EU Judicial Review

HideShow resource information
Art 258 TFEU
The commission can start infringement proceedings if it considers “A MS has failed to fulfil its obligations under the treaties"
1 of 18
Commission v Belgium [1970]
IP's can be brought against all judicial, executive and legislative branches are covered, as well as public bodies such as territorial authorities and private entities controlled by the state (as well as the state itself)
2 of 18
Commission v France (Strawberries)
A “failure to fulfil a treaty obligation” has been held to include both positive acts and omissions, as well as secondary legislation, international agreements and general principles of law
3 of 18
Article 263 TFEU - general
sets out the principles and structures underlining the annulment proceedings.
4 of 18
Article 263 (6) TFEU
Time Limits – Article 263 (6) TFEU states it is two months. This time limit starts from the date of publication of the measure or of its notification to the applicant, or on the day when it came to the knowledge of the applicant.
5 of 18
Article 263 TFEU - Reviewable Acts
the essential quality for an act to be reviewable is that it should be legally binding. Article 289-291 set out both legislative acts and non-legislative acts which have a legal effect are reviewable.
6 of 18
Standing Privileged Category
Privileged (MS, EP, Council, Commission all have automatic right to bring proceeding so no need for locus standii)
7 of 18
Standing Semi-Privileged Category
Semi-Privileged (court of auditors, euro central bank, committee of regions can only bring actions when their prerogatives are at stake).
8 of 18
Non-Privileged persons have locus standii are if
1. Addressee of the Act OR 2. if they are not addressee they must be directly and individually concerned by it and if they are not addressee and wish to challenge a regulatory act they will have to show they are directly concerned by it.
9 of 18
“Direct and Individual Concern” Definition
Art 260(4). Plaumann definition (also appears to require require the individual be a member of a “closed” category of people (one which membership is already filled and ascertained when the act came into force).
10 of 18
Plaumann definition - , non-addressees would be individually concerned if an act affects them by
“reason of certain attributes that are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated rom all other persons and by virtue of these factors, distinguishes them individually just as in the case of the person addressed”
11 of 18
Direct Concern Test
satisfied when there is a direct causal relationship between the act in question and the effect it has on the applicant.
12 of 18
The Lisbon Test
A non-privileged applicant faces this, when a regulatory act which his of direct concern to the applicant and does not entail implementing measures.
13 of 18
Case T-18/10 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami e.a. v Parliament and Council
The General Court confirmed that a ‘regulatory act’ includes all acts of general application apart from legislative acts
14 of 18
AG Kokott ?in Inuit
“the absence of easier direct legal remedies available to individuals against legislative acts can be explained principally by the particularly high democratic legitimation of parliamentary legislation.”
15 of 18
The Standings of Associations and Interest Groups: Federolio identified the three situations when these actions would be admissible:
1. Legal provisions grants the association a series of procedural rights 2. members are themselves directly and individually concerned 3. own interests of the association are affected
16 of 18
Limits on the Use of Illegality for Annulment
1. They can only be brought against an act of general application, although any party may bring an action 2. The grounds for the annulment of the act of general applicant ion are the same as those that apply in the context of the action for annulment
17 of 18
The Action for Damages - Lutticke conditions to establish liability:
a. The existence of an unlawful act of conduct on the part of the institution (Francovich standards) b. Actual damage suffered by the applicant C. A causal link between the illegality of the act and the damage caused
18 of 18

Other cards in this set

Card 2


Commission v Belgium [1970]


IP's can be brought against all judicial, executive and legislative branches are covered, as well as public bodies such as territorial authorities and private entities controlled by the state (as well as the state itself)

Card 3


Commission v France (Strawberries)


Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4


Article 263 TFEU - general


Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5


Article 263 (6) TFEU


Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards


No comments have yet been made

Similar All resources:

See all All resources »See all EU 4 resources »