Regions and the European courts: Giving shape to the regional dimension of member states

European Law Review

Volumn 35, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 609-635

  Lenaerts, Koen ^a   Cambien, Nathan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Actions for annulment; Committee of the regions; EU law; European court of justice; Locus standi; Member states; Regions; Subsidiarily

Indexed keywords

EID: 79751520898     PISSN: 03075400     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (294)

1. Région Wallonne v Commission (C-95/97) [1997] E.C.R. 1-1787 at [30];
2. Regione Toscana v Commission (C-I 80/97) [1997] E.C.R. 1-5245 at [6];
3. Het Vlaamse Gewest (Flemish Region) v Commission (T-2l4/95) [1998] E.C.R. II-717 at [28].
4. The Court of First Instance (CFI) has been replaced by the General Court (GC) by the Treaty of Lisbon. For cases decided before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, reference will consistently be made to the "CFI".
5. See e.g., Government of Communauté française and Gouvernement walton v Gouvernemeni flamand (C-2 12/06) [2008] E.C.R. 1-1683;
6. [2008] 2 C.M.L.R. 31.
7. for example, Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, 57th plenaiy session of November 17 and 18, 2004, [2005] OJ C71/l, para.I.28;
8. Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Draft Report of the European Parliament on the division of powers between the European Union and the Member States" [2002] OJ C 192/31, para.3. 11;
9. Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on "the 2000 Intergovernmental Conference" [2000] OJ C 156/6, para.5. 13;
10. Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the revision of the Treaty on European Union and of the Treaty establishing the European Community, [1996] OJ C 100/I.
11. Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the revision of the Treaty on European Union and of the Treaty establishing the European Community [1996] OJ C100/I, para.B.2.
12. See htlp://www.regleg.eu [Accessed August 4,2010] for an overview of some of these declarations (most recently, the declaration of Turin adopted by the 10th conference of presidents of regions with legislative powers on November 5-6, 2009).
13. See also J. Nergelius, "The Committee of the Regions Today and in the Future - A Critical Overview", in U. Bemitz and S. Weatherill (eds), The Role of Regions and Sub-National Actors in Europe (Oxford: Hart, 2005), pp.126-127.
14. Vlaamse Gewest v Commission (T-214/95) [1998] E.C.R. II-7 17 at [28];
15. Comunidad Autónoma de Cantabria v Council (T-238197) [1998] E.C.R. II-2271;
16. [1999] 3 C.M.L.R. 656 at [43];
17. Nederlandse Antillen v Commission (T-32/98 and T-41/98) [2000] E.C.R. II-20 1;
18. [2002] 1 C.M.L.R. 10 at [45].
19. Parti écologiste "Les Verts" v European Parliament (294/83) [1986] E.C.R. 1339;
20. [1987] 2 C.M.L.R. 343 at [31].
21. For example, SalamanderAG v Parliament and Council (T-l72/98 and T-175/98 to T-177/98) [2000] E.C.R. II-2487;
22. [2000] 2 C.M.L.R. 1099 at [52].
23. Regione Siciliana v Commission (C- 15/06 P) [2007] E.C.R. 1-2591;
24. [2007] 2 C.M.L.R. 32 at [31].
25. Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia v Commission (T-288/97)[1999] E.C.R. II-1871 at [32];
26. Land Oberösterreich and Republic ofAustria v Commission (T-366/03 and T-235/04) [2005] E.C.R. II-4005;
27. [2006] Env. L.R. 24 at [29].
28. "For example, Vlaamse Gewest (T-2 14/95) [1998] E.C.R. II-717;
29. Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia (T-288197) [1999] E.C.R. II-1871;
30. Freisiaat Sachsen (T-132/96 and T-l43/96) [1999] E.C.R. II-3663;
31. [2000] 3 C.M.L.R. 485
32. Upheld on appeal: Freistaat Sachsen v Commission (C-57/00 P and C-6 1/00 P) [2003] E.C.R. 1-9975);
33. Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia v Commission (T-288/97) [2001] E.C.R. II-1169;
34. Diputación Foral de Guipzzcoa v Commission (T-269/99, T-27l/99 and T-272/99) [2002] E.C.R. II-4217;
35. [2003] 1 C.M.L.R. 10;
36. Regione autonoma della Sardegna v Commission (T-200/04) [2005] E.C.R. II-34;
37. Département du Loiret v Commission (T-369/00) [2007] E.C.R. II-851
38. set aside on appeal: Commission of the European Communities v Département du Loiret and Scott SA (C-295/07 P) [2008] E.C.R. 1-9363);
39. Freistaat Sachsen v Commission (T-357/02) [2007] E.C.R. II-1261
40. Set aside on appeal: Commission v Freistaat Sachsen (C-334/07 P) [2008] E.C.R. 1-9465;
41. [2009] 1 C.M.L.R. 42.
42. Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia (T-288/97) [1999] E.C.R. II-1871.
43. Regione Siciliana v Commission (T-60/03) [2005] E.C.R. II-4139.
44. Regione Siciliana (T-60/03) [2005] E.C.R. II-4 139 at [53]-[55].
45. Regione Siciliana (T-60/03) [2005] E.C.R. II-4139 at [56]-[63].
46. Regione Siciliana (C-15/06 P) [2007] E.C.R. 1-2591;
47. [2007] 2 C.M.L.R. 32 at [30]-[38].
48. The ECJ referred to the reasoning used in a parallel case with similar facts: Regione Siciliana v Commission (C-417/04 P) [2006] E.C.R. 1-3881;
49. [2006] 2 C.M.L.R. 64
50. in which the ECJ dismissed the appeal against Regione Siciliana v Commission (T-341/02) [2004] E.C.R. II-2877.
51. The ECJ's reasoning was confirmed, more recently, in Regione Siciliana v Commission (T-363/03) [2008] E.C.R. II-201.
52. Nederlandse Antillen (T-32/98 and T-41/98) [2000] E.C.R. II-201.
53. Commission v Nederlandse Antillen (C-142/00 P) [2003] E.C.R. I-3483;
54. [2004]2 C.M.L.R. 41.
55. Plaumann & Co. v Commission (25/62) [1963] E.C.R. 95, 107;
56. [1964] C.M.L.R. 29.
57. As often confirmed in later case law.
58. Commission v Nederlandse Antillen (C-142/00 P) [2003] E.C.R. I-3483;
59. [2004] 2 C.M.L.R. 41 at [65] et seq.
60. Decision 2001/822 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Community ("Overseas Association Decision") [2001] OJ L 3 14/1.
61. Commission v Nederlandse Antillen (C- 142/00 P) [2003] E.C.R. I-3483;
62. [2004] 2 C.M.L.R. 41 at [74];
63. Região autónoma dos Ac̈ores v Council (T-37/04) [2008] E.C.R. II-103;
64. [2008] 3 C.M.L.R. 30, at [54]-[56]
65. Appeal dismissed by Regiào aulónoma dos A cores v Council (C-444/08) November 26, 2009).
66. Vlaamse Gewest (T-2l4/95) [1998] E.C.R. II-7 17 at [29].
67. Comunidad Auiónomade Cantabria (T-238/97)[1998] E.C.R. II-2271 at [49];
68. Commission v Nederlandse Aniillen (C-142/00 P) [2003] E.C.R. 1-3483;
69. [2004] 2 C.M.L.R. 41 at [69];
70. Regione autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia v Commission (T-417/04) [2007] E.C.R. II-641 at [61];
71. Região aulónoma dos Açores (T-37104) [2008] E.C.R. II-103;
72. [2008] 3 C.M.L.R. 30 at [53].
73. Comunidad Autónoma de Cantabria (T-238197) [1998] E.C.R. II-2271.
74. Commission v Nederlandse Antillen (C-142/00 P) [2003] E.C.R. 1-3483;
75. [2004] 2 C.M.L.R. 41 at [69].
76. Land Oberöslerreich and Austria (T-366/03 and T-235/04) [2005] E.C.R. II-4005;
77. [2006] Env. L.R. 24.
78. Directive 200 1/18 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Directive 90/220 [2001] OJ L106/1.
79. Land Oberösterreich and Austria (T-366/03 and T-235104) [2005] E.C.R. II-4005;
80. [2006] Env. L.R. 24 at [28].
81. The CFI confirmed this holding in Regiao autdnoma dos Acores (T-37/04) [2008] E.C.R. II-103; at [82].
82. However, it concluded that in that case the applicant-region was not prevented from exercising its powers as it saw lit and, hence, that individual concern was not established (see [2008] E.C.R. II-103 at [82]-[88]).
83. Land Oberösterreich and Austria (T-366/03 and T-235/04) [2005] E.C.R. II-4005;
84. [2006] Env. L.R. 24 at [29].
85. Land Oberösterreich andAustria v Commission (C-439/05 P and C-454/05 P) [2007] E.C.R. I-7141;
86. [2007] 3 C.M.L.R. 52.
87. Comilé de développement et de promotion du textile el de I 'habillement DEFI v Commission (2 82/85) [1986] E.C.R. 2469;
88. [1988] 2 CM.L.R. 156 at [18].
89. For example, Nederlandse Antillen (T-32/98 and T-41/98) [2000] E.C.R. II-201 at [58].
90. Land Oberöslerreich and Austria (T-366/03 and T-235/04) [2005] E.C.R. II-4005.
91. Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia(T-288197) [1999] E.C.R. II-1871 at [34].
92. P. Van Nuffel, "What's in a Member State? Central and Decentralized Authorities before the Community Courts" (2001) 38 C.M.L. Rev. 888.
93. Vlaanise Gewest (T-214/95) [1998] E.C.R. II-717 at [30].
94. Article 207(6) TFEU.
95. Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe [2004] OJ C3 10.
96. See the preparatory works of the Convention which drafted the Constitutional Treaty: CONV 734/03, p.20.
97. See, inter alia, J. Usher, "Direct and Individual Concern - an Effective Remedy or a Conventional Solution?" (2003) 28 E.L. Rev. 598;
98. J. MartIn, "Ubi lus, Ibi Remedium? - Locus Standi of Private Applicants under Article 230 (4) EC at a European Constitutional Crossroads" (2004) 11 M.J. 250;
99. R. Barents, "The Court of Justice in the Draft Constitution" (2004) 11 MJ 134;
100. T. Corthaut, "An Effective Remedy for all?" (2005) 12 Tilburg Foreign Law Review 131-133;
101. C. Koch, "Locus Standi of Private Applicants under the EU Constitution: Preserving Gaps in the Protection of Individuals' Right to an Effective Remedy" (2005)30 E.L. Rev. 520;
102. T. Corthaut and F. Vanneste, "Waves between Strasbourg and Luxembourg - The Right of Access to a Court to Contest the Validity of Legislative or Administrative Measures" (2006) 25 Y.E.L. 499-500;
103. K. Lenaerts, D. Arts and I. Maselis, Procedural Law of the European Union (2nd edn) (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2006), pp.327-328.
104. See M. Dougan, "The Treaty of Lisbon 2007: Winning Minds, not Hearts" (2008) 45 C.M.L. Rev. 676-679;
105. F. De Witte, "The European Judiciary after Lisbon" (2008) 15 MJ 47;
106. B. De Witte, "Legal Instruments and Law-Making in the Lisbon Treaty", in S. Griller and J. Ziller (eds), The Lisbon Treaty: EU Constitutionalism without a Constitutional Treaty? (Vienna: Springer, 2008), p.1 02;
107. A. Turk, Judicial Review in EU law (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2009), pp.1 68-169.
108. See arts 290, 291 and 288(4) TFEU, respectively.
109. Article 289(3) TFEU proclaims that "Legal acts adopted by legislative procedure shall constitute legislative acts."
110. In this sense, O. De Schutter, "Les droits fondamentaux dans l'Union européenne (I er janvier 2007-1 er février 2008)" (2008) Journal de droit européen 130.
111. See arts 1-33-1-3 7. For a detailed discussion, see A. von Bogdandy, J. Bast and F. Arndt, "Legal Instruments in European Union Law and their Reform: A Systematic Approach on an Empirical Basis" (2004) 23 Y.E.L. 91-136;
112. K. Lenaerts and M. Desomer, "Towards a Hierarchy of Legal Acts in the Union? Simplification of Legal Instruments and Procedures" (2005) 11 European Law Journal, 744-765;
113. K. Lenaerts, "A Unified Set of Instruments" (2005) 1 EuConst, 57-61;
114. T. Blanchet, "Les instruments juridiques de l'Union et Ia redaction des bases juridiques: situation actuelle et rationalisation dans Ia Constitution" (2005) Revue trimestrielle de droll européen, 3 19-343.
115. See art.289(3) TFEU.
116. See, amongst others, A. von Bogdandy and J. Bast, "La loi européenne: Promise and Pretence", in D. Curtin, A.E. Kellennann and S. Blockmans (eds), The EU Constitution: the best way forward? (The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2005), p.176.
117. Alassini v Telecom Iralia SpA and Wind SpA (C-3 17/08, C-3 18/08, C-3 19/08 and C-320/08) March 18, 2010 at [61] and the case law referred to. See also art.47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
118. See, notably, the judgments in Union de Pequeños Agricultores v Council (C-50/00 P) [2002] E.C.R. 1-6677;
119. [2002] 3 C.M.L.R. 1;
120. Commission v Jégo-Queré (C-263/02 P) [2004] E.C.R I-3425
121. Setting aside Jégo-Quéré v Commission (T-l77/01) [2002] E.C.R. 11-2365;
122. [2002] 2 C.M.L.R. 44 in which the CFI considered that the strict interpretation of the requirement of individual concern had to be reconsidered), which were followed by a lively debate in legal literature.
123. See, inter alia, X. Groussot, "The EC system of legal remedies and effective judicial protection: Does the system really need reform?" (2003) 30 L.I.E.I. 221-248;
124. F. Ragolle, "Access to Justice for Private Applicants in the Community Legal Order: Recent (R)evolutions" (2003)28 E.L. Rev. 90-101;
125. See, inter alia, Albors-Llorens A. "The Standing of Private Parties to Challenge Community Measures: Has the European Court Missed the Boat?" (2003)62(1) Cambridge Law Journal. 72-92. (Pubitemid 36539924)
126. K. Lenaerts and T. Corthaut, "Judicial Review as a Contribution to the Development of European Constitutionalism" (2003)22 Y.E.L. 1, 1-43;
127. C. Brown and J. Morijn, "Case C-263/02 P, Commission v Jego-Queré & Cie SA" (2004)41 C.M.L. Rev. 1639-1659.
128. R. Barents, "The Court of Justice in the Draft Constitution" (2004) 11 M.J. 134.
129. See, hinting at this possibility, S. Flogaitis and A. Pottakis, "Judicial Protection Under the Constitution" (2005) I EU Const. 109.
130. See the defmition in art.288(3) TFEU.
131. Arcelor SA v Parliament and Council (T- 16/04) March 2, 2010.
132. Arcelor SA (T-16104) March 2,2010 at [43].
133. Arcelor SA (T-16/04) March 2,2010 at [92].
134. Arcelor SA (T-16/04) March 2,2010 at [123].
135. Indicidual concern was accepted without further analysis in Regione Siciliana (see above under the heading "Direct concern"). The Commission had not disputed that its decision was of individual concern to the applicant, and the Courts did not fmd it necessary to consider individual concern either. Probably the clear fact that the applicant-region was responsible for supervising the project, made it beyond dispute that it was individually concerned by the contested decision.
136. For example, Regione autonoma della Sardegna (T-200/04) [2005] E.C.R. 11-34;
137. Département du Loirel (T-369/00) [2007] E.C.R. II-851;
138. Freistaat Sachsen (T-357/02) [2007] E.C.R. II-1261.
139. See, for example, the regulations challenged in Commission v Nederlandse Antillen (C-142/00 P) [2003] E.C.R. I-3483;
140. [2004] 2 C.M.L.R. 41;
141. Comunidad Autónoma de Caniabria (T-238/97) [1998] E.C.R. II-2271;
142. Região autónoma dos A cores (T-37/04) [2008] E.C.R. II-103;
143. [2008] 3 C.M.L.R. 30.
144. Région Wallonne (C-95/97) [1997] E.C.R. 1-1787 at [30];
145. Regione Toscana (C-180/97) [1997] E.C.R. I-5245 at [6];
146. Vlaamse Gewest (T-214195) [1998] E.C.R. II-717 at [28].
147. R Van Nuffel, "What's in a Member State? Central and Decentralized Authorities before the Community Courts" (2001) 38 C.M.L. Rev. 880.
148. Protocol (No.2) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality [2008] OJ C115/206.
149. On the question whether the national government is obliged to notify the action decided by a (chamber of a) national parliament or whether it has some discretion in this regard, see J.-V. Louis, "National Parliaments and the Principle of Subsidiarity - Legal Options and Practical Limits" (2008) 4 EU Const. 440-441.
150. See art.8l(7) of the Bijzondere Wet Hervorming Instellingen (BWHI) (Special Institutional Reform Law) of August 8, 1980.
151. Articles 5 and 6 of the Samenwerkingsakkoord tussen de Federale Staat, de Gemeenschappen en de Gewesten over de rechtsgedingvoering voor een internationaal of supranationaal rechtscollege in een gemengd geschil (Cooperation Agreement on litigation before international and supranational courts in mixed disputes) of July 11, 1994 (B.S. December 1, 1994). The Cooperation Agreement was adopted on the basis of art.92bis s.4ter BWHI.
152. Article 81 s.7(2) BWHI. For a more detailed discussion, see J. Velaers, "In foro interno et in foro extemo': de internationale bevoegdheden van Gemeenschappen en Gewesten" in G. Geudens and F. Judo (eds), Internationale betrekkingen enfederalisme: staatsrechtconferentie 2005 (Brussels: Larcier, 2006), pp.68-72.
153. Declaration by the Kingdom of Belgium on national Parliaments [2008] OJ C115/355.
154. Samenwerkingsakkoord tussen de Federate Welgevende Kamers, de parlemenren van de Gemeenschappen en de parlementen van de Gewesien ter Uitvoering van her Protocol betreffende de toepassing van de beginselen van subsidiariteit en evenredigheid gehecht aan het Verdrag lot vasistelling van een Gmndwet voor Europa, geparafeerd le Brussel op 19 december 2005 (ParL St. V1.Parl. 2005-06, nr.628/1).
155. As is clear from a draft cooperation agreement between the Belgian parliaments "concerning the exercise of the competences conferred by the Treaty of Lisbon upon national parliaments" (see Parl. St. Vl. Parl. 2007-08, nr. 1807/1).
156. See arts 263 and 265 TFEU.
157. See s7(1) of the Gesetz über die Zusammenarbeit von Bund und LAndern in Angelegenheiten der Europaischen Union (Law on Cooperation between the Federation and the Lander in Matters relating to the European Union) of March 12, 1993 (BGBI. I s.313), last modified by Law of September 22, 2009 (BGBI. IS. 3031).
158. C. Mellein, Subsidiaritätskontrolle durch nationale Parlamente. Eine Untersuchung zur Rolle der mirgliedstaatlichen Parlamente in der Archireklur Europas (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2007), p.322.
159. Secton 7(2) of the Gesetz uber die Zusammenarbeit von Bund und Landern in Angelegenheiten der Europǎischen Union.
160. Section 7(3) of the Gesetz uber die Zusammenarbeit von Bund und Lǎndern in Angelegenheiten der Europaischen Union. A particular case are the so-called financial corrections imposed by the European Union (Gesetz über die Zusammenarbeit von Bund und LAndern in Angelegenheiten der Europaischen Union, s.7(4);
161. See Regulation 448/2001 of March 2,2001 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation 1260/1999 as regards the procedure for making financial corrections to assistance granted under the Structural Funds [2001] OJ L64/l3). Where various Lander are affected by such financial corrections and they want to bring an action against them, the federal government is compelled to do so. Accordingly, in this case it is not the Bundesrat, but the affected Länder that can compel the federal government to bring action before the European Courts.
162. See art.23(la) of the Basic Law, the first sentence of which reads: "The Bundestag and the Bundesrat shall have the right to bring an action before the Court of Justice of the European Union against a legislative act of the European Union on grounds of infringement of the principle of subsidiarity" (our own translation).
163. This provision was added by the Amending Act of October 8,2008 (BGBI. I S. 1926) and entered into force on December 1,2009, the day of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.
164. For a discussion, see U. Derpa, "Mitwirkung der deutschen Länder in EU-Angelegenheiten, Mitwirkungskompensation, Entflechtung der Kompetenzen und informelle Netzwerkkooperation von Bund und Ländern in der Europapolitik" in H. Scheller and J. Schmid (eds), Föderale Politikgestaltung im Deutschen Bundesstaat. Variable Verflechtungsmuster in Politikfeldern (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2008), pp.1 54-156;
165. M. Suszycka-Jasch and H.-C. Jasch, "The participation of the German Länder in formulating German EU-policy" (2009) 10 German Law Journal, 1247-1252.
166. See s. 12(3) and (4) of the Gesetz über die Wahrnehmung der Integrationsverantwortung des Bundestages und des Bundesrates in Angelegenheiten der Europaischen Union (Integrationsverantwortungsgesetz) of September 22, 2009 (BGBI I. S. 3022), last modified by law of December 1,2009 (BGBI 1. S. 3822).
167. The precise modalities for reaching a decision in the Bundesrat in this regard are to be laid down by the Bundesrat in its Rules of Procedure (s. 12(2) of the Integrationsverantwortungsgesetz).
168. See the "Beschluss der Ministerpräsidentenkonferenz" of April 14,2005 (which concerns the identical provision contained in the Subsidiarity Protocol annexed to the EU Constitution), available at http.//www.berlin.de/rbmskzl/dokumentation/mpk/ergebnissel4O4O5.html [Accessed August 4, 2010].
169. See A. Eppler, "Multi-Level Governance in Europe - The Implication of German Lander in the Development of the Lisbon Treaty and the Strengthening of the Regional Level in Europe", Hebrew University International Law Research Paper No.09-08 (available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1271283 [Accessed August 4, 2010]), p.9.
170. For more detailed discussion on the role of UK devolved authorities in the implementation and enforcement of EU law, see C. Boch, "Devolution and Community Law", in M. Hoskins and W. Robinson (eds) A True European. Essays for Judge David Edward (Oxford: Hart, 2003), pp.47-66;
171. A. Ross and M.S. Crespo, "The effect of devolution on the implementation of European Community law in Spain and the United Kingdom" (2003)28 E.L. Rev. 210-230;
172. A. Evans, "UK devolution and EU law" (2003) 28 E.L. Rev. 475-492;
173. C. Carter and A. McLeod, "The Scottish Parliament and the European Union: Analysing Regional Parliamentary Engagement", in U. Bemitz and S. Weatherill (eds), The Role of Regions and Sub-National Actors in Europe (Oxford: Hart, 2005), pp.67-87.
174. See Sched.2 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, s.3 and Sched.5 to the Scotland Act 1998, s.7(1). For Wales, this follows from the fact that the Government of Wales Acts 1998 and 2006 do not confer any competence in the field of international relations.
175. Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998s.7(2)(b).
176. Memorandum of Understanding and Supplementary Agreements between the United Kingdom Government, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, and the Northern Ireland Executive Committee (first published in December 2001; most recent version published in March 2010).
177. The EU concordat provides that: "In appropriate cases the leaders of the delegation could agree to Ministers from the devolved administrations speaking for the UK in Council, and that they would do so with the full weight of the UK behind them" at B4.14.
178. EU concordat at B4.24.
179. See the Report of the House of Lords "The Treaty of Lisbon: an Impact Assessment" (10th Report of 2007-08 Session, March 2008), which states in relation to the Subsidiarity Protocol that "In the UK, the 'national parliament' is the Westminster Parliament.
180. It does not include the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales or Northern Ireland Assembly" (at para. 11.18). See also the Discussion paper of January 12, 2010 of the European and External Affairs Committee of the National Assembly for Wales: "Implications for the National Assembly for Wales of the Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality (Protocol no.2) contained in the Lisbon Treaty", Point 4.
181. See the Memorandum of Understanding atpara.2 and the EU concordatatBl.2, B2.2 and B3.2.
182. For general discussions of the Committee, see T. Christiansen and P. Lintner, "The Committee of the Regions after 10 Years: Lessons from the Past and Challenges for the Future" (2005) Eipascope 7-13;
183. S. Piattoni, "The Committee of the Regions: Multi-Level Governance after Enlargement" in E. Best, T. Christiansen and P. Settembri (eds), The Institutions of the Enlaed European Union: Continuity and Change (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2008), pp.162-182;
184. E. Domorenok, "The Committee of the Regions: in Search of Identity" (2009) 19 Regional and Federal Studies 143-163.
185. The Committee did not have this prerogative under art.230(3) EC. It was also doubtful whether the Committee could bring an action for annulment as a legal person under art.230(4) EC, as it appeared to lack legal personality.
186. Article 8(2) of the Subsidiarity Protocol.
187. The Committee must be consulted by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission where the treaties so provide (art.307(4) TFEU (ex art.265(5) EC)). In addition, it may be consulted in other instances in which one of these institutions considers it appropriate, in particular those which concern cross-border co-operation (art.307( 1) TFEU). Furthermore, the Committee may issue an opinion on its own initiative in cases in which it considers such action appropriate (art.307(4) TFEU (ex art .265(5) EC)).
188. A clear parallel can be drawn in this regard with the considerably strengthened position of the European Parliament after the Court acknowledged the right of the Parliament to bring actions against other institutions (notably in European Parliament v Council (C-70/88) [1990] E.C.R. I-2041;
189. [1992] 1 C.M.L.R. 91.
190. See J. Nergelius, "The Committee of the Regions Today and in the Future - A Critical Overview", in U. Bernitz and S. Weatherill (eds.), The Role of Regions and Sub-National Actors in Europe (Oxford: Hart, 2005), p.1 29.
191. See also A.-L. Hogenauer, "The Impact of the Lisbon Reform Treaty on Regional Engagement in EU Policy-Making - Continuity or Change?" (2008) 10 Eur. J.L. Reform 552
192. Who is more sceptical about the possibilities for the Committee to use this right to increase its influence on EU decision-making.
193. T. Christiansen and P. Lintner, "The Committee of the Regions after 10 Years: Lessons from the Past and Challenges for the Future" (2005) Eipascope 10.
194. For example, SA Roquette Frères v Council (138/79) [1980] E.C.R. 3333 at [33].
195. One of the reasons for this is that consultation may affect the substance of the measure adopted (Commission v Council (165/87) [1988] E.C.R. 5545;
196. [1990] 1 C.M.L.R. 457 at [20].
197. Another one is that consultation constitutes an essential factor in the institutional balance intended by the treaties (Roquette Frères (138/79) [19801 E.C.R. 3333 at [33];
198. ECJ, Case 139/79 Maizena GmbH v Council (139/79) [1980] E.C.R. 3393 at [34]).
199. Roquette Frères (138/79) [1980] E.C.R. 3333 at [34];
200. Maizena GmbH(139/79) [1980] E.C.R. 3393 at [35].
201. Eumpean Parliament v Council (C-65/93) [1995] E.C.R. 1-643 at [24]-[28].
202. For example, European Parliament v Council (C-65/9 1) [1992] E.C.R. 1-4593 at [16].
203. See, in this connection, the Cooperation Agreement between the European Commission and the Committee of the Regions of November 17, 2005 (replacing an earlier cooperation agreement of September 20, 2001), available at hrtp://www.cor.europa.eu/ [Accessed August 4, 2010].
204. Point 9 of the Cooperation Agreement states that: "To enable the Committee to prepare regular impact assessment reports of its work, the Commission shall provide it twice a year with substantive replies, setting out the reasons why the comments contained in the opinion have or have not been taken into account, if this proves necessary" and that: "When the Committee formally recommends amendments to a Commission proposal, the Commission shall refer to the recommendations if it amends its proposals."
205. Opinions of the Committee will invariably assess whether a draft measure is in conformity with the principle of subsidiarity, more specifically by verifying whether regional interests are sufficiently being taken into account.
206. See in this regard: "The Committee of the Regions and the implementation and monitoring of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in the light of the Constitution for Europe", study by the Committee of the Regions and the European University Institute Florence (Brussels: Office for Official Publications of the EC, 2006).
207. For example, Société française des Biscuits Delacre e.a. v Commission (C-350/88) [1990] E.C.R. 1-395 at [15].
208. Decision 99/468 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission [1999] OJ L184/23, as amended by Decision 2006/5 12 of July 17, 2006 [2006] OJ L200/lI.
209. Before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the composition was laid down in Art.263 EC, which accorded each Member State a number of members, fixed with regard to the size of their population, with a total of 344 members.
210. In accordance with art.8 of Protocol 36 on Transitional Provisions [2008] OJ C 115/322, this composition remains in place until the Council has taken a decision on the composition of the Committee. Accordingly, the most recent appointment of Committee members happened in accordance with the composition laid down in art.8 of the said Protocol (see Decision of December 22, 2009 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from January 26, 2010-January 25, 2015 [2009] OJ L348/22).
211. This is at least the case for the present composition (see art.8 of Protocol 36 on Transitional Provisions), which will change once the Council adopts a decision under art.305 TFEU. It seems very likely that the Council decision will still attribute a number of members for each Member State in relation to the size of their population.
212. See, in this regard, the "Recommendations to the European Commission and to the Council on the future composition of the Committee of the Regions" submitted by the President of the Committee for debate (RJCdR 283/2009 item 6).
213. See fn.5 above and accompanying text.
214. See the overview available at the website of the Committee: http://www.cor.europa.eu/pages/PresentationTemplate.aspx?view=folder&id= 0bf67186-4612-4621-bd2e-117345dea133&sm0bf67186-4612-4621-bd2e-117345dea133 [Accessed August 4, 2010].
215. For a detailed study, see C. Honnige and A. Kaiser, "Opening the Black Box. Decision-making in the Committee of the Regions" (2003) 13 Regional and Federal Studies 1, 1-29. (Pubitemid 36990926)
216. Rules of Procedure of the Committee of the Regions r. 13(g) [20101 OJ L6/14 (replacing the previous version, published in [2007] OJ L23/1). Actions before the Court of Justice are brought by the President of the Committee on behalf of the Committee (r.13(g)). Commissions take their decision by a majority of the votes cast (rr.53 and 54).
217. Rule 36(j); the Bureau takes such decisions by a majority of the votes cast (r.37(3)). The Bureau consists of the President, the first Vice-President, one Vice-President per Member State, 27 other members and the chairmen of the political groups (r.29).
218. Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, December 2009, r. 128.
219. J. Nergelius, "The Committee of the Regions Today and in the Future - A Critical Overview", in U. Bernitz and S. Weatherill (eds), The Role of Regions and Sub-National Actors in Europe (Oxford: Hart, 2005) pp.123-124.
220. In this sense, T. Cole, "The Committee of the Regions and subnational representation to the European Union" (2005) 12 M.J. 69.
221. Articles 16(3) TEU and 300 TFEU.
222. T. Cole, "The Committee of the Regions and subnational representation to the European Union" (2005) 12 M.J. 59.
223. Porrugal v Commission (C-88/03) [2006] E.C.R. I-7115;
224. [2006] 3 C.M.L.R. 45
225. With case notes by C. Arhold in (2006) EUZW 717-721;
226. S. Moreno Gonzalez in (2007) European Taxation 328-338;
227. W. Lindsay-Poulsen in (2008) E.C.L.R. 43-49;
228. J. Winter in (2008) 45 C.M.L. Rev. 183-198
229. C. Zatschler in (2006) EStAL 779-783.
230. See also R. Greaves, "Autonomous regions, taxation and EC state-aid rules" (2009) 34 E.L. Rev. 779-793.
231. Decision 2003/442 on the part of the scheme adapting the national tax system to the specific characteristics of the Autonomous Region of the Azores which concerns reductions in the rates of income and corporation tax [2003] OJ Ll50/52. However, the Commission also considered that the scheme was justified under the derogation of art.87(3)(a) EC (now art.107(3)(a) TFEU), taking into account the specific situation of the Azores as an outermost region within the meaning of art.299(2) EC (see now art.349 TFEU) except insofar as it applied to firms that carry on fmancial activities or activities of the "intra-group services" type (art.299(2) EC).
232. See, for example, Germany v Commission (C-156/98) [2000] E.C.R. I-6857 at [26]-[28].
233. For further discussion, see, inter alia, W. Schön, "Taxation and State Aid Law in the European Union" (1999)36 C.M.L. Rev. 911-936;
234. C. Quigley, "General Taxation and State Aid", in A. Biondi, P. Eeckhout and J. Flynn (eds), The Law of State Aid in the European Union (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp.207-217;
235. J. Winter, "Re(de)fining the notion of State Aid in Article 87.1 of the EC Treaty" (2004)41 C.M.L. Rev. 505-532;
236. P. Nicolaides, "Fiscal State Aid in the EU: The Limits of Tax Autonomy" (2004) 27 World Competition 365-396.
237. For the requirement of selectivity, see Italy v Commission (C-66/02) [2005] E.C.R. I-10901 at [94].
238. The Commission referred to its Notice of December 10, 1998 on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation [1998] OJ C384/3 at [17] of which states: "The Commission's decision-making practice so far shows that only measures whose scope extends to the entire territory of the State escape the specificity criterion laid down in Article [107(1) TFEU]."
239. Iraly v Commission (C-66/02) [2005] E.C.R. I-10901 at [38]-[40].
240. Italy v Commission (C-66/02) [2005] E.C.R. I-10901 at [54]-[66].
241. Italy v Commission (C-66102) [2005] E.C.R. I-10901 at [67]-[681.
242. Opinion of A.G. Geethoed in Portugal v Commission (C-88/03) [2006] E.C.R. I-7115;
243. [2006] 3 C.M.L.R. 45 at [54].
244. The ECJ itself embraced these expressions in Unión General de Trabajadores de la Rioja v Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya (C-428/06, C-429/06, C-430/06, C-43 1/06, C-432106, C-433/06 and C-434/06)
245. [2008] E.C.R. 1-6747, although it referred to the third condition as the criterion of "economic and financial autonomy" (at [51]).
246. Opinion of A.G. Geelhoed in Portugal v Commission (C-88/03) [2006] E.C.R. I-7115;
247. [2006] 3 C.M.L.R. 45 at [691-[79].
248. ECJ held that the tax reductions were not justified by the nature and overall structure of the Portuguese tax system
249. Opinion of A.G. Geelhoed in Portugal v Commission (C-88/03) [2006] E.C.R. 1-7115;
250. [2006] 3 C.M.L.R. 45 at [80]-[85].
251. Unión Generalde Trabaf adores de Ia Rioja (C-428/06, C-429/06, C-430/06, C-43 1/06, C-432/06, C-433/06 and C-434/06) [2008] E.C.R. I-6747.
252. For a discussion, see the case notes by D. Armesto in (2009) European Taxation 11-19
253. H. Bielesz in (2009) EStAL 383-389.
254. Tax measures of the Historical Territories had already been the subject of a significant number of cases before the ECJ and CFI. A.G. Kokott in her Opinion states that more than 40 cases in this connection had already been brought before the European Courts.
255. Opinion of A.G. Kokott in Unión Generalde Trabajadores de la Rioja (C-428/06, C-429/06, C-430/06, C-43 1/06, C-432106, C-433/06 and C-434/06) [2008] E.C.R. 1-6747 at [5]).
256. Among the most recent ones, see Diputacion Foral de Álava and Others v Commission (T-30/0l to T-32/Ol and T-86/02 to T-88/02) September 9, 2009.
257. Unión General de Trabajadores de Ia Rioja (C-428!06, C-429/06, C-430/06, C-431/06, C-432/06, C-433/06 and C-434/06) [2008] E.C.R. 1-6747 at [50].
258. Unión General de Trabajadores de Ia Rioja (C-428/06, C-429/06, C-430/06, C-43 1/06, C-432/06, C-433/06 and C-434/06) [2008] E.C.R. I-6747 at [53]-[60].
259. Unión General de Trabajadores de Ia Rioja (C-428/06, C-429/06, C-430/06, C-431/06, C-432/06, C-433/06 and C-434/06) [2008] E.C.R. I-6747 at [108]
260. Unión General de Trabajadores de Ia Rioja (C-428/06, C-429106, C-430/06, C-431/06, C-432/06, C-433/06 and C-434/06) [2008] E.C.R. 1-6747 at [107].
261. The ECJ held in this connection that the mere fact that decisions by a region are subject to judicial review by the courts of the Member States to which they belong does not as such call into question their procedural autonomy, where these courts review compliance with the pre-established limits on the areas of competence of the different State authorities, organs or bodies, but do not determine those limits (at [791-483]).
262. [2008] E.C.R. I-6747 at [123]-[135].
263. See the detailed discussion in J. Bousin and J. Piernas, "Developments in the Notion of Selectivity" (2008) EStAL 643-653.
264. Gibraltar v Commission (T-2 11/04 and T-2 15/04) [2008] E.C.R. II-3745.
265. An appeal is currently pending before the ECJ (see Commission and Spain v Gibraltar and United Kingdom (C- 106/09 P and C- 107/09 P).
266. For a discussion, see P. Rossi-Maccanico, "Gibraltar and the Unsettled Limits of Selectivity in Fiscal Aids" (2009) EStAL 63-72.
267. Unión General de Thabajadores de la Rioja (C-428/06, C-429/06, C-430/06, C-431/06, C-432/06, C-433/06 and C-434/06) [2008] E.C.R. I-6747 at [891-f 116].
268. Presidente del Consiglio del Ministri v Regione Sardegna (C- 169/08) November 17, 2009, in which the ECJ considered that a regional tax on stopovers for tourist purposes, adopted by the Region of Sardinia, was selective since it was only applicable to operators of aircraft or pleasure boats whose tax domicile was outside Sardinia (at [56]-[63]).
269. For other examples, see Terrilorio Histórico de Álava v Commission (T- 127/99, T- 129/99 and T- 148/99) [2002] E.C.R. II-1275;
270. Terrjgorio Hjsgórico de Alava v Commission (T-92/00 and T-1 03/00) [2002] E.C.R. II-1385.
271. In which regional tax measures were held to be materially selective rather than regionally selective (upheld on appeal: Daewoo Electronics Manufacturing Espana SA (DEMESA) and Territorio Histórico de Alava v Commission (C- 183/02 P and C-187/02 P) [2004] E.C.R. I-10609;
272. [2005] 1 C.M.L.R. 31;
273. Ramondin SA v Commission (C-l86/02 P and C-188/02 P) [2004] E.C.R. I-10653;
274. [2005] 1 C.M.L.R. 32, respectively.
275. See the three scenarios distinguished by the Court in Portugal v Commission (C-88/03) [2006] E.C.R. I-7115;
276. [2006] 3 C.M.L.R. 45 at [63]-[65] (referring to the Opinion of A.G. Geethoed at [50]-[54]).
277. See also the Report of February 9,2004 on the implementation of the Commission notice on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation, C(2004)434, para.33.
278. In addition, Spain and the United Kingdom intervened in the Azores case in favour of the Portuguese tax system (see [2008] E.C.R. 1-6747 at [45] and [49]).
279. In Belgium, the devolution of tax powers to regions and municipalities should probably be classified as "symmetrical", but it remains uncertain to what extent symmetry is required in order to escape the test of the three criteria set out by the ECJ (E. Mattioli, M. Vervoort and T. Bruyninckx, "Fiscale voordelen vanwege regionale en lokale overheden: onder staatssteunbedreiging?" (2009) TijdschrUi voor Fiscaal Recht 387-403).
280. See already Commission v Netherlands (96/8 1) [1982] E.C.R. 1791 at [12].
281. In this connection, the Court has consistently held that Member States are not entitled to hide behind the internal division of powers in order to avoid the Court of Justice making a finding of infringement of EU law (see, for example, Commission vBelgium (69/8 1) [1982] E.C.R. 153 at [5]).
282. For further discussion, see K. Lenaerts and P. Van Nuffel, Constitutional Law of the European Union, 2nd edn (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2005), pp.535-537.
283. R. (on the application of Horvath) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (C-428/07) [2009] E.C.R. I-6355
284. With a case note by R. Barents in (2009) Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht 294-297.
285. Regulation 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations 2019/93, 1452/2001, 1453/2001, 1454/2001, 1868/94, 1251/1999, 1254/1999, 1673/2000, 2358/71 and 2529/2001 [2003] 03 L270/l.
286. Horvath (C-428/07) [2009] E.C.R. 1-6355 at [55].
287. The Court referred to Firma J van dem en Zonen (185/78-204/78) [1979] E.C.R. 2345;
288. [1980] 1 C.M.L.R. 350 at [10];
289. Perfilli (C-i 77/94) [1996] E.C.R. I-161 at [17];
290. Schempp v Finanzamt Munchen V (C-403/03) [2005] E.C.R. I-6421;
291. [2005] 3 C.M.L.R. 37 at [34].
292. Interesting to note in this regard is that A.G. Trstenjak in her Opinion in the 1-lorvath case explicitly referred to the criteria developed by the ECJ for assessing regional selectivity in State aid cases. The A.G. considered that the same approach was to be applied mutatis mutandis to the situation of that case "because the criteria employed by the Court are an aid in assessing the existence of a situation which, irrespective of the sector-specific terminology - 'selectivity' in the case of the law on aid - ultimately constitutes no more than a difference in treatment between economic operators."
293. Opinion of A.G. Trstenjak in Horvath (C-428/07) [2009] E.C.R. 1-6355.
294. Opinion of A.G. Kokott in Unión General de Trabajadores de Ia Rioja (C-428/06, C-429/06, C-430/06, C-431/06, C-432/06, C-433/06 and C-434/06) [2008] E.C.R. 1-6747 at [54]-[57].