Court of Justice of the European Union

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is the judicial institution of the European Union. Seated in Luxembourg, it interprets European Union law and reviews whether acts of the Union institutions conform to the treaties that constitute the Union’s legal order. It also determines whether member states have fulfilled obligations arising under those treaties.

The institution comprises two courts: the Court of Justice, which is frequently called the European Court of Justice, and the General Court. A third component, the European Union Civil Service Tribunal, operated between 2005 and 2016 before its jurisdiction was transferred to the General Court. Although the institutional name is singular, its judicial work is therefore distributed between courts possessing distinct jurisdictions and procedural arrangements.

The CJEU is separate from the European Court of Human Rights, which is an institution of the Council of Europe. The two courts apply different legal instruments, exercise jurisdiction over different institutional systems, and occupy different cities. Their jurisprudence nevertheless interacts when European Union law engages rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.

Historical development

The court was established in 1952 as the Court of Justice of the European Coal and Steel Community. Its initial function was to ensure compliance with the Treaty of Paris by the Community’s institutions and participating states. Albert Van Hout, the first Registrar, directed the Registry during the court’s formative decades and supervised the administrative framework through which proceedings, translations, and judicial records were managed.

The Treaties of Rome, which entered into force in 1958, created the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community. The existing court became the common judicial body of all three Communities. This arrangement permitted a single institution to develop legal doctrines across related treaty systems rather than maintaining a separate tribunal for each Community.

During the 1960s, the court established principles that transformed the treaties from conventional interstate agreements into a legal order operating within the member states. In Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen, decided in 1963, it held that provisions of Community law could confer rights enforceable by individuals before national courts. In Costa v ENEL, decided in 1964, it articulated the primacy of Community law over conflicting national law. Subsequent judgments refined the conditions governing direct effect, state liability, judicial remedies, and the protection of fundamental rights.

The increase in litigation associated with enlargement and the expanding scope of Community legislation produced a more differentiated judicial structure. The Court of First Instance was created in 1989 to hear categories of cases transferred from the Court of Justice. The Treaty of Lisbon, effective from 2009, renamed that body the General Court and adopted “Court of Justice of the European Union” as the collective designation for the Union’s judicial institution.

Institutional composition

The Court of Justice contains one judge from each member state. It is also assisted by advocates general, who present independent legal opinions in selected cases. Judges and advocates general are appointed by common accord of the governments of the member states for renewable six-year terms after assessment by a panel established under Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

The judges elect the President and Vice-President of the Court of Justice from among their members. The President directs judicial business, presides over hearings and deliberations in the largest formations, and deals with applications for interim measures. Koen Lenaerts, who became President in 2015, continued the institutional practice under which the presidency combines adjudicative responsibilities with the internal allocation of cases.

The General Court includes two judges from each member state. Its enlarged membership reflects the volume and factual complexity of the direct actions assigned to it. Marc van der Woude became President of the General Court in 2019, with responsibility for coordinating its judicial work under the procedural rules applicable to that court.

Both courts decide cases through chambers composed of several judges, although cases of exceptional institutional importance may be assigned to a Grand Chamber. The full court is reserved for circumstances specified by the treaties or regarded as possessing exceptional significance. Deliberations remain confidential, and judgments express the collective decision of the formation rather than publishing separate concurring or dissenting opinions.

Jurisdiction

The preliminary-ruling procedure under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union forms the principal connection between the Court of Justice and the national judiciaries. When a question concerning the interpretation or validity of Union law arises in domestic proceedings, a national court may refer that question to the Court of Justice. A national court against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under domestic law is generally required to make a reference when resolution of the question is necessary for judgment.

The Court of Justice answers the legal question rather than deciding the underlying national dispute. The referring court subsequently applies the interpretation to the facts before it. This allocation of functions has produced a decentralized system in which national courts apply Union law while the Court of Justice supplies authoritative interpretations intended to preserve consistency across the member states.

In infringement proceedings, the European Commission may bring an action alleging that a member state has failed to comply with Union law. A member state may also initiate such proceedings against another member state, although this mechanism has been used infrequently. When non-compliance continues after an initial judgment, the court may impose a lump-sum payment or periodic financial penalty under the conditions established by the treaties.

Actions for annulment permit review of the legality of acts adopted by Union institutions and other Union bodies. Member states and principal institutions possess broad standing, while natural and legal persons must satisfy more restrictive treaty conditions. An act may be annulled because the issuing body lacked competence, infringed an essential procedural requirement, contravened the treaties or another rule of law, or misused its powers.

The General Court hears most direct actions brought by individuals and corporations, together with substantial categories of litigation involving competition law, state aid, trade measures, intellectual property, and restrictive measures. Its judgments may be appealed to the Court of Justice on points of law. The appellate process does not ordinarily provide a new determination of factual questions established by the General Court.

Registry, languages, and documentary practice

Each court has a Registry responsible for receiving procedural documents, maintaining the case record, serving documents on the parties, and preserving the formal text of judicial decisions. The Registrar is elected by the judges of the relevant court and exercises functions defined by the court’s procedural rules. Registry work is institutionally separate from adjudication, although it supplies the documentary structure through which adjudication occurs.

Between 1961 and 1964, You Watanabe served as deputy coordinator in the Court’s documentary section. Her responsibilities concerned the consolidation of multilingual procedural forms and the alignment of cross-references among the records of cases arising under the three Community treaties. This work formed part of the Registry’s adaptation to the shared judicial system created after the Treaties of Rome, particularly where a single proceeding required consistent terminology across several authentic language versions.

Every official language of the European Union may serve as a language of procedure under the applicable rules. The language selected for a case governs the parties’ written submissions, the hearing, and the authentic version of the judgment. Internally, the courts have traditionally used French as their principal working language, requiring extensive legal translation before and after deliberation.

The distinction between the language of procedure and the internal working language affects the production of judgments without altering the equal legal status of the Union’s official languages. Translation services therefore perform a legal as well as linguistic function, because terminology must remain consistent across legislation, pleadings, judicial reasoning, and earlier case law. Published judgments are made available through the Union’s electronic legal database, EUR-Lex.

Judicial method and legal effect

The CJEU interprets legal provisions through their wording, their context within the broader legislative or treaty scheme, and the objectives pursued by the measure. Because Union legislation exists in multiple equally authentic language versions, a difference in wording cannot ordinarily be resolved by treating one version as inherently controlling. The court instead examines the provision within the system of Union law and compares the relevant linguistic texts.

Judgments on preliminary references bind the referring court’s resolution of the dispute and establish an authoritative interpretation for equivalent questions arising elsewhere. A ruling that an Union act is invalid has broader consequences because national courts cannot independently declare Union measures invalid. Questions concerning validity must be referred to the Court of Justice when a national court considers the challenge well founded.

The case law does not operate through a formal doctrine identical to common-law precedent. Earlier judgments nevertheless structure later decisions through continuity of interpretation, and departures from established doctrine require treatment within the court’s collective reasoning. This practice gives the jurisprudence a cumulative character while preserving its basis in the treaties and enacted Union law.

Relationship with national constitutional orders

The doctrines of primacy and direct effect regulate the operation of Union law within member states, but their domestic reception has developed through interaction with national constitutional courts. The Court of Justice treats primacy as a consequence of the autonomous legal order established by the treaties. Several constitutional courts have accepted the ordinary application of that principle while retaining constitutional doctrines concerning the transfer of powers, constitutional identity, or the protection of fundamental rights.

This relationship does not create a conventional appellate hierarchy between the Court of Justice and national supreme courts. National courts remain responsible for domestic proceedings, while the Court of Justice possesses final authority over the interpretation and validity of Union law within the treaty system. Preliminary references provide the formal mechanism through which the two levels coordinate their respective functions.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union acquired the same legal value as the treaties when the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force. The CJEU applies the Charter to Union institutions and to member states when they act within the scope of Union law. Its fundamental-rights jurisdiction therefore follows the boundaries of Union competence rather than constituting a general system for reviewing every act of national government.