What's in a member state? Central and decentralized authorities before the community courts

Common Market Law Review

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 871-901

  Van Nuffel, Piet ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035594975     PISSN: 01650750     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1011914826190     Document Type: Article

References (123)

1. Likewise, Art. 232 EC gives the Member States the right to bring an action establishing the failure to act of the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission. This particular form of action as well as the forms of action provided by the EAEC and ECSC Treaties will not be dealt with in this article as they do not change or add to the conclusions drawn within the context of Art. 230 EC.
2. Until 1 March 2001, 449 actions for annulment had been introduced under the EC, EAEC and ECSC Treaties (with joined actions counted as one - for every Member State involved - and not taking into account actions for interim measures, interventions or appeals). This figure can be split into the following numbers: Austria 3, Belgium 22, Danmark 8, Finland 1, France 56, Germany 68, Greece 28, Ireland 12, Italy 77, Luxembourg 7, the Netherlands 52, Portugal 18, Spain 67, Sweden 3 and the United Kingdom 27. Most actions are directed against the Commission (83%). 16% of the actions were withdrawn while pending in court.
3. About 49% of the actions concern agriculture (among them 28% on payments in the context of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund); about 24% of the actions concern competition, mostly State aid (20%).
4. Council Decision of 24 Oct. 1988, establishing a Court of First Instance of the European Communities (88/591/ECSC, EEC, Euratom), O.J. 1988, L 319/1, as amended, Art. 3. It should be noted that under the ECSC Treaty the right granted to legal persons to initiate proceedings is limited to coal and steel undertakings and their associations, see Case 222/83, Municipality of Differdange et alia v. Commission [1984] ECR 2889, para 8; Case T-4/97, D'Orazio and Hublau v. Commission [1997] ECR II-1505, paras. 15-18; Case T-70/97, Région wallonne v. Commission [1997] ECR II-1513, paras. 22-24.
5. Cases 62 & 72/87, Exécutif régional wallon v. Commission [1988] ECR 1573; Case C-95/97, Région wallonne v. Commission [1997] ECR I-1787; Case T-214/95, Vlaamse Gewest v. Commission [1998] ECR II-717; Case T-288/97, Regione autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia v. Commission [1999] ECR II-1871; Cases T-132/96 & T-143/96, Freistaat Sachsen and Volkswagen v. Commission [1999] ECR II-3663. Not admissible were Differdange, supra note 4 (against a decision concerning aid granted by the Grand Duchy); Case C-95/97, Région wallonne, supra, and Case T-70/97, Région wallonne, supra note 4. A case that was removed is Stadt Mainz v. Commission (Case T-155/96, O.J. 1996, C 354/34, removed by Order of 9 July 1997, O.J. 1997, C 318/35). Pending are cases against Commission decisions brought by the Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Case T-129/99, O.J. 1999, C 226/42) and its three Territorios Históricos (autonomous provinces): Alava (Case T-127/99, O.J. 1999, C 226/41; Case T-168/99, O.J. 1999, C 281/24; Case T-271/99, O.J. 2000, C 47/30; Case T-346/99, O.J. 2000, C 79/34; Case T-92/00, O.J. 2000, C 163/33; Case T-30/01, O.J. 2001, C 108/26; Case T-77/01, O.J. 2001, C 173/36), Bizkaia (Case T-272/99, O.J. 2000, C 47/30; Case T-348/99, O.J. 2000, C 79/35; Case T-32/01, O.J. 2001, C 108/27) and Gipuzkoa (Case T-269/99, O.J. 2000, C 47/29; Case T-347/99, O.J. 2000, C 79/34; Case T-31/01, O.J. 2001, C 108/27), by the Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Case T-233/99, O.J. 2000, C 6/30), by the Regione Siciliana (T-190/00, O.J. 2000, C 285/16), by the Freistaat Thüringen (T-318/00, O.J. 2000, C 355/38) and by the Département du Loiret (T-369/00, O.J. 2001, C 61/18).
6. Case C-213/87, Gemeente Amsterdam and VIA v. Commission [1990] ECR I-221; Case T-81/97, Regione Toscana v. Commission [1998] ECR II-2889. Not admissible was Case T-609/97, Regione Puglia v. Commission and Spain [1998] ECR II-4051 (action against a Regulation concerning production aid payable to producers of olive oil). Removed were the actions brought against Commission decisions by the Regione Toscana (lodged with the ECJ but referred to the CFI: Case C-180/97, Regione Toscana v. Commission [1997] ECR I-5245, where it was removed: Case T-265/97, Regione Toscana v. Commission, Order of 5 March 1998, O.J. 1998, C 113/22) and by the Comune di Sassuolo (Case T-189/98, O.J. 1999, C 20/33, removed by Order of 14 Dec. 1999, O.J. 2000, C 79/42, after a settlement between the municipality in question and the Italian central Government).
7. Cases T-32/98 & T-41/98, Nederlandse Antillen v. Commission [2000] ECR II-201. Not admissible were: Case C-298/89, Gibraltar v. Council [1993] ECR I-3605 (against a Directive liberalizing air transport and excluding Gibraltar from its field of application); Case T-238/97, Comunidad Autónoma de Cantabria v. Council, [1998] ECR II-2271 (against a Regulation concerning State aid to certain shipyards). Several cases against Council decisions are pending brought by the Nederlandse Antillen (Case T-179/97, referred by Order of 16 Nov. 1998 to the ECJ, [1998] ECR II-4123, pending as Case C-452/98, O.J. 1999, C 188/6; Case T-310/97, O.J. 1998, C 55/27) and by Aruba (T-36/98, O.J. 1998, C 137/17) and against Commission regulations brought by the Nederlandse Antillen (Case T-163/97, O.J. 1997, C 212/31; Case T-52/98, O.J. 1998, C 151/13; Case T-53/98, O.J. 1998, C 166/18) and Aruba (Case T-54/98, O.J. 1998, C 166/19).
8. Art. 20(2) of the EC Statute of the ECJ and Art. 103 ECJ Rules of Procedure.
9. Ibid. To this end, any referral for a preliminary ruling is notified by the ECJ Registrar to all Member States: Art. 20(1) EC Statute of the ECJ.
10. E.g. Case 26/62, Van Gend & Loos, [1963] ECR 1; Case 7/74, Van Nidek, [1974] ECR 757; Case 175/78, Saunders, [1979] ECR 1129; Case C-156/91, Hansa Fleisch Ernst Mundt, [1992] ECR I-5567.
11. Under Art. 37(1) of the EC Statute of the ECJ (which is applicable to the CFI by virtue of Art. 46 of that Statute), Member States and Community institutions may intervene in disputes before the Court without having to prove any specific interest. See Cases T-32/98 & T-41/98, Nederlandse Antillen, supra note 7, para 31. Other persons have to establish "an interest" in the result of any case submitted before the ECJ or CFI and are precluded to intervene in cases between Member States, between institutions of the Community or between Member States and institutions of the Community (Art. 37(2) EC Statute of the ECJ). The ECSC Treaty subjects all authorities to the requirement of a specific interest as it grants the right of intervention for "[n]atural and legal persons establishing an interest in the result of any case submitted to the Court" (Art. 34 of the ECSC Statute of the ECJ).
12. Case 131/86, United Kingdom v. Council [1988] ECR 905, para 6. For Art. 38 ECSC Treaty, see Case 230/81, Luxembourg v. European Parliament [1983] ECR 255, paras. 24-25.
13. Case 85/82, Schloh v. Council [1983] ECR 2015, para 14. See Lenaerts and Arts, Bray (English ed.), Procedural Law of the European Union (Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1999), pp. 178 et seq.
14. Case 41/83, Italy v. Commission, [1985] ECR 873, paras. 28-35.
15. E.g. the right of the government of a Belgian Community or Region to bring an action for annulment before the Arbitragehof/Cour d'arbitrage [Constitutional Court] for infringement of any rule relating to the division of powers or the Arts. 10, 11 and 24 of the Constitution (Art. 2 of the Bijzondere Wet Arbitragehof [Special Law on the Constitutional Court]); the right of any German Landesregierung to have a ruling on the constitutionality of legislation by the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Art. 93 Grundgesetz).
16. Thus, public legal entities bringing an action for annulment before the Belgian Raad van State/Conseil d'état are subject to the requirement to prove an interest laid down in Art. 19 of the R.v.St.-Wet [Coordinated Laws of 12 Jan. 1973 on the Raad van State]. For the Belgian Arbitragehof, regional governments as well as all other institutional applicants (the Council of Ministers and the Presidents of the Legislative Chambers on request of two thirds of their members) are ex officio presumed to possess a legal interest.
17. Tribe, American Constitutional Law (Mineola/New York, The Foundation Press, 1988), p. 149.
18. Id., 147-148.
19. Id., 148-149.
20. See also the Opinion of A.G. Léger of 13 March 2001 in Cases C-301/97 and C-452/98, Netherlands and Nederlandse Antillen v. Council, nyr, para 53 (as Contracting Parties to the Treaty, the Member States have an evident interest to safeguard the contents of the agreement to which they acceded).
21. Case 166/78, Italy v. Council [1979] ECR 2575, paras. 5-6.
22. See the Opinion of A.G. Reischl, id., at 2605-2607.
23. See also Canedo, "L'intérêt à agir dans le recours en annulation du droit communautaire" in (2000) RTDE, 451, at 479.
24. See also the reply of the Greek Government to the question put by the ECJ in Cases C-260 and 261/91, Diversinte en Iberlacta, [1993] ECR I-1885, at 1899.
25. Case 230/81, Luxembourg v. European Parliament, [1983] ECR 255, para 26.
26. Cases 2-3/60, Niederrheinische Bergwerks-Aktiengesellschaft and Unternehmensverband des Aachener Steinkohlenbergbaues v. High Authority, [1961] ECR 133, at 147.
27. Snyder, New Directions in European Community Law (Londen, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1990), pp. 55-56.
28. Id., p. 90-91.
29. One may think of the negative effect of a decision for a minority group within the Member State, or for the future generation, or for people living in other Member States or outside the European Union.
30. Crisham and Mortelmans, "Observations of Member States in the Preliminary Rulings Procedure before the Court of Justice of the European Communities", in O'Keeffe and Schermers (Eds.), Essays in European Law and Integration (Deventer, Kluwer, 1982) pp. 43, at 62-67.
31. Another setting where Member States have to demonstrate their interest to sue is the action for damages. Indeed, the definition of the "damage" to be presented by a Member State could be an indication of the interests that the Member State purports to protect. However, so far, no single case of damages has been brought by a Member State. See Lenaerts and Arts, supra note 13, at p. 248. The sufficiency of a Member State's interest to bring an action is also subject of the Court's appraisal whenever a Member State instituted third-party proceedings "to contest a judgment rendered without their being heard, where the judgment is prejudicial to their rights" (Art. 39 EC Statute of the ECJ). In this context, the Court has implicitly accepted that a limit to a Member State's sovereignty to exercise its normative powers may qualify as a prejudice to its "rights": Cases 9 and 12/60 Third Party Proceedings, Belgium v. Vloeberghs and High Authority, [1962] ECR 171, at 183-184.
32. See Lenaerts and Arts, supra note 13, at pp. 302-305.
33. Case 111/88 R, Greece v. Commission, [1988] ECR 2591, para 15.
34. Case 142/87 R, Belgium v. Commission, [1987] ECR 2589, para 24; Case C-356/90 R, Belgium v. Commission, [1991] ECR I-2423, para 24.
35. Case C-239-240/96 R, United Kingdom v. Council [1996] ECR I-4475, para 66. In this case, the UK relied on its financial interest that Community expenditure be incurred in respect of all budgetary rules. One may assume, though, that a Member State may invoke any violation of rules governing the division of powers or the decision-making process to safeguard its institutional position. See ibid., para 69.
36. Case 142/87 R, Belgium v. Commission, [1987] ECR 2589, paras. 23-24; Case C-356/90 R, Belgium v. Commission, [1991] ECR I-2423, paras. 23-24.
37. See Lenaerts and Arts, supra note 13, at 303, para 13-028.
38. Case C-280/93 R, Germany v. Council, [1993] ECR I-3667, para 27.
39. Thus, in a case where the applicant State declared the restructuring of a shipyard of national interest, the Court ruled that "no factor [had] been put forward from which it [might] be concluded that the obstacle likely to be put in the way of that restructuring by the contested decision would amount to serious and irreparable damage for the applicant" (Case C-356/90, Belgium v. Commission, supra note 34, para 24), which does not exclude that the restructuring of one single undertaking would be able, under specific circumstances, to affect the "national interest". For the Court relying on damage affecting a single undertaking to establish the irreparable effect of a measure vis-à-vis the applicant Member State, see also Case C-312/90, Spain v. Commission, [1992] ECR I-4117, in particular paras. 22-23, and Case C-47/91, Italy v. Commission, [1992] ECR I-4145, paras. 28-29.
40. According to Art. 17 of the EC Statute of the ECJ the "States" shall be represented by an agent appointed for each case. Such agent shall produce an official document issued by "the State" which they represent (Art. 33 Rules of Procedure of the ECJ).
41. As the action was directed against a decision under the ECSC Treaty, reserving standing to coal and steel undertakings associations, this was the only hope for the region to introduce a direct action before a Community Court.
42. Case C-95/97, Région wallonne, supra note 5, para 6. The ECJ referred the case to the CFI, which had no choice but to dismiss the case as inadmissible: Case T-70/97, Région wallonne, supra note 4, paras. 22-24.
43. Case C-180/97, Regione Toscana, supra note 6, para 6; Case T-214/95, Vlaamse Gewest, supra note 5, para 28; Case T-238/97, Cantabria, supra note 7, para 42; Case T-609/97, Puglia, supra note 6, para 16; Cases T-32/98 & T-41/98, Nederlandse Antillen, supra note 7, para 43.
44. Cf. the annotation of Scott to the Order of 21 March 1997 in 36 CML Rev. (1999) 227, at 232 (suggesting that a suit brought by regions for the Member State could be subject to the standing requirement applying to regions when litigating under Art. 230(4)).
45. Interestingly, if Member States oppose a Commission act and decide within the Council to react collectively and initiate an action for annulment on behalf of the Council, that decision - by a majority vote - will be taken for each Member State by a minister authorized to commit the government of that Member State, thus allowing for a minister of a decentralized authority to take part in the vote.
46. Art. 81, § 6, Bijzondere Wet Hervorming Instellingen [Special Law on the Reform of the Institutions], and Arts. 2 to 8 of the Samenwerkingsakkoord [Cooperation Agreement] of 8 March 1994. See Van Nuffel, De rechtsbescherming van nationale overheden in het Europees recht (Kluwer, Deventer, 2000), at pp. 472-474.
47. Art. 23, § 6, Grundgesetz. Without possessing any enforceable right thereto, also the Austrian Länder and Scotland may represent the position of their Member State within the Council. See Van Nuffel, supra note 46, pp. 472-473.
48. Art. 7 of the Gesetz über die Zusammenarbeit von Bund und Ländern in Angelegenheiten der Europäischen Union. See Schweizer and Brunner, Die Mitwirkung der Bundesländer an EU-Vorhaben in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und in Österreich - Ein Modell für die Mitwirkung der Kantone in der Aussenpolitik (Swiss Papers on European Integration, Stämpfli, Bern, 1998), at 33-34.
49. Art. 10 of the Vereinbarung zwischen dem Bund und den Ländern gem. Art. 15a B-VG über die Mitwirkungsrechte der Länder und Gemeinden in Angelegenheiten der europäischen Integration of 12 March 1992. This obligation does not exist if another Land objects or in case of "compelling reasons of foreign or integration policy". See also Schweizer and Brunner, supra note 48, at 52-53.
50. Art. 81, § 7, Bijzondere Wet Hervorming Instellingen. In all matters that concern regional powers, consultation with the regions is required before the federal government can bring action. According to the Samenwerkingsakkoord (Cooperation Agreement) of 11 July 1994 on litigation before international and supranational courts in mixed disputes, action will only be brought when there is a consensus among the federal and the regional governments. However, if a region requests that action be brought in matters of exclusive regional powers, the federal government is obliged to initiate a lawsuit if no consensus can be found (Art. 81, § 7, second paragraph, Bijzondere Wet Hervorming Instellingen). See also Van Nuffel, supra note 46, at pp. 551-552.
51. Case C-8/88, Germany v. Commission, [1990] ECR I-2321, para 13, referred to in Case C-95/97, Région wallonne, supra note 5, para 7. See also Case T-288/97, Friuli Venezia Giulia, supra note 5, para 48.
52. In this respect, the Court's reference to "the conditions under which the Member States, that is to say, the States party to the Treaties establishing the Communities and Accession Treaties, participate in the functioning of the Community institutions" is confusing as it might give the impression that the Court ignores the broad involvement of certain regions in decision-making within the Council and in the ratification process for Treaty amendments and Accession Treaties. Contrary to another of the ECJ's arguments in its Order of 21 March 1997, the CFI argued that no convincing argument can be drawn from the fact that an action for infringement of Community law under Art. 226 EC is brought only against the central government, even if the infringement is the result of the action or omission of regional authorities: Case T-288/97, Friuli Venezia Giulia, supra note 5, paras. 45-46. See also Arnull, "Private applicants and the action for annulment since Codorniu", 38 CML Rev. (2001), 7, at 12. Cf. the more lenient appraisal of the Order of 21 March 1997 by Gimeno Verdejo in Cuad. Eur. Deusto (1997), 195-203.
53. E.g. Case C-468/93, Gemeente Emmen, [1996] ECR I-1721; Case C-93/97, Fédération belge des chambres syndicales de médecins, [1998] ECR I-4837 (see the opinion of A.G. Cosmas, paras. 13-17).
54. E.g. Case C-192/98, ANAS, [1999] ECR I-8583 (on the competence of a body requesting a preliminary ruling and the question whether it qualifies as a "court or tribunal of a Member State" under Art. 234 EC).
55. See Case T-288/97, Friuli Venezia Giulia, supra note 5, para 48 (analogous answer given to the objection raised by the Commission against the admissibility of actions brought by regions under Art. 230(4) EC and based on the fact that this would enable them to bring an action for annulment of Commission decisions prohibiting aid even against the wishes of the Member State concerned).
56. Cf. the appraisal of a declaration by the Netherlands on the status of the Netherlands Antilles in the Opinion of A.G. Léger of 13 March 2001 in Cases C-301/97 & C-452/98, Netherlands and Nederlandse Antillen v. Council, nyr, paras. 71-77 (concluding that this declaration does not intend to give the Netherlands Antilles an autonomous right to bring action).
57. Case T-22/97, Kesko v. Commission, [1999] ECR II-3775, paras. 81-89.
58. Case T-288/97, Friuli Venezia Giulia, supra note 5, para 41; Cases T-132/96 & T-143/96, Freistaat Sachsen, supra note 5, para 81. For a more extensive view on the Commission's arguments against the admissibility of actions brought by decentralized authorities, see Mehdi in (2000) Journal de droit international, 448 and Van Nuffel in SEW (2000) at 423 (notes to Friuli Venezia Giulia); see also Wernicke in (2000) EuZW at 115 (note to Freistaat Sachsen).
59. Case T-288/97, Friuli Venezia Giulia, supra note 5, para 41; Cases T-132/96 & T-143/96, Freistaat Sachsen, supra note 5, para 81. For a more extensive view on the Commission's arguments against the admissibility of actions brought by decentralized authorities, see Mehdi in (2000) Journal de droit international, 448 and Van Nuffel in SEW (2000) at 423 (notes to Friuli Venezia Giulia); see also Wernicke in (2000) EuZW at 115 (note to Freistaat Sachsen).
60. Case T-288/97, Friuli Venezia Giulia, supra note 5, para 41; Cases T-132/96 & T-143/96, Freistaat Sachsen, supra note 5, para 81. For a more extensive view on the Commission's arguments against the admissibility of actions brought by decentralized authorities, see Mehdi in (2000) Journal de droit international, 448 and Van Nuffel in SEW (2000) at 423 (notes to Friuli Venezia Giulia); see also Wernicke in (2000) EuZW at 115 (note to Freistaat Sachsen).
61. E.g. Case T-214/95, Vlaamse Gewest, supra note 5, para 28; Case T-238/97, Cantabria, supra note 7, para 43. Compare with the situation of "private" legal persons where case law has given "legal persons" an independent Community meaning, see Lenaerts and Arts, supra note 13, at 158.
62. See the Opinion of A.G. Lenz in Case C-298/89, Gibraltar, supra note 7, at 3628-3629, paras. 38-43. In this case, the British Government claimed that the Government of Gibraltar did not possess the necessary autonomy vis-à-vis the central authorities of the UK to bring an action against a Council Directive: ibid, para 37. The ECJ declared the action inadmissible for being directed against a normative act and therefore did not rule on the question of the autonomy of the Government of Gibraltar: id., at 3654-3656, paras. 15-23.
63. Case T-288/97, Friuli Venezia Giulia, supra note 5, paras. 34 and 50.
64. Case T-214/95, Vlaamse Gewest, supra note 5, para 29.
65. Case T-288/97, Friuli Venezia Giulia, supra note 5, paras. 31-32; Cases T-132/96 & T-143/96, Freistaat Sachsen, supra note 5, paras. 84-86.
66. Case T-288/97, Friuli Venezia Giulia, supra note 5, para 32; Cases T-132 & 143/96, Freistaat Sachsen and Volkswagen v. Commission, [1999] ECR II-3663, para 89.
67. Cases T-32/98 & T-41/98, Nederlandse Antillen, supra note 7, paras. 60-61.
68. Case T-238/97, Cantabria, supra note 7, paras. 51-53.
69. Case 222/83, Differdange, supra note 4, paras. 10-12.
70. Case 25/62, Plaumann v. Commission, [1963] ECR 95, 107.
71. See also Cases 62/87 & 72/87, Exécutif régional wallon and Glaverbel, supra note 5, where the Commission did not contest the admissibility of the application against a Commission decision "on a proposal by the Belgian Government to grant aid". The Court considered that there were no grounds for examining the admissibility on its own initiative (ibid., para 8), arguably, because the applicant was also the body empowered to grant the aid in question (see para 6 of the Judgment).
72. See note 62 supra, and accompanying text. See also Case T-288/97, Friuli Venezia Giulia, supra note 5, paras. 31-33; for a separate analysis of "direct" and "individual" concern: Cases T-132 & 143/96, Freistaat Sachsen, supra note 5, paras. 84-90.
73. See Case C-213/87, Gemeente Amsterdam and VIA, supra note 6 (admissibility not contested) and Case T-81/97, Regione Toscana, supra note 6 (admissibility only contested with regard to the legal effects of the attacked decision).
74. Case T-238/97, Cantabria, supra note 7, para 49; Case T-609/97, Puglia, supra note 6, para 21.
75. Case T-238/97, Cantabria, supra note 7, para 50; Case T-609/97, Puglia, supra note 6, para 22. See also the effects of the expected closure of factories relied upon in Case 222/83, Differdange, supra note 4, at 2893 (closure would affect interests of workers and untertakings located within the communities and would, consequently, have repercussions for the latter's yield from taxes).
76. See, amongst others, Case 26/76, Metro v. Commission, [1977] ECR 1875, para 13 (competition); Case 191/82, Fediol v. Commission, [1983] ECR 2913, paras. 15-33 (anti-dumping); Case 169/84, Cofaz v. Commission, [1986] ECR 391, paras. 22-25 (State aid). For recent developments, see Arnull op. cit. supra note 52, at 43-45.
77. Case 11/82, Piraiki-Patraiki v. Commission, [1985] ECR 207, paras. 7-10; Case C-152/88, Sofrimport v. Commission, [1990] ECR I-2477, paras. 8-13; Cases T-480/93 and T-483/93, Antillean Rice Mills a.o. v. Commission, [1995] ECR II-2305, para 67.
78. Cases T-32/98 & T-41/98, Nederlandse Antillen, supra note 7, paras. 50-57. See also Case T-310/97 R, Nederlandse Antillen v. Council, [1998] ECR II-455, paras. 33-37.
79. See the references to Cantabria, supra note 7, and Puglia, supra note 6, and text accompanying note 72 supra.
80. This was the ground for inadmissibility in an action brought by the Committee for the Development and Promotion of the Textile and Clothing Industry which policies were determined by the French Government: Case C-282/85, DEFI v. Commission [1986] ECR I-2649, para 18.
81. Case T-214/95, Vlaamse Gewest, supra note 5, para 30; Case T-288/97, Friuli Venezia Giulia, supra note 5, para 34; Cases T-132/96 & T-143/96, Freistaat Sachsen, supra note 5, para 91 (cases always distinguished from the DEFI case, cited supra note 78).
82. Cases T-32/98 & T-41/98, Nederlandse Antillen, supra note 7, para 58.
83. See cases cited in note 76 supra.
84. In Nederlandse Antillen the CFI considered that Art. 109(2) of Decision 91/428/EEC on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the Community had to be considered as an obligation to take into account the specific situation of the given territory: Cases T-32/98 & T-41/98, Nederlandse Antillen, supra note 7, paras. 50-57, relying on an earlier qualification of the same provision in Cases T-480/93 and T-483/93, Antillean Rice Mills a.o. v. Commission [1995] ECR II-2305, paras. 67-78, confirmed by Case C-390/95, Antillean Rice Mills a.o. v. Commission [1999] ECR I-769, paras. 25-28.
85. See Van Nuffel, supra note 46, at pp. 342-346.
86. Id., at 353-358.
87. See Case T-310/97 R, Nederlandse Antillen, supra note 76, where the President of the CFI grounds its prima facie acceptance of admissibility partially also on the involvement of the territory in the proceedings having led to the attacked decision (see para 36).
88. Moreover, the fact that the Treaty articles on State aid only refer to the "Member State" and that Commission decisions on State aid are solely directed against the Member State, is continually highlighted by the Commission as an argument against the admissibility of actions brought by regions against Commission decisions on State aid, see Case T-70/97, Région wallonne, supra note 4, para 14; Case T-288/97, Friuli Venezia Giulia, supra note 5, paras. 14-15; Cases T-132/96 & T-143/96, Freistaat Sachsen, supra note 5, para 67.
89. E.g. the complaint of the Autonomous Community of Rioja against aid granted by the neighbouring province of Alava and Basque Region, leading to Commission Decision of 22 Dec. 1999 on the State aid implemented by Spain for Ramondín SA and Ramondín Cápsulas SA, O.J. 2000, L 318/36 (declaring most of the aid incompatible with the common market). See the actions for annulment brought by the province of Alava, Cases T-168/99 and T-92/00 (supra note 5) and by the Ramondín undertakings (Case T-103/00, O.J. 2000, C 163/35).
90. For such kind of a conflict see the action brought by a German region and the City of Luxembourg before a French administrative court to oppose the licence to dispose of waste granted to a French nuclear power station; the French court requested a preliminary ruling as to the compliance of the licensing procedure with the Euratom Treaty: Case 187/87, Saarland a.o. v. Ministre de l'Industrie, [1988] ECR 5013.
91. It is certainly not an obstacle to actions brought by public entities that such entities may act "on behalf of a certain common interest", as it was argued by the Commission in Case T-288/97, Friuli Venezia Giulia, supra note 5, para 22.
92. Cases T-132/96 & T-143/96, Freistaat Sachsen, supra note 5, paras. 73 and 77.
93. Ibid., paras. 85-86.
94. See notes 56-57 supra and accompanying text.
95. E.g. the action introduced by the Stadt Mainz against Commission decision 96/631/EC on aid granted to a local branch of Siemens (O.J. 1996, L 283/43). The case was removed from the CFI's registry, see note 5 supra.
96. The Council is examining a proposal to enlarge the jurisdiction of the CFI to hear and determine, within certain defined fields, actions for annulment brought by Member States. For further particulars, see Lenaerts and Arts, supra note 13, at p. 13.
97. According to Art. 49(3) EC Statute of the ECJ, an intervening Member State can bring an appeal if it has been unsuccessful, in whole or in part, in its submissions. For the intervention of a Member State in a case before the CFI while it also challenged the same act before the ECJ (which stayed the proceedings until the CFI delivered judgment), see Cases T-371/94 & T-394/94, British Airways a.o. and British Midland Airways v. Commission [1998] ECR 11-2405 (United Kingdom) and Cases T-132/96 & T-143/96, Freistaat Sachsen, supra note 5 (Germany).
98. Thus, the Commission has linked the risk of forum-shopping rather to the introduction of direct actions by decentralized authorities, see Case T-70/97, Région wallonne, supra note 4, para 15.
99. Another difference is that decentralized authorities have to be represented by a lawyer entitled to practise before a court of a Member State, whereas the authority bringing action on behalf of the Member State can have its officials arguing a case as "an agent appointed for each case", if necessary, assisted by an adviser or a lawyer: Art. 17 EC Statute of the ECJ.
100. Case 103/88, Fratelli Costanzo [1989] ECR 1839, paras. 31-33.
101. This has been the ultimate aim to recognize the power of the national judge to set aside national law, even against the wish of the national constitutional court (Case 106/77, Simmenthal, [1978] ECR 629, para 22), and even rules of constitutional nature (Case C-213/89, Factortame e.a., [1990] ECR I-2433, para 20), and to impose the liability of a State for infringements of Community law, even if these are due to legislative acts (Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90, Francovich e.a., [1991] ECR I-5357, paras. 33-36; Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93, Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame, [1996] ECR I-1029, paras. 33-34).
102. Case T-288/97, Friuli Venezia Giulia, supra note 5, para 47.
103. Case 294/83, Les Verts v. European Parliament, [1986] ECR 1339, para 23. See also Case C-321/95 P, Greenpeace Council a.o. v. Commission, [1998] ECR I-1651, paras. 32-33; Case C-73/97 P, France v. Comafrica a.o., [1999] ECR I-185, para 40; Case T-99/94, Asocarne v. Council, [1994] ECR II-871, para 17. For the discussion on whether the system of legal protection is effectively "closed", see Van Nuffel, supra note 46, at pp. 559-574.
104. E.g. Cases C-36/97 and C-37/97, Kellinghusen and Ketelsen, [1998] ECR I-6337 (private person bringing action against a regional authority not complying with a Community measure) and Case C-17/98, Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) v. Aruba, [2000] ECR I-675 (private person requested the judge to prohibit the authorities of Aruba to execute a Community measure whose validity was disputed).
105. When such action is brought by the Commission for the infringement of a directive or a decision addressed to the Member State, the latter is not entitled to raise the claim that such act is unlawful, see Lenaerts and Arts, supra note 13, at p. 109; the situation is less clear if a Member State were to raise an objection of illegality against regulations and similar acts: id., pp. 222-224.
106. For an example of an action brought in another Member State, see supra note 88. Another difficulty may arise when a Community act has full effect without any implementation at national level, see the arguments invoked in Case T-138/98, ACAV e.a. v. Council, [1999] ECR II-1797, paras. 41 and 46-47.
107. Cf. the Commission's argument in Cases T-32/98 & T-41/98, Nederlandse Antillen, supra note 7, para 39.
108. This risk also exists where a national authority submits observations in a preliminary case before the ECJ as a party to the national proceedings or when it intervenes in direct actions brought by private persons against a Community act.
109. See the argument of the Government of Gibraltar in Case C-298/89, Gibraltar, supra note 7, at I-3612 (challenging the exclusion of Gibraltar from a directive liberalizing interregional air trafic on the basis of its expected loss of tax revenue and its loss of profits as owner of the excluded airport terminal).
110. See the leave to intervene granted in Case T-194/95 Intv I, Area Cova v. Council, [1996] ECR II-591, para 7 (Xunta de Galicia); Case T-138/98, ACAV e.a. v. Council, [1999] ECR II-1797, paras. 15-21 (accepted for the Municipality of the Island of Yeu but not for the Department of the Vendée). See also Case T-109/97, Molkerei Grossbraunshain e.a. v. Commission, Order of 24 March 1998, not reported, para 11 (Freistaat Thüringen allowed to intervene in a dispute on a geographical designation bearing the name of a part of its territory).
111. See note 29 supra and accompanying text.
112. Resolution adopted by regional authorities of various Member States meeting on 24-25 April 1990 in Brussels in the conference "Europe of the Regions", as cited by Borchmann, "Konferenzen 'Europa der Regionen' in München und Brüssel", (1990) D.ö.V., 879, at 882, which proposed an amendment to Art. 230(4): Klagen im Sinne von Satz 2 [= current fourth paragraph of Art. 230] können auch Länder, Regionen oder autonome Gemeinschaften eines Mitgliedstaates erheben, soweit sie gemäβ der innerstaatlichen Rechtsordnung durch das Handeln des Rates und der Kommission in eigenen Rechten berührt sein können"). The German Bundesrat embraced this proposal in its resolution of 24 Aug. 1990, see (1990) EuZW, 431.
113. Resolution adopted by regional authorities of various Member States meeting on 24-25 April 1990 in Brussels in the conference "Europe of the Regions", as cited by Borchmann, "Konferenzen 'Europa der Regionen' in München und Brüssel", (1990) D.ö.V., 879, at 882, which proposed an amendment to Art. 230(4): Klagen im Sinne von Satz 2 [= current fourth paragraph of Art. 230] können auch Länder, Regionen oder autonome Gemeinschaften eines Mitgliedstaates erheben, soweit sie gemäβ der innerstaatlichen Rechtsordnung durch das Handeln des Rates und der Kommission in eigenen Rechten berührt sein können"). The German Bundesrat embraced this proposal in its resolution of 24 Aug. 1990, see (1990) EuZW, 431.
114. Opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 21 April 1995 on the revision of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community (O.J. 1996, C 100/1), para B.2 (suggesting to supplement Art. 230 with a provision empowering the ECJ to decide on all actions initiated by regions against a regulation, directive or decision that affects the legislative powers of the region in question).
115. Resolution of the Committee of the Regions of 20 Nov. 1997 on the "Outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC)" (O.J. 1998, C 64/98), para 11, sub d); Opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 17 Feb. 2000 on "the 2000 Intergovernmental Conference" (O.J. 2000, C 156/5), para 5.13.
116. See the common position adopted on 20 Sept. 2000 by the regions qualifying themselves as the "Constitutional Regions" (mainly consisting of Austrian, Belgian, German and Spanish autonomous regions). Beforehand, this position had been already expressed by Flanders and by the German Freistaat Bayern in its resolution of 23 Nov. 1999 (mentioned by Wernicke in (2000) EuZW, at 115).
117. According to the text proposed on 28 Nov. 2000 (CONFER 4812/00), a new paragraph would be inserted after Art. 230(2) EC: "The Court shall for this purpose also have jurisdiction in any action brought by an entity of a Member State to the extent that it has its own law-making powers conferred on it under national constitutional law, on grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of this Treaty or of any rule of law relating to its application, or misuse of powers."
118. See e.g. note 86 supra.
119. Likewise, in Nederlandse Antillen, the CFI may have been influenced by the fact that it was dealing with one of the overseas countries and territories expressly named in Annex II to the EC Treaty. See note 76 supra and accompanying text.
120. See notes 17-19 supra and accompanying text.
121. This is the current limit to the right to bring an action for annulment as granted to the European Parliament, the Court of Auditors and the European Central Bank. For the background of this limit to the Parliament's standing, see Lenaerts and Van Nuffel, Bray (English ed.) Constitutional Law of the European Union (Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1999), para 7-004, at 291. After ratification of the Treaty of Nice, the Parliament will enjoy the same unlimited access as the Member States, the Council and the Commission.
122. I refer to arguments submitted in Case C-376/98, Germany v. European Parliament and Council, Judgment of 5 Oct. 2000, nyr (succesful challenge of Directive 98/43/EC of 6 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products).
123. In that respect, one should welcome the proposal mentioned in note 94 supra.