Protecting the interests of civil society in community decision—making—the limits of article 230 EC

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 52, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 995-1012

  Cygan, Adam ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33846514422     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/iclq/52.4.995     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. COM(2001) 428 European Governance-A White Paper.
2. Laeken Declaration on the Future of Europe, Dec 2001. Available at .
3. See D Curtin, Postnational Democracy: The European Union in search of a Political Philosophy (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1997), 90.
4. For an illustration of this point and a comprehensive overview of the post-1990 case law under Art 230 EC see A Arnull, ‘Private Actions and the Application for Annulment since Cordoniu’ (2001) 38 CMLRev 7.
5. Case 302/87 European Parliament v Council (Comitology) [1988] ECR 5615. The Court of Justice declined to follow the view of Advocate-General Darmon who argued that Parliament should be a privileged applicant for the purposes of protecting its right to participate in the comi-tology process.
6. However, in Case C-70/88 European Parliament v Council (Chernobyl) [1990] ECR I-2041 less than 20 years later the Court of Justice accepted the institutional balance arguments of Advocate-General Darmon and extended the position of privileged applicant to the European Parliament specifically in those circumstances when it seeks to protect its own privileges. This is discussed more fully below.
7. Case T-177/01 Jégo-Quéré et Cie SA v Commission [2002] ECR II-2365.
8. Case C- 50/00 Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council [2002] ECR I-6677.
9. This issue has been the subject of much academic debate for many years. See, eg, Usher, J ‘Judicial review of Community acts and the private litigant’, in A Campbell and M Voyatzi (eds), Legal Reasoning and Judicial Interpretation of Community Law (1996), 121
10. A. Arnull, ‘Private Applicants and the Action for Annulment under Article 173 of the EC Treaty’ (1995) 32 CMLRev 7
11. N. Neuwahl, ‘Article 173 Paragraph 4 EC: Past, Present and Possible Future’ (1996) 21 ELRev 17.
12. A term used quite frequently by the English courts. See, eg, Greenpeace No 2 below.
13. For more on this issue see E Szyszczak, ‘Golden Shares and Market Governance’ [2002] 29 Legal issues of Economic Integration, 255.
14. See, eg, Belgian law: Conseil d'État, Ville de Liège et Heze, 20.9.91, No 37.676
15. German Law: Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) 1.12.82 BverwGE 66, 307 (crab-fishermen case)
16. Italian law: TAR Lazio, 20.1.95, No 62 Foro Italiano 1995 II-460
17. French law: Conseil d'État, 24.6.91, Soc Côte d'Azur, Lebon, 1110.
18. See, eg, the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-585/93 Greenpeace and Others v Commission [1995] ECR II-2205
19. para 51 and approved by the Court of Justice in Case C-321/95P Stichting Greenpeace Council (Greenpeace International and Others) v Commission [1998] ECR I 1651. Discussed below.
20. See, eg, C-11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft [1970] ECR 1125
21. Case 44/79 Hauer v Lad Rheinland-Pfalz [1979] ECR 3727
22. Brunner v The European Union Treaty [1994] 1 CMLR 57.
23. This was the view of the Court of First Instance in Greenpeace, at 2230–2232.
24. See, eg, the judgment of Lord Wilberforce in IRC v National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] 2 AC 617, at 630
25. Scheimann J in R v Secretary of State for Environment Ex parte Rose Theatre Trust Co [1990] 1 QB 504, at 520.
26. R v Inspectorate of Pollution and another, Ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No 2) [1994] 4 All ER 329.
27. All ER, at 350.
28. Case C-321/95 Stichting Greenpeace Council (Greenpeace International) v Commission [1998] ECR I-1651, discussed below.
29. R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Ex parte World Development Movement Ltd [1995] 1 All ER 611.
30. Rose LJ discussed this issue at 626–627.
31. See A Tomkins, ‘Judges Dam(n) the Government’, vol 7, King's College Law Journal (1996–1997) 91.
32. Rules of the Supreme Court at 712.
33. A similar argument was put forward by Orton J in Greenpeace (No 2).
34. For further discussion of these issues see C Harlow, ‘Public Law and Popular Justice’ (2002) 65 MLR 1.
35. See the judgment of the Court in Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council, at para 29. This hostility can be traced back to the early years of the EC. See, eg, Cases 16 & 17/62 Confédération Nationale des Fruits et Producteurs des Fruits et Légumes v Council [1962] ECR 471.
36. The call for an extension of the right to locus standi before the European Court of Justice is not a new phenomenon and has been advanced by several commentators as a part of the solution to the EU's democratic deficit. See, eg, C Harlow, ‘Towards a Theory of Standing for the European Court of Justice’ (1992) 12 Yearbook of European Law 213
37. D. Feldman, ‘Public Interest Litigation and Constitutional Theory in Comparative Perspective’ (1992) 55 MLR 44.
38. Yearbook of European Law, at para 25.
39. See further A Arnull, ‘Does the Court of Justice have inherent jurisdiction?’ (1990) 27 CMLRev 683.
40. Judgment of the Court, para 45.
41. Judgment of the Court, para 27.
42. See Harlow, at 39 above, at 16.
43. For an annotation of the Greenpeace judgment, see F Berrod, (1999) 36 CMLRev 635.
44. ECR I-1653, at 1681, para 74
45. Directive 85/337/EEC of the Council, 27 June 1985, OJ 1985, L175/40.
46. OJ, para 79.
47. Judgment of the Court, at para 28.
48. Preamble to Council Directive 85/337 EEC.
49. See, eg, Case 26/76 Metro v Commission [1977] ECR 1875.
50. Judgment of the Court, at paras 28ñ9.
51. Case 169/84 Cofaz v Commission [1986] ECR 391.
52. Case 358/89 Extramet Industries v Council [1991] ECR I-2501.
53. eg, such procedural guarantees are contained within Council Regulation 4064/89. On the Control of Concentration Between Undertakings (The Merger Regulation) OJ 1990 L257/90.
54. Judgment of the Court, at para 16.
55. Judgment of the Court, para 18.
56. Judgment of the Court.
57. Case 302/86 Commission v Denmark [1988] ECR 4607, at para 9.
58. Opinion of Advocate General Cosmas, at para 117.
59. In the context of environmental matters before the Court there are several other cases of failed attempts by NGOs to review Community measures. See, eg, Case T-461/93 An Taisce v Commission [1994] ECR II-733
60. Case T-219/95R Danielsson v Commission [1995] ECR II-3051.
61. See Berrod above, at 50.
62. Council Directive 90/313 on freedom of access to environmental information, OJ 1990 L158/56.
63. For a further discussion on the impact of the Aarhus Convention on EU environmental law generally see J Scott, ‘Law and Environmental Governance in the EU’ (2002) 51 ICLQ 996.
64. Proposal from the Commission of 29 June 2000 for a Directive on public access to environmental information, OJ 2000 C337/156.
65. See R Macrory and S Turner, ‘Participatory rights, transboundary environmental governance and EC law’, 39 (2002) Common Market Law Review 489, at 519.
66. See, eg, L Krämer, ‘Public Interest Litigation in Environmental matters before the European Courts’ (1996) 8 Journal of Environmental Law 1
67. N. Gerard, ‘Access to Justice in Environmental Matters-A Case of Double Standards’ (1996) 8 Journal of Environmental Law 139
68. Scott above at n 73.
69. Case C-309/89 Cordoniu SA v Council [1994] ECR I-1853.
70. The effective protection of a citizen's fundamental rights has already been acknowledged by the Court, where the rights contained within Art 13 of the ECHR for effective judicial protection have readily been protected by the Court of Justice. See, eg, Case 222/84 Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [1986] ECR 1651.
71. See AW Bradley, ‘Administrative Justice: A Developing Human Right’ (1995) 1 European Public Law 347.
72. Judgment of the CFI, at para 47.
73. Judgment of the CFI.
74. Judgment of the CFI, para 49.
75. See, eg, Case C-173/99 R. v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ex parte BECTU [2001] ECR I-4881.
76. Case T-122/96 [1997] ECR II-1559.