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
LG München I, Urt. v. 31.07.2026 – 42 O 763/25. Mit seinem zweiten Grundsatzurteil zum Verhältnis von Urheberrecht und KI-Training verurteilt das LG München I die Betreiberin des KI-Musikgenerators Suno wegen Verletzung der Urheberrechte an sechs populären Musikwerken. Bemerkenswert: Die 42. Zivilkammer wendet erstmals in einem deutschen Urteil die US-amerikanische fair-use-Doktrin auf das KI-Training an – und verneint sie. Wir fassen die Entscheidung zusammen und ordnen sie ein.
Mit seinem Urteil vom 9. Juli 2026 (C-788/24) ist der EuGH den Schlussanträgen des Generalanwalts Rantos im Rechtsstreit um die Online-Veröffentlichung des Tagebuchs der Anne Frank gefolgt. Im Kern ging es um die Frage, ob Geoblocking-Maßnahmen wirksame technische Schutzmaßnahmen gegen Urheberrechtsverletzungen darstellen, auch wenn sie durch VPN-Dienste umgangen werden können. Dies hat der Gerichtshof nun mit einem klaren „Ja“ beantwortet.
Die am 3. Juni 2026 verkündete Entscheidung „Rückkehrpflicht VI“ (I ZR 123/25) ist – wie der Entscheidungsname besagt – die bereits sechste Entscheidung des I. Zivilsenats des BGH zur sog. Rückkehrpflicht für Mietwagen. Nach der Urteilsverkündung wurde allenthalben berichtet, der BGH habe den Fortbestand einer der kontroversesten Vorschriften des Personenbeförderungsrechts bestätigt. Inzwischen hat sich der Rauch etwas gelegt und es wird deutlich, dass diese Lesart viel zu kurz greift. Aus den Gründen der Entscheidung folgt nämlich, dass die Beibehaltung der Rückkehrpflicht gegen das Unionsrecht verstößt, wenn man ihre tradierte Zielsetzung und Rechtfertigung zugrunde legt.
In November 2025, the EUIPO Boards of Appeal published a case-law research report on the “Thomson Life doctrine” and the concept of an element’s “independent distinctive role” in composite trade marks. The report is not binding, but it is a useful attempt to bring order to an area of trade mark comparison that even the EU Courts have applied inconsistently.
