Today has brought many interesting judgments from the ECJ, but before I will comment in more details on one of them (concerning the EC's competence in the field of criminal law), just a quick note, which relates to my critique of the Court’s argumentative practices. In C-273/04 Poland challenged one of the Council’s decisions adopted before the actual accession of the new Member States on 1 May 2004. The decision had amended the rules concerning direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy - quite a sensitive area not only for Poland, but also for the Union in general. This amendment was possible due to a special provision in the Act of Accession. Poland claimed that the amendment had gone beyond the limits of the special provision and in fact had changed the conditions of Poland’s accession to the EU.
You do not have to be fans of the Common Agriculture Policy to find the case interesting: one of the issues was also the question whether or not Poland could even submit its action. The contested decision was published on 30 March 2004, while Poland submitted its action only on 28 June, thus much later than possible under the applicable rules on time limits for direct actions.
Several arguments were put forward in support to Poland’s right to have the case being heard by the Court: its dubitable status as applicant under Article 230 EC and therefore a very limited standing before its accession, and also the fact that the decision was not published in the Polish version of the Official Journal. Advocate General Poiraes Maduro took issue with these arguments and after a detailed consideration of all possibilities (in 48 paragraphs) he finally proposed to hold the action admissible - proposing a new standard of standing for new Member States (as according to the rules on standing as interpreted now, Poland’s action would be inadmissible).
Well, the Court was far more economical with its arguments:
Findings of the Court
(33) In the present case, the Court considers it necessary to rule at the outset on the substance of the case.
Full stop. Does this need any further comment?
Back to main page.
You do not have to be fans of the Common Agriculture Policy to find the case interesting: one of the issues was also the question whether or not Poland could even submit its action. The contested decision was published on 30 March 2004, while Poland submitted its action only on 28 June, thus much later than possible under the applicable rules on time limits for direct actions.
Several arguments were put forward in support to Poland’s right to have the case being heard by the Court: its dubitable status as applicant under Article 230 EC and therefore a very limited standing before its accession, and also the fact that the decision was not published in the Polish version of the Official Journal. Advocate General Poiraes Maduro took issue with these arguments and after a detailed consideration of all possibilities (in 48 paragraphs) he finally proposed to hold the action admissible - proposing a new standard of standing for new Member States (as according to the rules on standing as interpreted now, Poland’s action would be inadmissible).
Well, the Court was far more economical with its arguments:
Findings of the Court
(33) In the present case, the Court considers it necessary to rule at the outset on the substance of the case.
Full stop. Does this need any further comment?
Back to main page.
No comments:
Post a Comment