Editing European Court of Justice (section)

==Jurisdiction and powers==
[[File:Sitzungssaal_EuGH.jpg|thumb|Medium court room in the Ancien Palais building of the Palais de la Cour de Justice complex]]
It is the responsibility of the Court of Justice to ensure that the law is observed in the interpretation and application of the [[Treaties of the European Union]].<ref name="Europa info" /> To enable it to carry out its duties, the Court has broad jurisdiction to hear various types of action. The Court has competence to, amongst other actions, rule on applications for annulment or actions for failure to act brought by a Member State or an institution; take actions against Member States for failure to fulfil obligations; and hear references for a [[preliminary ruling]] and appeals against decisions of the [[General Court (European Union)|General Court]].<ref name="Europa info"/>

===Actions for failure to fulfil obligations: infringement procedure===
Under Article 258 (ex Article 226) of the [[Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union]], the Court of Justice may determine whether a Member State has fulfilled its obligations under Union law.

That action may be brought by the commission – as is practically always the case – or by another member state, although the cases of the latter kind remain extremely rare. Only six interstate cases have been decided by the court:<ref>First four mentioned in [http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-10/cp120131en.pdf Press release of the Court after the ''Hungary v. Slovakia'' judgement, note 2]. Fifth added in [http://www.statewatch.org/news/2019/nov/eu-meijers-cttee-opinion-interstate-procedures-the-rule-of-law.pdf Opinion of the Meijers Committee on interstate procedures and the rule of law, 06 November 2019]</ref>
*''France v. United Kingdom'' (case C-141/78), judgement of 14 October 1979 ({{ECLI|ECLI:EU:C:1979:225}}) on a British unilateral fishery protection measure, infringement because UK had to consult and seek approval of commission
*''Belgium v. Spain'' (case C-388/95), judgement of 16 May 2000 ({{ECLI|ECLI:EU:C:2000:244}}) on a Spanish regulation ordering wine to be bottled in the region of production if it is using the designation of origin, no infringement because it is an authorised and justifiable restriction on the free movement of goods
*''Spain v. United Kingdom'' (case C-145/04), judgement of 12 September 2006 ({{ECLI|ECLI:EU:C:2006:543}}) on Commonwealth voting rights in Gibraltar, no infringement
*''Hungary v. Slovakia'' (case C-364/10), judgement of 16 October 2012 ({{ECLI|ECLI:EU:C:2012:630}}): [[2009 ban of Hungarian President from Slovakia|Slovakia denies entry to Hungarian president]], no infringement
*''Austria v. Germany'' (case C-591/17), judgement of 18 June 2019 ({{ECLI|ECLI:EU:C:2019:504}}) on the discriminatory German tax relief on the motor vehicle tax; infringement.
*''Slovenia v. Croatia'' (case C-457/18), judgement of 31 January 2020 ({{ECLI|ECLI:EU:C:2020:65}}) on [[Croatia–Slovenia border disputes|their border dispute]].

The commencement of proceedings before the Court of Justice is preceded by a preliminary procedure conducted by the commission, which gives the Member State the opportunity to reply to the complaints against it. The court has decided that if the European Commission does not send the formal letter to the violating member state no-one can force them.<ref>[http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/infringement_procedings_fail_to Infringement Proceedings: Fail to Act (Article 258 TFUE) -> Complaints (Article 265 LT) - Overview of Requests].</ref> If that procedure does not result in termination of the failure by the Member State, an action for breach of [[Law of the European Union|Union law]] may be brought before the Court of Justice.

If the Court finds that an obligation has not been fulfilled, the Member State concerned must terminate the breach without delay. If, after new proceedings are initiated by the commission, the Court of Justice finds that the Member State concerned has not complied with its judgment, it may, upon the request of the commission, impose on the Member State a fixed or a periodic financial penalty under Article 260 of the TFEU.<ref>Repubblica italiana, Senato della Repubblica, [http://www.senato.it/service/PDF/PDFServer/BGT/00946917.pdf ''Gli oneri finanziari del contenzioso con l'Unione europea'']</ref>

===Actions for annulment===
By an action for annulment under Article 263 (ex Article 230) of the [[Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union]], the applicant seeks the annulment of a measure (regulation, directive, decision or any measure with legal effects) adopted by an institution, body, office or agency of the EU. The Court of Justice has exclusive jurisdiction over actions brought by a Member State against the European Parliament and/or against the council (apart from Council measures in respect of State aid, dumping and implementing powers) or brought by one Union institution against another. The [[General Court (European Union)|General Court]] has jurisdiction, at first instance, in all other actions of this type and particularly in actions brought by individuals. The Court of Justice has the power to declare measures void under Article 264 (ex Article 231) of the [[Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union]].

===Actions for failure to act===
Under Article 265 (ex Article 232) of the [[Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union]], the Court of Justice and the General Court may also review the legality of a failure to act on the part of a Union institution, body, office or agency. However, such an action may be brought only after the institution has been called on to act. Where the failure to act is held to be unlawful, it is for the institution concerned to put an end to the failure by appropriate measures.

===Application for compensation based on non-contractual liability===
Under Article 268 of the [[Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union]] (and with reference to Article 340), the Court of Justice hears claims for compensation based on [[tort|non-contractual liability]], and rules on the liability of the Union for damage to citizens and to undertakings caused by its institutions or servants in the performance of their duties.

===Appeals on points of law===
Under Article 256 (ex Article 225) of the [[Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union]], appeals on judgments given by the General Court may be heard by the Court of Justice ''only if'' the appeal is on a point of law. If the appeal is admissible and well founded, the Court of Justice sets aside the judgment of the General Court. Where the state of the proceedings so permits, the Court may itself decide the case. Otherwise, the Court must refer the case back to the General Court, which is bound by the decision given on appeal. No special procedure applies to allow for an appeal to proceed to the Court of Justice, except for cases which the General Court ruled on appeal against decisions of the independent Boards of Appeal of the EU agencies (as provided by Article 58a of the Statute of the Court).

===References for a preliminary ruling===
{{main|Preliminary ruling}}
References for a [[preliminary ruling]] are specific to Union law. Whilst the Court of Justice is, by its very nature, the supreme guardian of Union legality, it is not the only judicial body empowered to apply EU law.

That task also falls to national courts, in as much as they retain jurisdiction to review the administrative implementation of Union law, for which the authorities of the member states are essentially responsible; many provisions of the Treaties and of secondary legislation – regulations, directives and decisions – directly confer individual rights on nationals of member states, which national courts must uphold.

National courts are thus by their nature the first guarantors of [[Union law]]. To ensure the effective and uniform application of Union legislation and to prevent divergent interpretations, national courts may, and sometimes must, turn to the Court of Justice and ask that it clarify a point concerning the interpretation of Union law, in order, for example, to ascertain whether their national legislation complies with that law. Petitions to the Court of Justice for a [[preliminary ruling]] are described in Article 267 (ex Article 234) of the [[Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union]].

A reference for a preliminary ruling may also seek review of the legality of an act of Union law. The Court of Justice's reply is not merely an opinion, but takes the form of a judgment or a reasoned order. The national court to which that is addressed is bound by the interpretation given. The Court's judgment also binds other national courts before which a problem of the same nature is raised.

Although such a reference may be made only by a national court, which alone has the power to decide that it is appropriate do so, all the parties involved – that is to say, the Member States, the parties in the proceedings before national courts and, in particular, the commission – may take part in proceedings before the Court of Justice. In this way, a number of important principles of Union law have been laid down in preliminary rulings, sometimes in answer to questions referred by national courts of first instance.

Rulings end with a dictum which summarises the decision which the Court has made and may direct how costs are to be managed.<ref>See for example [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61963CJ0090 Commission of the European Economic Community v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Kingdom of Belgium, joined cases 90/63 and 91/63], [1964] ECR 625, 10 September 2021</ref>

In the ECJ's 2009 report it was noted that Belgian, German and Italian judges made the most referrals for an interpretation of EU law to the ECJ.{{Citation needed|date=April 2013}} However, the German Constitutional Court has rarely turned to the European Court of Justice, which is why lawyers and law professors warn about a future judicial conflict between the two courts. On 7 February 2014, the German Constitutional Court referred its first case to the ECJ for a ruling on a European Central Bank program.<ref>{{cite news|title=Europe or Democracy? What German Court Ruling Means for the Euro|url=http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/german-court-calls-ecb-bond-buying-into-question-a-952556.html|newspaper=Spiegel Online|publisher=Spiegel Online International|date=10 February 2014}}</ref> In 2017 the German Constitutional Court referred its second case to the ECJ but contrary to the binding nature of the Court of Justice's preliminary rulings, the German Constitutional Court in 2020 refused to abide by the preliminary ruling.<ref>{{Cite web|title=EUR-Lex - 62017CJ0493 - EN - EUR-Lex|url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62017CJ0493|access-date=2021-10-03|website=eur-lex.europa.eu|language=en}}</ref> According to the German Constitutional Court, the Court of Justice's answer was unintelligble.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bundesverfassungsgericht|first=2 Senat|date=2020-05-05|title=Bundesverfassungsgericht - Decisions - ECB decisions on the Public Sector Purchase Programme exceed EU competences|url=https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2020/05/rs20200505_2bvr085915en.html|access-date=2021-10-03|website=www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de|language=en}}</ref> In June 2021, the European Commission announced it would start infringement proceedings against Germany for the German Constitutional Court's refusal to abide by the Court of Justice's preliminary ruling.<ref>{{Cite web|last=European Commission|title=June 2021 infringement package|url=https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/inf_21_2743}}</ref>

The constitutional courts of the member-states have in general been reluctant to refer a question to the European Court of Justice.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56330ad3e4b0733dcc0c8495/t/574e0ca0a3360cc36343e9c5/1464732834397/GLJ_Vol_16_No_06_Claes_intro.pdf|title=Monica Claes, "Luxembourg, Here We Come? Constitutional Courts and the Preliminary Reference Procedure", 16 German Law Journal vol. 16, no. 6, p. 1331-1342 (2015)|access-date=24 February 2017|archive-date=20 July 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160720153806/http://static1.squarespace.com/static/56330ad3e4b0733dcc0c8495/t/574e0ca0a3360cc36343e9c5/1464732834397/GLJ_Vol_16_No_06_Claes_intro.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>

====Dates of first references====
These are the first references by each constitutional court:
* 1997: [[Constitutional Court of Belgium]]: case C-93/97, Fédération Belge des Chambres Syndicales de Médecins ASBL 
* 1999: [[Constitutional Court of Austria]]: case C-143/99, Adria-Wien Pipeline GmbH
* 2007: [[Constitutional Court of Lithuania]]: case C-239/07, Sabatauskas
* 2008: [[Constitutional Court of Italy]]: case C-169/08, ''Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri v. Regione Sardegna''
* 2011: [[Constitutional Court of Spain]]: case C-399/11, Melloni
* 2013: [[Constitutional Council of France]]: case C-168/13 PPU, Jeremy
* 2014: [[Constitutional Court of Germany]]: case C-62/14, [[Peter Gauweiler|Gauweiler]]
* 2014: [[Constitutional Court of Slovenia]]: case C-526/14, Kotnik 
* 2015: Constitutional Court of Luxembourg: case C-321/15, [[ArcelorMittal]] Rodange et Schifflange SA
* 2015: [[Constitutional Court of Poland]]: case C-390/15, [[Polish Ombudsman]]
* 2016: [[Constitutional Court of Romania]]: case C-673/16, Coman
* 2017: [[Constitutional Court of Latvia]]: case C‑120/17, [[Government of Latvia|Ministru kabinets]]
* 2019: [[Constitutional Court of Slovakia]]: case C-378/19, [[President of Slovakia|Prezident Slovenskej republiky]]