Again, as with Tutorial 4, I have prepared a list of cases that you are expected to read with short annotations of what you should look for in them. Before, do what the ARL suggests in order to see on what grounds can the ECJ find a Community legal act invalid: go back to some cases dealing with general principles of law, which you had in Tutorial 2.
Remember that you are expected to know more than what we will discuss at the tutorial: e.g. what acts are open to judicial review according to Article 230 TCE, what the time limits for bringing the action to the Court are (think about the preliminary ruling procedure - you should already know whether it is possible to challenge Community acts via this route and whether there are some limitations on its use - see Case C-188/92 TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf [1994] ECR I-833, paragraph 13), and what the effects of the annulment (Article 231 TCE) are.
Consider also the development concerning the right of standing of the European Parliament and the question of who (and under which conditions) can bring an action to the Court.
Finally, although we cover only two kinds of direct actions, pay attention to others as well (particularly the infringement procedure - Articles 226-228 TCE, the action for failure to act - Article 232 TCE and the plea of illegality - Article 241 TCE; with respect to this last one: can it be used in the preliminary ruling procedure?).
Standing of non-privileged applicants
Here do not be confused by the following cases, which concern standing of so called “non-privileged applicants.” Bear in mind the distinction between privileged and non-privileged applicants, together with the fact that when non-privileged applicants are direct addressees of the contested act, they do not have to overcome the hurdle of the Plaumann test.
25/62 Plaumann [1963] ECR 95 - in this judgment the Court set its “Plaumann test” (sometimes also called “the Plaumann formula”) of standing of non privileged applicants, so it is the foundational judgment, stating the principle.
41/70 - 44/70 International Fruit Co [1971] ECR 411, 11/82 Piraiki-Patraiki [1985] ECR, 207 358/89 Extramet [1991] ECR I-2501, C-309/89 Codorniu [1994] ECR I-1853 - in these cases concentrate on factors which led the Court to distinguish the applicants and to allow (or exclude) their standing.
T-585/93 Greenpeace v. Commission [1995] II-2205 and judgment in an appeal against the CFI’s decision: C-321/95 P Greenpeace v. Commission [1998] ECR I-2305 - environmental organisations and their possibility to challenge Community acts breaching Community’s own environmental legislation (think also about an argument that diffuse interests do not have their “natural” defendants, which would bring an action directly concerning them).
The following series of cases is perhaps the “must-read” in relation to direct actions. It is also a very interesting illustration of the interaction between the CFI and the ECJ and the role, which Advocates General play in the judicial system of the EU. The sequence of events was the following:
(1) firstly AG Jacobs proposed in his Opinion to widen the criteria for standing of non-privileged applicants before the Community courts in UPA (C-50/00 P).
(2) Then, the CFI in fact followed him (remember, the CFI is now the key court, as it in principle hears all actions brought by individuals) and in its judgment in Case T-177/01 Jégo-Quéré v. Commission [2002] ECR II-2365 referred to Jacob's Opinion.
(3) However, the Court (the ECJ) was not persuaded by Jacobs and in its judgment in C-50/00 P UPA [2002] ECR I – 6677 it rejected the changed he had proposed (which was in the meanwhile embraced by the CFI).
(4) The Commission (who was the defendant in Jégo-Quéré) brought an appeal to the ECJ and the revolution was finally suppressed: the ECJ confirmed its orthodox approach once again and annulled the CFI’s decision (AG Jacobs had been called to write opinion also in this case: I think he had really hard time then…): Case C-263/02 P Commission v Jégo-Quéré [2004] ECR I-3425.
Case C-491/01 R v Secretary of State ex parte BAT and Imperial Tobacco [2002] ECR I – 11453, paras. 28-41 gives the UPA ruling into a broader perspective.
Action for damages against the Community
As you might have read in the textbooks, 5/71 Schöppenstedt [1971] ECR 975 seems to be overruled and the requirements stated there for the Community to be liable in damages are now in line with those applicable for Member States’ breaches. Thus Case C-352/98P Bergaderm v Commission [2000] ECR I-5291 and the following case law is far more important now. But still: try to think: what is the main difference between the two cases and could you come up with an example where it has proven important?
Questions for essays
This time again, no additional Qs from me. But it would be nice if we have one problem Q (no 4) answered by some of you at each tutorial.
Back to main page
Remember that you are expected to know more than what we will discuss at the tutorial: e.g. what acts are open to judicial review according to Article 230 TCE, what the time limits for bringing the action to the Court are (think about the preliminary ruling procedure - you should already know whether it is possible to challenge Community acts via this route and whether there are some limitations on its use - see Case C-188/92 TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf [1994] ECR I-833, paragraph 13), and what the effects of the annulment (Article 231 TCE) are.
Consider also the development concerning the right of standing of the European Parliament and the question of who (and under which conditions) can bring an action to the Court.
Finally, although we cover only two kinds of direct actions, pay attention to others as well (particularly the infringement procedure - Articles 226-228 TCE, the action for failure to act - Article 232 TCE and the plea of illegality - Article 241 TCE; with respect to this last one: can it be used in the preliminary ruling procedure?).
Standing of non-privileged applicants
Here do not be confused by the following cases, which concern standing of so called “non-privileged applicants.” Bear in mind the distinction between privileged and non-privileged applicants, together with the fact that when non-privileged applicants are direct addressees of the contested act, they do not have to overcome the hurdle of the Plaumann test.
25/62 Plaumann [1963] ECR 95 - in this judgment the Court set its “Plaumann test” (sometimes also called “the Plaumann formula”) of standing of non privileged applicants, so it is the foundational judgment, stating the principle.
41/70 - 44/70 International Fruit Co [1971] ECR 411, 11/82 Piraiki-Patraiki [1985] ECR, 207 358/89 Extramet [1991] ECR I-2501, C-309/89 Codorniu [1994] ECR I-1853 - in these cases concentrate on factors which led the Court to distinguish the applicants and to allow (or exclude) their standing.
T-585/93 Greenpeace v. Commission [1995] II-2205 and judgment in an appeal against the CFI’s decision: C-321/95 P Greenpeace v. Commission [1998] ECR I-2305 - environmental organisations and their possibility to challenge Community acts breaching Community’s own environmental legislation (think also about an argument that diffuse interests do not have their “natural” defendants, which would bring an action directly concerning them).
The following series of cases is perhaps the “must-read” in relation to direct actions. It is also a very interesting illustration of the interaction between the CFI and the ECJ and the role, which Advocates General play in the judicial system of the EU. The sequence of events was the following:
(1) firstly AG Jacobs proposed in his Opinion to widen the criteria for standing of non-privileged applicants before the Community courts in UPA (C-50/00 P).
(2) Then, the CFI in fact followed him (remember, the CFI is now the key court, as it in principle hears all actions brought by individuals) and in its judgment in Case T-177/01 Jégo-Quéré v. Commission [2002] ECR II-2365 referred to Jacob's Opinion.
(3) However, the Court (the ECJ) was not persuaded by Jacobs and in its judgment in C-50/00 P UPA [2002] ECR I – 6677 it rejected the changed he had proposed (which was in the meanwhile embraced by the CFI).
(4) The Commission (who was the defendant in Jégo-Quéré) brought an appeal to the ECJ and the revolution was finally suppressed: the ECJ confirmed its orthodox approach once again and annulled the CFI’s decision (AG Jacobs had been called to write opinion also in this case: I think he had really hard time then…): Case C-263/02 P Commission v Jégo-Quéré [2004] ECR I-3425.
Case C-491/01 R v Secretary of State ex parte BAT and Imperial Tobacco [2002] ECR I – 11453, paras. 28-41 gives the UPA ruling into a broader perspective.
Action for damages against the Community
As you might have read in the textbooks, 5/71 Schöppenstedt [1971] ECR 975 seems to be overruled and the requirements stated there for the Community to be liable in damages are now in line with those applicable for Member States’ breaches. Thus Case C-352/98P Bergaderm v Commission [2000] ECR I-5291 and the following case law is far more important now. But still: try to think: what is the main difference between the two cases and could you come up with an example where it has proven important?
Questions for essays
This time again, no additional Qs from me. But it would be nice if we have one problem Q (no 4) answered by some of you at each tutorial.
Back to main page
No comments:
Post a Comment