Judicial Remedies and Review

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Edward
  • Created on: 25-02-16 09:29
Commission v Spain (1993)
MSs have a legal duty to cooperate with the Commission investigations into alleged breaches by them
1 of 35
Alfons Lutticke (No 1) (1969)
At admin’ve stage reasoned opinion is considered confidential and is NOT legally binding and cannot be challenged
2 of 35
Comm’n v France (1969)
Where Commision might be justified In NOT initiating enforcement procedure: where there is possibility that amicable agreement could be achieved; where effects of violation=only minor; where there is possibility that Union prov’n in q’n might be alte
3 of 35
Kobler v Austria (2001)
CJEU: a breach of EU law by a national court may make the state liable in damages if the breach was’manifest and suff’y serious’ – this would seem to open the possibility of an enforcement action if the breach persisted
4 of 35
Commision v Italy (Pork Imports case) (1961)
Commission can continue with the action even if the MS ghas terminated its infringement during the judicial stage
5 of 35
France v UK (1978)
It may be that a MS wants to make a particular political point and for that reason brings the action under art 259 TFEU rather than leaving it to the Commission’s procedure under Art 258
6 of 35
Commission v Greece (2000)
If a MS fails to comply with a judgment of the CJEU following enforcement proceedings, it may impose a lump sum or periodical payment on it under art 260 TFEU
7 of 35
Commission v Greece (2000)
Criteria for ensuring penalty payments have coercive and that EU law is applied uniformly and effectively: the duration of the infringement; its degree of seriousness; the ability of the MS to pay
8 of 35
Commission v French Republic (2002)
The penalty payment is NOT an alternative to the lump sum, but can be imposed together if the CJEU considers it approp
9 of 35
ERTA (1970)
The most important req’t in any action under Art 263 TFEU is that the measure being challenged should be legally binding
10 of 35
Les Verts (1986)
An action for annulment may lie against measures adopted by the EP where they are intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis 3rd parties
11 of 35
Cimenteries (1967)
The CJEU will look at the substance rather than the form of a measure to determine whether it is intended to have legal effect
12 of 35
Cimentaries and Les Verts
CJEU recognised a category of reviewable acts known as ‘acts sui geeris’, which do NOT appear in Art 288 TFEU
13 of 35
EP v Council (1988)
CJEU: EP had right to seek annulment of acts adopted by the Council and the Commission where the purpose of the proceedings was to protect the EP’s prerogatives
14 of 35
Fruits and Vegetables case (1962)
CJEU: a measure which is applicable to obj’y determined situations and which involves immediate legal conseq’s in all MSs for categories of persons viewed in a general and abstract manner cannot be considered as constituting a decision
15 of 35
Zuckerfabrik (1979)
A regulation does NOT lose its character as a regulation simply because it may be possible to ascertain the no or even the identity of the persons to which it applies at any given time
16 of 35
Plaumann (1963)
Decisions are characterised by the limited no of persons to whom they are addressed
17 of 35
Re Tobacco Advertising
Directive was annulled due to adoption on the wrong legal base
18 of 35
Commission v Council (1991)
CJEU rejected idea of dual basis- the choice of legal base must be based on objective factors which are amenable to JR
19 of 35
Plaumann (1963)
To est ind concern, the applicant must show that he is affected by the decision as a result of factors particularly relevant to him, NOT because he is a member of class affected by the measure
20 of 35
UPA
Where an ind would have NO other possible remedy, it was only just that their action under art 263 TFEU be heard
21 of 35
Toepfer
Applicant was directly concerned as the decision was addressed to the German govt, who could not alter its application- as the decision affected only existing applicants, it was of ind concern to the applicant
22 of 35
Japanese Ball Bearing cases (1979)
Action was admissible as the national implementing measures were purely automatic
23 of 35
Chinese Mushrooms case
Fact that German authorities had already made up mind to reject applicant’s request when they has authorisation to do so from the Commission, mde the app’ts matter of direct concern to the applicant
24 of 35
Brennwein (1963)
To give reason, it is sufficient for the Decision to set out, in a concise but clear and relevant manner, the principal issues of law and the fact upon which it is based and which are nec in order that the reasoning which has led the Commission to it
25 of 35
Roquette v Council (1980)
Regulation was annulled as the Council failed to consult the EP, as was required to do under art 37 EC
26 of 35
Transocean Marine Paint (1974)
A person whose interests are affected by a decision must be given the opp’ty to be heard
27 of 35
Sopropé v Fazenda (2008)
respect for the rights of defence requires that any addressee of a decision from the Customs authorities which sig’y affects his interests must have the right to be heard
28 of 35
Parliament v Commission (1995)
Misuse of powers is the adoption of a measure with the exclusive or the main purpose of achieving an end other than that stated, or evading a procedure specifically prescribed by the Treaty for dealing with the circum’s of the case
29 of 35
Nold (1974)
CJEU: the Court would NOT uphold measures which are incompatible with fund’l rights recognised and protected by the constitutions of the MSs
30 of 35
Handelsgesellschaft (1970)
Respect for fund’l rights forms an integral part of the general principles of law proptected by the CJEU
31 of 35
R v Kirk (1984)
LEGAL CERTAINTY- penal provisions may not take effect retroactively (shown in Art 7 ECHR)
32 of 35
Mulder (1980)
LEGIT EXPECT’NS - EU measures must NOT infringe the legitimate expectations of those concerned in the absence of overriding public interest
33 of 35
Ex p Man (Sugar) (1986)
PROPORTIONALITY – measures should NOT exceed what is appropriate and nec to achieve the objectives in q’n
34 of 35
Sabbatini v EP (1972)
EQUALITY – persons in similar situations should be treated alike unless differential treatment is obj’y justified
35 of 35

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

At admin’ve stage reasoned opinion is considered confidential and is NOT legally binding and cannot be challenged

Back

Alfons Lutticke (No 1) (1969)

Card 3

Front

Where Commision might be justified In NOT initiating enforcement procedure: where there is possibility that amicable agreement could be achieved; where effects of violation=only minor; where there is possibility that Union prov’n in q’n might be alte

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

CJEU: a breach of EU law by a national court may make the state liable in damages if the breach was’manifest and suff’y serious’ – this would seem to open the possibility of an enforcement action if the breach persisted

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Commission can continue with the action even if the MS ghas terminated its infringement during the judicial stage

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all EU resources »