The Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union

The Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union

1. Introduction

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) occupies a central position in the constitutional and judicial structure of the European Union. Its principal responsibility is to ensure that EU law is interpreted and applied consistently throughout the Member States, that EU institutions act within the limits of their legal authority, and that Member States comply with the obligations arising from the Treaties.

However, the jurisdiction of the CJEU is neither unlimited nor identical to that of a national supreme court. It does not possess general authority over every dispute involving EU law, nor does it function as an appellate court reviewing judgments delivered by national courts. Its powers are conferred by the Treaties and the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which establish the categories of proceedings it may hear, the parties entitled to bring them, and the legal questions it may determine.

An important preliminary distinction concerns the meaning of the expression Court of Justice of the European Union. The CJEU is the judicial institution of the Union and comprises two courts:

• The Court of Justice, which principally handles preliminary references, infringement proceedings against Member States, certain institutional disputes, and appeals from the General Court.
• The General Court, which principally hears direct actions brought by individuals, companies, and other legal persons against EU institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies, as well as a substantial range of other proceedings at first instance.

The division of jurisdiction between these courts is established primarily by Articles 19 TEU and 251–281 TFEU, together with Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The jurisdictional framework is not entirely static. A significant reform entered into operation in October 2024, transferring responsibility for certain preliminary references from the Court of Justice to the General Court. This development illustrates the continuing evolution of the Union’s judicial architecture.

Understanding the jurisdiction of the CJEU requires examination of its principal forms of judicial proceedings, its allocation of cases between the two courts, the limits on individual access to judicial review, and the exceptional restrictions imposed by the Treaties in particular policy areas.

2. Constitutional and Treaty Foundations of Jurisdiction

2.1. Article 19 TEU: The judicial responsibility of the Union

Article 19(1) TEU provides the constitutional foundation for the judicial system of the European Union.

It establishes that the Court of Justice of the European Union includes the Court of Justice and the General Court and requires the institutions to ensure respect for the law in the interpretation and application of the Treaties.

The provision also requires Member States to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law.

This last obligation is particularly important. The judicial protection of rights under EU law does not depend exclusively on proceedings before the CJEU. National courts form an essential part of the Union’s judicial system because they routinely apply EU law in disputes involving individuals, companies, public authorities, and other parties.

The CJEU and national courts therefore operate within a system of judicial cooperation rather than a conventional hierarchy in which the CJEU simply hears appeals from domestic judgments.

2.2. Articles 251–281 TFEU

Articles 251–281 TFEU provide the detailed framework governing the organisation, jurisdiction, and procedures of the Union courts.

Among the most significant provisions are:

• Article 256, which establishes the principal jurisdiction of the General Court and its relationship with the Court of Justice.
• Article 258, which permits the Commission to bring infringement proceedings against a Member State.
• Article 259, which provides for infringement proceedings brought by one Member State against another.
• Article 263, which governs actions for annulment of EU acts.
• Article 265, which establishes actions for failure to act.
• Article 267, which provides for preliminary rulings.
• Article 268, which concerns actions for damages arising from the non-contractual liability of the Union.
• Article 269, which establishes a narrowly defined jurisdiction concerning certain procedural aspects of Article 7 TEU determinations.
• Article 270, which concerns disputes between the Union and its servants.
• Articles 278 and 279, which govern interim judicial protection.
• Article 280, which addresses the enforceability of judgments.
• Article 281, which concerns the Statute of the Court.

These provisions do not create one general procedure for every dispute. Instead, they establish distinct forms of jurisdiction, each designed to address a particular type of legal controversy.

2.3. Jurisdiction is conferred, not presumed

The jurisdiction of the EU courts derives from the Treaties and the legal instruments adopted under them.

Unlike national courts with general jurisdiction over civil, criminal, or administrative disputes, the CJEU cannot assume authority over a matter merely because it concerns an EU institution, an EU policy, or an alleged breach of EU law.

A dispute must fall within a recognised category of EU judicial jurisdiction.

This principle has practical consequences. A company challenging a Commission competition decision may bring an action before the General Court under Article 263 TFEU. An individual challenging an administrative decision of a national ministry must generally pursue the remedies available before national courts, even if the decision allegedly violates EU law.

Similarly, a person who considers that a Member State has failed to comply with an EU directive cannot ordinarily bring a direct infringement action against that State before the CJEU. The formal infringement procedure is principally entrusted to the Commission and, in exceptional circumstances, another Member State.

The availability of judicial protection therefore depends not only on the existence of a legal dispute but also on the nature of the contested act, the identity of the parties, and the procedural route established by the Treaties.

3. The Division of Jurisdiction Between the Court of Justice and the General Court

3.1. The Court of Justice

The Court of Justice is the senior judicial component of the CJEU.

Its principal functions include:

• Delivering preliminary rulings in most areas of EU law.
• Determining infringement proceedings brought against Member States.
• Hearing certain direct actions brought by Member States and EU institutions.
• Resolving institutional disputes falling within its jurisdiction.
• Hearing appeals against judgments of the General Court on points of law.

The Court of Justice is particularly important in maintaining the constitutional coherence of EU law. Its judgments establish authoritative interpretations of Treaty provisions, determine the validity of EU acts, and clarify the obligations of Member States.

3.2. The General Court

The General Court has extensive jurisdiction at first instance.

Under Article 256(1) TFEU, it generally hears actions and proceedings falling within Articles 263, 265, 268, 270, and 272 TFEU, subject to exceptions established by the Treaties and the Statute.

Its jurisdiction includes, among other matters:

• Actions for annulment brought by individuals and legal persons.
• Actions for failure to act brought by individuals and legal persons.
• Claims for damages arising from the non-contractual liability of the Union.
• Disputes between the Union and its staff.
• Certain contractual disputes involving the Union.
• Litigation concerning EU competition decisions.
• Disputes involving EU trade marks and other intellectual property rights administered by EU agencies.
• Certain proceedings involving State aid, financial supervision, and regulatory decisions.

The General Court therefore performs a substantial part of the Union’s direct judicial review.

Its jurisdiction is particularly important for businesses and individuals challenging decisions adopted by EU institutions, bodies, offices, or agencies.

3.3. Appeals from the General Court

Under Article 256 TFEU, decisions of the General Court may generally be appealed to the Court of Justice on points of law, subject to the conditions laid down in the Statute.

An appeal is not a complete rehearing of the case.

The Court of Justice examines whether the General Court committed an error of law, exceeded its jurisdiction, breached procedural requirements affecting the interests of the appellant, or otherwise made a legally relevant error.

It does not ordinarily reconsider the facts merely because a party disagrees with the General Court’s assessment.

Where an appeal is well founded, the Court of Justice may set aside the judgment. It may then give final judgment itself where the state of the proceedings permits, or refer the case back to the General Court.

Certain cases that have already undergone review by an independent board of appeal within an EU agency are subject to an additional restriction. An appeal from the General Court may proceed only where it raises an issue significant for the unity, consistency, or development of EU law.

This mechanism is intended to prevent the Court of Justice from becoming involved in routine factual or technical disputes while preserving its responsibility for important legal questions.

3.4. The 2024 reform of preliminary ruling jurisdiction

A significant development in the allocation of jurisdiction took effect on 1 October 2024.

Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2019 amended Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union by introducing Article 50b.

Under this provision, the General Court may hear requests for preliminary rulings that fall exclusively within specified areas:

1. The common system of value added tax.
2. Excise duties.
3. The Customs Code.
4. The tariff classification of goods under the Combined Nomenclature.
5. Compensation and assistance to passengers in cases of denied boarding, delay, or cancellation of transport services.
6. The system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading.

National courts continue to submit requests under Article 267 TFEU to the Court of Justice. The Court of Justice examines the request and transfers it to the General Court where the conditions of Article 50b are satisfied.

The Court of Justice retains jurisdiction where a request within those subject areas raises independent questions concerning primary EU law, public international law, general principles of EU law, or the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The reform does not create a separate preliminary reference system. It reallocates responsibility within the existing CJEU structure.

The objective is to distribute judicial workload more efficiently while preserving the uniform interpretation of EU law. The General Court’s preliminary rulings have the same legal authority as those delivered by the Court of Justice, subject to the exceptional review mechanism provided by the Statute.

For legal practitioners, the reform is particularly important when advising on VAT, customs, excise, passenger rights, and emissions trading disputes. The correct judicial destination can no longer be determined simply by assuming that every preliminary reference will be decided by the Court of Justice.

4. Preliminary Rulings Under Article 267 TFEU

4.1. Purpose and constitutional significance

The preliminary ruling procedure is one of the most important features of the EU judicial system.

Article 267 TFEU enables national courts to request authoritative guidance concerning:

• The interpretation of the Treaties.
• The validity and interpretation of acts adopted by EU institutions, bodies, offices, or agencies.

The procedure is designed to ensure that EU law has a consistent meaning throughout the Union.

A regulation or directive may be applied in different national legal systems, but its meaning cannot legitimately depend on the national court or Member State in which a dispute happens to arise.

The preliminary ruling mechanism therefore creates judicial cooperation between national courts and the CJEU.

4.2. National courts and the reference procedure

A national court may refer a question where it considers that a ruling is necessary to enable it to decide the dispute before it.

A court against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law must, in principle, refer a necessary question of EU law to the CJEU.

The obligation is subject to exceptions developed by the Court, including circumstances where the question is irrelevant, the relevant legal issue has already been resolved, or the correct interpretation is sufficiently clear under the demanding conditions established in CILFIT.

The preliminary reference must arise from an actual dispute or judicial proceeding. It is not a general mechanism through which national courts can request abstract opinions about EU law.

The referring court must explain the factual and legal context, identify the relevant EU provisions, and establish why the requested interpretation or validity determination is necessary.

4.3. Interpretation of EU law

The CJEU’s interpretative jurisdiction is essential because EU legislation must operate across national boundaries.

The Court may clarify the meaning of a Treaty provision, define the scope of a regulation, explain the obligations imposed by a directive, or determine how an EU principle applies in a particular legal context.

For example, a national court dealing with a dispute concerning consumer rights may ask how a provision of an EU directive should be interpreted. The CJEU provides the interpretation, after which the national court applies it to the facts.

The CJEU does not normally determine the entire national dispute. It does not decide questions of fact that belong to the referring court, nor does it ordinarily apply the interpreted rule to the evidence as though it were the trial court.

Its ruling supplies the authoritative EU-law answer required for the national proceedings.

4.4. Validity of EU acts

Article 267 also permits national courts to refer questions concerning the validity of EU acts.

This is particularly important where an individual or company argues that an EU regulation, decision, or other binding act violates the Treaties, fundamental rights, or procedural requirements.

The national court may consider the challenge but cannot itself declare an EU act invalid.

In Foto-Frost v Hauptzollamt Lübeck-Ost (Case 314/85), the Court established that national courts do not have authority to declare EU acts invalid. If a national court considers a validity challenge well founded, it must refer the matter to the CJEU.

This rule protects the uniformity of the EU legal order. If national courts could independently invalidate EU legislation, the same act might remain valid in some Member States while being treated as invalid in others.

4.5. Legal effect of preliminary rulings

A preliminary ruling binds the referring court in the proceedings before it. The interpretation also has broader significance because it clarifies the meaning of EU law for other national courts and authorities.

A judgment interpreting a provision generally explains what that provision means, rather than creating a new legal rule only from the date of the judgment.

The Court may, exceptionally, limit the temporal effects of its interpretation where the conditions for doing so are satisfied, particularly where legal certainty requires such a limitation.

A ruling declaring an EU act invalid has significant consequences for the application of that act. The referring court must give effect to the ruling, and the institutions concerned may need to take further measures to address the legal consequences.

5. Infringement Proceedings Against Member States

5.1. Article 258 TFEU: Proceedings brought by the Commission

Article 258 TFEU empowers the European Commission to bring proceedings against a Member State that it considers to have failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties.

The Commission acts as guardian of the Treaties. It monitors compliance with EU law and may initiate proceedings where national legislation, administrative conduct, or a failure to act appears inconsistent with Union obligations.

A breach may take many forms, including:

• Failure to transpose a directive within the required period.
• Incorrect or incomplete transposition.
• Adoption of national legislation incompatible with EU law.
• Failure to comply with a directly applicable regulation.
• Administrative practices that systematically undermine EU obligations.
• Failure to comply with a judgment of the CJEU.

The proceedings generally begin with a pre-litigation stage. The Commission communicates its concerns to the Member State, which is given an opportunity to submit observations and address the alleged breach.

If the matter remains unresolved, the Commission may issue a reasoned opinion specifying the alleged infringement and requiring the State to comply within a defined period.

If the State does not comply, the Commission may refer the matter to the CJEU.

The purpose is to establish whether the Member State has breached EU law and to secure compliance, rather than to award compensation to individual complainants.

5.2. Article 259 TFEU: Proceedings brought by another Member State

Article 259 TFEU allows one Member State to bring proceedings against another Member State for failure to fulfil obligations under EU law.

This procedure is less common than proceedings initiated by the Commission.

A Member State intending to bring such an action must first refer the matter to the Commission. The Commission gives both States an opportunity to submit their observations.

If the Commission has not delivered an opinion within three months, the absence of an opinion does not prevent the applicant State from bringing the case before the CJEU.

The procedure reflects the principle that compliance with EU obligations is a matter of common interest among the Member States, rather than a purely bilateral issue.

5.3. Article 260 TFEU: Consequences of non-compliance

A judgment establishing an infringement creates an obligation for the Member State to take the necessary measures to comply.

If the State fails to do so, Article 260(2) permits the Commission to bring further proceedings and request financial sanctions.

The Court may impose a lump sum, a periodic penalty payment, or both, depending on the circumstances and the requirements of the case.

Article 260(3) provides a special procedure for certain failures to notify measures transposing a directive adopted under a legislative procedure. In appropriate circumstances, the Commission may request financial sanctions in the initial infringement proceedings.

The system ensures that judgments of the CJEU are not merely declaratory. Member States are legally required to remedy established breaches.

6. Actions for Annulment Under Article 263 TFEU

6.1. Purpose of judicial review

An action for annulment allows the EU courts to review the legality of acts adopted by EU institutions, bodies, offices, or agencies that are intended to produce legal effects.

The procedure protects the principle of legality by ensuring that EU institutions remain within the limits of their powers.

Article 263 identifies several grounds on which an act may be challenged:

1. Lack of competence.
2. Infringement of an essential procedural requirement.
3. Infringement of the Treaties or any rule of law relating to their application.
4. Misuse of powers.

These grounds allow the courts to examine both procedural and substantive legality.

A measure may be unlawful because the institution lacked authority to adopt it, failed to follow a mandatory procedure, violated fundamental rights, or used its powers for a purpose different from that for which they were conferred.

6.2. Who may bring an action?

Article 263 distinguishes between privileged, semi-privileged, and non-privileged applicants.

Privileged applicants include the Member States, the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission. They may generally bring actions for annulment without demonstrating an individual interest in the act.

Semi-privileged applicants include the Court of Auditors, the European Central Bank, and the Committee of the Regions. Their actions are permitted where they seek to protect their institutional prerogatives.

Non-privileged applicants include natural persons and legal persons, such as individuals, companies, and associations. Their access is subject to stricter conditions.

6.3. Standing of individuals and companies

For private applicants, Article 263(4) provides three principal routes to standing.

A natural or legal person may challenge:

• An act addressed to that person.
• An act that is of direct and individual concern to that person.
• A regulatory act that is of direct concern to that person and does not entail implementing measures.

The requirement of individual concern is particularly restrictive.

In Plaumann v Commission (Case 25/62), the Court established the influential test that a person must be affected by the contested measure because of attributes particular to them or circumstances that distinguish them individually from all other persons, in a manner comparable to the addressee.

This approach has made direct access to judicial review difficult for individuals and businesses challenging measures of general application.

The Treaty of Lisbon introduced an additional route for regulatory acts that directly concern an applicant and do not entail implementing measures. This provision reduces the need to establish individual concern in certain circumstances, but it does not remove all standing requirements.

6.4. Time limits and legal consequences

An action for annulment must generally be brought within two months, calculated in accordance with the publication, notification, or knowledge rules established by Article 263 TFEU and the procedural rules.

If the action succeeds, Article 264 TFEU provides that the contested act is declared void.

The Court may, where necessary, preserve certain effects of the annulled act. This allows it to avoid legal uncertainty or serious disruption that might arise from the immediate disappearance of all effects.

Under Article 266 TFEU, the institution whose act has been declared void must take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment.

The annulment procedure is therefore an essential instrument of constitutional control over EU institutions.

7. Actions for Failure to Act Under Article 265 TFEU

The Treaties do not only permit review of unlawful action. They also provide a procedure for challenging an unlawful failure to act.

Article 265 TFEU applies where an EU institution, body, office, or agency has failed to act in breach of the Treaties.

The procedure is intended to prevent EU institutions from avoiding legal obligations through inaction.

An action may be brought by Member States and other institutions under the conditions established by the Treaty. Natural and legal persons may also bring proceedings where an institution has failed to address to them an act other than a recommendation or opinion.

However, an applicant must first call upon the relevant institution to act.

If the institution does not define its position within two months, proceedings may be brought within a further two-month period.

The distinction between an unlawful failure to act and a decision with which an applicant disagrees is important. Article 265 concerns a failure to adopt a legally required position or act, not merely an unfavourable outcome.

Where the Court establishes that the failure to act was unlawful, Article 266 requires the institution concerned to take the necessary measures to comply.

The procedure complements Article 263. Together, the two provisions allow judicial scrutiny of both unlawful institutional action and legally significant inaction.

8. Non-Contractual Liability and Actions for Damages

8.1. Article 268 and Article 340 TFEU

The EU may incur liability for damage caused by its institutions, bodies, offices, agencies, or servants in the performance of their duties.

Article 268 TFEU confers jurisdiction on the EU courts in disputes relating to the compensation provided for in the second and third paragraphs of Article 340 TFEU.

Article 340 establishes the principle that the Union must make good damage caused by its institutions or servants in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States.

This is commonly described as the non-contractual liability of the European Union.

8.2. Conditions for liability

The CJEU’s case law generally requires three elements:

1. The conduct attributed to the Union must involve a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals.
2. The applicant must have suffered actual damage.
3. There must be a sufficiently direct causal link between the unlawful conduct and the damage.

The requirement of a sufficiently serious breach is particularly significant where the institution has discretion in the policy area concerned.

A mere error does not automatically create a right to compensation. The courts examine the nature of the rule infringed, the extent of the discretion available to the institution, and whether the breach was sufficiently serious.

8.3. Relationship with actions for annulment

An action for damages is legally distinct from an action for annulment.

A claimant may seek compensation for loss caused by unlawful EU conduct without necessarily seeking to invalidate the underlying measure.

Conversely, an act may be annulled without automatically establishing that the Union is liable for all losses allegedly associated with it.

The requirements and objectives of the two procedures are different.

The distinction prevents the damages procedure from becoming an automatic substitute for the time limits and standing requirements governing annulment actions.

9. Disputes Between the Union and Its Staff

Article 270 TFEU gives the EU courts jurisdiction over disputes between the Union and its servants, within the limits and conditions established by the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants.

These disputes may concern:

• Recruitment and appointment.
• Promotion and career progression.
• Remuneration and allowances.
• Disciplinary measures.
• Working conditions.
• Pension entitlements.
• Termination of employment.
• Other rights arising from the employment relationship.

Such proceedings are governed by specialised procedural requirements, including administrative complaint procedures and time limits.

The General Court generally hears these disputes at first instance, with the Court of Justice exercising appellate jurisdiction on points of law.

The jurisdiction is distinct from ordinary employment litigation in national courts. It concerns the legal relationship between EU institutions and their staff.

The Court has also clarified that disputes originating in the employment relationship may remain within Article 270 even where the claimant seeks compensation, rather than a conventional employment remedy.

10. Contractual Disputes and Unlimited Jurisdiction

10.1. Contractual disputes under Article 272 TFEU

Article 272 TFEU allows the EU courts to exercise jurisdiction over disputes arising under a contract concluded by or on behalf of the Union where the contract contains an arbitration clause conferring jurisdiction on the Court.

This provision is important because contractual disputes would not automatically fall within the jurisdiction of the EU courts merely because an EU institution is a party.

The arbitration clause provides the necessary jurisdictional basis.

The applicable law and the wording of the contractual clause are therefore essential in determining whether the General Court may hear the dispute.

10.2. Unlimited jurisdiction under Article 261 TFEU

Article 261 TFEU permits EU regulations to confer unlimited jurisdiction on the CJEU in relation to penalties provided for under those regulations.

This is particularly relevant in competition law.

Where unlimited jurisdiction is conferred, the Court may go beyond simply confirming or annulling the contested decision. It may review and, where appropriate, cancel, reduce, or increase the amount of a financial penalty within the scope of the relevant legal provisions.

This jurisdiction is significant because financial penalties imposed by EU institutions can have substantial consequences for companies.

It allows judicial scrutiny of both the legality of the decision and the amount of the penalty, within the limits of the applicable legislation.

11. Special and Restricted Areas of Jurisdiction

The Treaties establish certain areas in which the jurisdiction of the CJEU is restricted or subject to special conditions.

These exceptions reflect the constitutional and political sensitivity of particular policy areas.

11.1. Common Foreign and Security Policy

Article 24 TEU and Article 275 TFEU establish important restrictions on the jurisdiction of the CJEU in relation to the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).

As a general rule, the Court does not have jurisdiction over the provisions relating to CFSP or acts adopted on their basis.

However, the exclusion is not absolute.

The Court retains jurisdiction to:

• Monitor compliance with Article 40 TEU, which concerns the boundary between CFSP and other EU competences.
• Review the legality of restrictive measures adopted by the Council against natural or legal persons under the conditions laid down in Article 275 TFEU.

The second exception is particularly important for sanctions litigation.

Individuals and companies affected by asset freezes, travel restrictions, and other restrictive measures may challenge the legality of the relevant decisions before the EU courts, provided that the Treaty requirements for standing and admissibility are satisfied.

The judicial review of restrictive measures demonstrates that foreign policy considerations do not entirely exclude the protection of fundamental rights and the principle of legality.

11.2. Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

Article 276 TFEU establishes a specific limitation in relation to certain matters within the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.

When exercising jurisdiction concerning Chapters 4 and 5 of Title V of Part Three TFEU, the CJEU has no jurisdiction to review the validity or proportionality of operations carried out by the police or other law-enforcement services of a Member State, or the exercise of Member State responsibilities concerning the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.

The provision is a targeted limitation. It does not remove the Court’s general jurisdiction over EU legislation concerning judicial cooperation, immigration, asylum, and related matters.

The precise boundary must therefore be examined by reference to the legal basis and subject matter of the proceedings.

11.3. Article 269 TFEU and Article 7 TEU

Article 269 TFEU provides a narrowly defined jurisdiction concerning acts adopted by the European Council or Council under Article 7 TEU.

The Court may review such an act only at the request of the Member State concerned and only in relation to compliance with the procedural stipulations contained in Article 7.

The application must be made within one month of the relevant determination, and the Court must rule within one month of the request.

This is not a general jurisdiction to reassess the political merits of the Article 7 procedure. It is a limited judicial safeguard concerning the specified procedural requirements.

11.4. Monetary and other specialised fields

The Treaties and the Statute also contain specific rules concerning particular institutional and policy matters.

For example, Article 271 TFEU provides jurisdiction in certain disputes involving the European Investment Bank, Member States, and the European Central Bank, within the conditions set out in that provision.

Article 262 permits the Council, acting unanimously under a special legislative procedure, to confer jurisdiction on the CJEU in disputes relating to certain European intellectual property rights.

Such provisions demonstrate that the jurisdiction of the EU courts is shaped by a combination of general Treaty rules and specialised jurisdictional clauses.

12. Interim Measures and the Protection of Rights During Proceedings

Judicial proceedings may take considerable time. In some circumstances, waiting for a final judgment could make effective legal protection impossible.

The Treaties therefore provide for interim measures.

Article 278 TFEU establishes that actions brought before the EU courts do not automatically suspend the operation of the contested act.

However, the Court may order suspension where the circumstances justify it.

Article 279 TFEU allows the Court to prescribe necessary interim measures in cases before it.

Applicants seeking interim relief generally must demonstrate that the measure is justified by a sufficiently serious and urgent risk and that the relevant legal arguments have a prima facie basis.

The assessment balances the interests of the applicant, the Union, and other affected parties.

Interim measures are particularly important where the implementation of an EU decision could cause serious and irreversible harm before the main proceedings are concluded.

The availability of such measures strengthens the practical effectiveness of judicial review, but they remain exceptional and do not automatically follow from the commencement of an action.

13. What the CJEU Cannot Hear

Understanding the limits of jurisdiction is as important as understanding the procedures available.

The CJEU is not a general European court for every dispute involving EU law.

In particular, it does not ordinarily:

• Hear direct civil claims between private individuals or companies.
• Act as an appellate court from national judgments.
• Review national administrative decisions directly through an action for annulment.
• Replace national courts in determining facts and applying national procedural law.
• Hear every complaint submitted by an individual concerning an alleged breach of EU law.
• Exercise unrestricted jurisdiction over CFSP matters.
• Review the validity of national police operations in the circumstances excluded by Article 276 TFEU.

This does not mean that such disputes are necessarily outside the protection of EU law.

Many must be brought before national courts, which are required to apply relevant EU provisions and may, where necessary, request a preliminary ruling.

For example, an individual challenging a national authority’s refusal to grant a benefit under an EU directive will ordinarily bring proceedings before the competent national court. That court may then refer a question concerning the interpretation of the directive to the CJEU.

Likewise, a company challenging a national competition authority’s decision will normally use national judicial remedies, even where the dispute involves EU competition rules.

The CJEU’s role is to safeguard the interpretation, validity, and enforcement of EU law within the jurisdiction conferred upon it, not to replace the entire judicial systems of the Member States.

14. Practical Method for Identifying the Correct Judicial Procedure

When a dispute involves EU law, the first task is to determine which court has jurisdiction and which procedure is available.

A structured analysis should consider the following questions.

First: identify the contested measure or conduct. Is the dispute concerned with an EU act, a national measure, an alleged failure by a Member State, a contractual obligation, or conduct by an EU institution?

Second: identify the parties. Is the applicant an individual, company, Member State, EU institution, or employee of an EU institution? The identity of the parties may determine the available procedure and the competent EU court.

Third: establish whether direct access is permitted. If a private applicant wishes to challenge an EU act, the standing requirements of Article 263(4) must be examined carefully.

Fourth: determine whether national proceedings are necessary. If the dispute concerns a national authority or private party, the appropriate starting point will generally be the competent national court or administrative procedure.

Fifth: consider a preliminary reference. If the national proceedings raise a necessary question concerning the interpretation or validity of EU law, Article 267 may provide the appropriate route. The 2024 reform must also be considered where the question falls within one of the six transferred subject areas.

Sixth: examine time limits and procedural requirements. Direct actions before the EU courts are subject to strict admissibility rules and deadlines. A claim may fail even where its substantive legal argument appears strong if the procedural requirements have not been satisfied.

Seventh: identify the available remedy. The appropriate procedure may result in annulment, a declaration of infringement, compensation, an interpretation of EU law, or an order concerning interim protection.

This method is particularly useful because the existence of an EU-law issue does not automatically establish jurisdiction for the CJEU. The legal route must be identified before the merits of the dispute can be examined.

15. Key Takeaways

• The CJEU is the judicial institution of the European Union and comprises the Court of Justice and the General Court.
• Its jurisdiction is conferred by the Treaties and the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
• The Court of Justice principally handles preliminary references, infringement proceedings, certain institutional disputes, and appeals from the General Court.
• The General Court generally hears direct actions brought by individuals and legal persons against EU institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies.
• Since 1 October 2024, the General Court has also heard preliminary references in six specified subject areas under Article 50b of the Statute.
• Article 267 TFEU establishes the preliminary ruling procedure, which promotes uniform interpretation and validity review of EU law.
• Articles 258 and 259 TFEU provide for infringement proceedings against Member States.
• Article 260 TFEU establishes the obligation to comply with infringement judgments and provides for financial sanctions in specified circumstances.
• Article 263 TFEU governs actions for annulment of unlawful EU acts.
• Private applicants must satisfy strict standing requirements when challenging EU measures.
• Article 265 TFEU allows proceedings against unlawful institutional inaction.
• Articles 268 and 340 TFEU govern the non-contractual liability of the Union.
• Article 270 TFEU concerns disputes between the Union and its servants.
• Article 272 TFEU permits jurisdiction over contractual disputes where an appropriate arbitration clause exists.
• Article 261 TFEU permits unlimited jurisdiction over certain penalties where legislation confers that power.
• Articles 275 and 276 TFEU establish important jurisdictional restrictions concerning CFSP and certain national law-enforcement operations.
• The CJEU is not a general appellate court for national judgments.
• National courts remain essential to the application and enforcement of EU law.

16. Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union?

The CJEU has jurisdiction over the categories of proceedings conferred upon it by the Treaties. These include preliminary rulings, infringement proceedings, judicial review of EU acts, certain claims for damages, disputes involving EU staff, and appeals from the General Court.

2. What is the difference between the Court of Justice and the CJEU?

The CJEU is the judicial institution comprising two courts: the Court of Justice and the General Court. The Court of Justice performs particular constitutional and appellate functions, while the General Court hears many direct actions at first instance.

3. Can an individual bring a case directly before the Court of Justice?

Ordinarily, no. Individuals and companies generally bring direct actions within the jurisdiction of the General Court, subject to the Treaty requirements. The Court of Justice itself does not function as a general first-instance court for private applicants.

4. Can the CJEU overturn a judgment of a national court?

No. The CJEU is not an appellate court for national judgments. However, a national court may request a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation or validity of EU law. The national court then decides the underlying dispute in accordance with the CJEU’s ruling.

5. What is a preliminary ruling?

A preliminary ruling is a decision of the CJEU, or in the specified transferred areas the General Court, answering a question referred by a national court concerning the interpretation of the Treaties or the validity and interpretation of EU acts.

6. Is a national court required to refer every question of EU law?

No. National courts generally have discretion to refer questions where an answer is necessary. Courts of last instance must, in principle, refer necessary questions, subject to the exceptions recognised by the CJEU, including the conditions established in CILFIT.

7. Can a national court declare an EU regulation invalid?

No. Under Foto-Frost, national courts cannot declare EU acts invalid. If a national court considers that an EU act is invalid, it must refer the question to the CJEU.

8. What is an action for annulment?

An action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU is a procedure through which the legality of an EU act intended to produce legal effects may be challenged on specified grounds, including lack of competence, procedural irregularity, infringement of EU law, and misuse of powers.

9. Can a company challenge a decision of the European Commission?

Yes. A company may bring an action before the General Court where the requirements of Article 263 TFEU are satisfied. These requirements depend on the nature of the decision, whether it is addressed to the company, and the applicable standing rules.

10. What happens if a Member State refuses to comply with EU law?

The European Commission may initiate infringement proceedings under Article 258 TFEU. If the CJEU finds an infringement, the Member State must comply with the judgment. Continued non-compliance may result in financial sanctions under Article 260 TFEU.

11. Does the CJEU have jurisdiction over EU foreign policy decisions?

Its jurisdiction is restricted in relation to the Common Foreign and Security Policy. However, Article 275 TFEU preserves jurisdiction over certain questions, including compliance with Article 40 TEU and judicial review of specified restrictive measures against individuals and legal persons.

12. What changed in the jurisdiction of the CJEU in 2024?

From 1 October 2024, the General Court acquired jurisdiction to hear preliminary references concerning six specified areas: VAT, excise duties, customs, tariff classification, passenger compensation and assistance, and emissions trading. The Court of Justice retains jurisdiction over references raising independent questions concerning certain fundamental and constitutional aspects of EU law.

17. Conclusion

The jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union reflects the constitutional structure of the Union itself. It is designed to protect the legality of EU institutional action, secure compliance by Member States, maintain the uniform interpretation of Union law, and provide judicial remedies in disputes falling within the authority conferred by the Treaties.

The division of responsibilities between the Court of Justice and the General Court enables the Union’s judicial system to address a wide range of disputes, from preliminary questions raised by national courts to complex competition, intellectual property, administrative, and institutional litigation.

The preliminary ruling procedure remains one of the most significant instruments of European judicial integration. It allows national courts to participate directly in the development and consistent application of EU law without transferring the underlying national dispute to Luxembourg. Infringement proceedings protect the common legal obligations of the Member States, while actions for annulment and damages ensure that EU institutions remain legally accountable.

At the same time, the jurisdiction of the CJEU is subject to important limits. The Treaties reserve many disputes to national courts, restrict judicial review in certain sensitive policy areas, and impose strict procedural conditions on direct actions. The 2024 reform of preliminary ruling jurisdiction further demonstrates that the allocation of judicial responsibilities continues to adapt to the needs of the Union’s legal system.

The essential principle is that the CJEU does not replace national judicial systems. It operates alongside them within a shared European legal order. Its jurisdiction ensures that the Union’s legal rules remain subject to judicial interpretation, institutional accountability, and effective enforcement, while national courts continue to serve as the principal forums through which EU law is applied in everyday disputes.

18. Primary Legal Sources and Further Reading

Treaties and legislation

• Article 19 TEU – The Court of Justice of the European Union and effective legal protection
• Article 256 TFEU – Jurisdiction of the General Court
• Article 258 TFEU – Infringement proceedings initiated by the Commission
• Article 259 TFEU – Infringement proceedings between Member States
• Article 260 TFEU – Compliance with judgments and financial sanctions
• Article 261 TFEU – Unlimited jurisdiction over certain penalties
• Article 263 TFEU – Actions for annulment
• Article 264 TFEU – Effects of annulment
• Article 265 TFEU – Actions for failure to act
• Article 267 TFEU – Preliminary rulings
• Articles 268 and 340 TFEU – Non-contractual liability of the Union
• Article 269 TFEU – Review of certain acts under Article 7 TEU
• Article 270 TFEU – Disputes between the Union and its servants
• Articles 275 and 276 TFEU – Jurisdictional restrictions
• Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union
• Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2019 – Reform of the Statute of the Court of Justice

CJEU judgments

• Case 26/62, Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen
• Case 6/64, Costa v ENEL
• Case 25/62, Plaumann v Commission
• Case 314/85, Foto-Frost v Hauptzollamt Lübeck-Ost
• Case C-50/00 P, Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council
• Case C-583/11 P, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council
• Case C-561/19, Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi

Official institutional resources

• Court of Justice of the European Union – Official website
• CJEU – Can I bring my case to the Court of Justice of the EU?
• CJEU – The Court of Justice
• CJEU – Procedural texts and rules
• European Parliament – Competences of the Court of Justice of the European Union
• EUR-Lex – EU case law