brancheforening v Commission (T-601/11, ECR, under appeal, EU:T:2014:839). The Court heard an action brought by an association of undertakings and companies licensed to install and operate gaming machines against the Commission decision declaring the introduction by Denmark of lower taxes for on line gaming than for casinos and amusement arcades compatible with the internal market.

Called upon in the context of that action to examine the applicant's argument that the contested decision constituted a regulatory act not entailing implementing measures within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the Court observed that it follows from the case-law of the Court of Justice and, in particular, from the judgment in Telefonica v Commission ( 1 ) that that concept is to be interpreted in the light of the principle of effective judicial protection. The Court observed, moreover, that where natural or legal persons are unable, because of the conditions governing admissibility laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, to challenge a regulatory act of the European Union directly before the Courts of the European Union, they are protected against the application to them of such an act by the ability to challenge the implementing measures which the act entails.

Since, firstly, the contested decision did not define its specific, actual consequences for each of the taxpayers and, secondly, it was apparent from its wording that the entry into force of the law on gaming duties had been postponed by the national authorities until the Commission had given its final decision in accordance with Article 108(3) TFEU, the Court considered that that decision entailed implementing measures. The specific, actual consequences of such a decision for taxpayers had materialised as national acts in the form of the law on gaming duties and the acts implementing that law fixing the amounts of tax payable by the taxpayers, which, as such, were implementing measures within the meaning of the fourth paragraph in fine of Article 263 TFEU. Since those acts could be challenged before the national courts, the taxpayers could have access to a court, without being required to infringe the law; they were able to plead the invalidity of the contested decision in proceedings before the national courts and could, as the case may be, cause them to request a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice pursuant to Article 267 TFEU. Consequently, the action against that decision did not fulfil the admissibility requirements laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.

 Admissibility of actions brought under Article 265 TFEU

In the case giving rise to the judgment of 21 March 2014 in Yusef v Commission (T-306/10, ECR, EU:T:2014:141), the Court heard an action for failure to fulfil obligations, seeking a declaration that the Commission had unlawfully failed to remove the applicant's name from the list of persons subject to restrictive measures under Regulation No 881/2002 (2), following his request for a review of his inclusion on that list.

Judgment of 19 December 2013 in Telefonica v Commission (C-274/12 P, ECR, EU:C:2013:852, paragraph 27 et seq.}

Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC} No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9).

 B - Composition of the General Court

(order of precedence as at 31 December 2014)

First row, from left to right:

G. Berardis, President of Chamber; M. van der Woude, President of Chamber; A. Dittrich, President of Chamber; S. Papasavvas, President of Chamber; H. Kanninen, Vice-President of the Court; M. Jaeger, President of the Court; M.E. Martins Ribeiro, President of Chamber; M. Prek, President of Chamber; S. Frimodt Nielsen, President of Chamber; D. Gratsias, President of Chamber.

Second row, from left to right:

E. Buttigieg, Judge; A. Popescu, Judge; I. Labucka, Judge; I. Wiszniewska-Biafecka, Judge; F. Dehousse, Judge; N.J. Forwood, Judge; 0. Czucz, Judge; I. Pelikanova, Judge; J. Schwarcz, Judge; M. Kancheva, Judge.

Third row, from left to right:

L. Madise, Judge; I. Ulloa Rubio, Judge; V. Kreuschitz, Judge; V. Tomljenovic, Judge; C. Wetter, Judge; E. Bieliunas, Judge; A.M. Collins, Judge; S. Gervasoni, Judge; E. Coulon, Registrar.

1. Members of the General Court

(in order of their entry into office)

Marc Jaeger

Born 1954; law degree from the Robert Schuman University of Strasbourg; studied at the College of Europe; admitted to the Luxembourg Bar (1981); attache de justice delegated to the office of the Public Attorney of Luxembourg (1983); Judge at the Luxembourg District Court (1984); Legal Secretary at the Court of Justice of the European Communities (1986-96); President of the lnstitut Universitaire International Luxembourg {IUIL); Judge at the General Court since 11 July 1996; President of the General Court since 17 September 2007.

 Heikki Kanninen

Born 1952; graduate of the Helsinki School of Economics and of the Faculty of Law of the University of Helsinki; Legal Secretary at the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland; General Secretary to the Committee for Reform of Legal Protection in Public Administration; Principal Administrator at the Supreme Administrative Court; General Secretary to the Committee for Reform of Administrative Litigation, Counsellor in the Legislative Drafting Department of the Ministry of Justice; Assistant Registrar at the EFTA Court; Legal Secretary at the Court of Justice of the European Communities; Judge at the Supreme Administrative Court (1998-2005); member of the Asylum Appeal Board; Vice-Chairman of the Committee on the Development of the Finnish Courts; Judge at the Civil Service Tribunal from 6 October 2005 to 6 October 2009; Judge at the General Court since 7 October 2009; Vice-President of the General Court since 17 September 2013.

 Nicholas James Forwood

Born 1948; Cambridge University BA 1969, MA 1973 (Mechanical Sciences and Law); called to the English Bar in 1970, thereafter practising in London (1971-99) and also in Brussels (1979-99); called to the Irish Bar in 1981; appointed Queen's Counsel 1987; Bencher of the Middle Temple 1998; representative of the Bar of England and Wales at the Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the EU (CCBE) and Chairman of the CCBE's Permanent Delegation to the European Court of Justice (1995-99); governing board member of the World Trade Law Association and European Maritime Law Organisation (1993-2002); Judge at the General Court since 15 December 1999.