4.8.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 203/19

(1)

For some time the duration of procedures before the Court of Justice, particularly in preliminary reference proceedings, has been increasing and it is desirable, especially having regard to the enlargement of the Union, that certain stages in the procedure should be speeded up and simplified.

(2)

The period allowed for submission of applications for a hearing ought to be reduced and the obligation to inform the national court and to hear the parties ought in some cases to be removed where the Court is to give its decision by order in certain cases where the answer to the request for a preliminary ruling is straightforward.

(3)

Technical developments have led to increasing use of electronic means for the transmission of documents and electronic communication has become increasingly reliable as a means of communication. The Court ought to be enabled to accommodate these developments by having the power to determine the criteria for a procedural document sent by electronic means to be deemed to be the original of the document.

(4)

Finally, the provisions on the grant of legal aid ought to be amended to provide that an order refusing in whole or in part an application for aid must state the reasons for that refusal,

1.

The following new paragraph 7 shall be added to Article 37:

‘7.   Without prejudice to the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 or to paragraphs 2 to 5, the Court may by decision determine the criteria for a procedural document sent to the Registry by electronic means to be deemed to be the original of that document. That decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.’;

2.

In the third sentence of Article 44a the words ‘of one month’ shall be replaced by the words ‘of three weeks’;

3.

In Article 76(3) the second subparagraph shall be replaced by the following:

‘The Chamber shall make an order from which no appeal shall lie. Where the application for legal aid is refused in whole or in part, the order shall state the reasons for that refusal.’;

4.

Article 104(1) shall be amended as follows:

‘1.   The decisions of national courts or tribunals referred to in Article 103 shall be communicated to the Member States in the original version, accompanied by a translation into the official language of the State to which they are addressed. Where appropriate on account of the length of the national court’s decision, such translation shall be replaced by the translation into the official language of the State to which it is addressed of a summary of the decision, which will serve as a basis for the position to be adopted by that State. The summary shall include the full text of the question or questions referred for a preliminary ruling. That summary shall contain, in particular, in so far as that information appears in the national court’s decision, the subject matter of the main proceedings, the essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings, a succinct presentation of the reasoning in the reference for a preliminary ruling and the case-law and the provisions of Community and domestic law relied on.

In the cases governed by the third paragraph of Article 23 of the Statute, the decisions of national courts or tribunals shall be notified to the States, other than the Member States, which are parties to the EEA Agreement and also to the EFTA Surveillance Authority in the original version, accompanied by a translation of the decision, or where appropriate of a summary, into one of the languages mentioned in Article 29(1), to be chosen by the addressee of the notification.

Where a non-Member State has the right to take part in proceedings for a preliminary ruling pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 23 of the Statute, the original version of the decision of the national court or tribunal shall be communicated to it together with a translation of the decision, or where appropriate of a summary, into one of the languages mentioned in Article 29(1), to be chosen by the non-Member State concerned.’;

5.

The text of Article 104(3) shall be replaced by the following:

‘3.   Where a question referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling is identical to a question on which the Court has already ruled, or where the answer to such a question may be clearly deduced from existing case-law, the Court may, after hearing the Advocate ACT, at any time give its decision by reasoned order in which reference is made to its previous judgment or to the relevant case-law.

The Court may also give its decision by reasoned order, after informing the court or tribunal which referred the question to it, hearing any observations submitted by the persons referred to in Article 23 of the Statute and after hearing the Advocate ACT, where the answer to the question referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling admits of no reasonable doubt.’;

6.

In the third sentence of Article 104(4) the words ‘of one month’ shall be replaced by the words ‘of three weeks’;

7.

In the second sentence of Article 120 the words ‘of one month’ shall be replaced by the words ‘of three weeks’.