Locus standi rules for challenges to regulatory acts by private applicants: The new article 263(4) TFEU

European Law Review

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 542-550

  Baithasar, Stephan ^a  

^a Linklaters LLF ^*  (Germany)

Author keywords

EU law; European court of justice; Jurisdiction; Locus standi; Purposive interpretation; Treaty interpretation

Indexed keywords

EID: 79851475440     PISSN: 03075400     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (121)

1. See generally on the standing rules for non-privileged applicants under art.230(4) EC: A. Arnull et al., Wyatt and Dashwoodc European Union law, 5th edn (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2006), paras 13-035-13-043;
2. P. Craig and G. de Bürca, EU Law: Text, Cases and Materials, 4th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp.509-528;
3. S. Weatherill, Cases and Materials on EU Law, 8th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp.255-270.
4. The provisions in art.230(4) EC were identical to those contained in art. 173(2) of the 1957 version of the Treaty.
5. See Japan Tobacco Inc v Parliament (T-223/0 1) [2002] E.C.R. 11-3 259 (but arguably this Decision recognised at least the theoretical possibility of direct concern even in the case of Directives;
6. see M-P. Granger, "Standing for the judicial review of Community acts potentially harmful to the environment: some light at the end of the tunnel?" (2003) Env. L. Rev. 45, 49).
7. Plaumann & Co v Commission (25/62) [19631 E.C.R. 199;
8. [1964] C.M.L.R. 29, denying direct and individual concern for an importer regarding a Decision addressed to a Member State refusing to authorise the Member State to suspend certain customs duties on imported goods.
9. Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council (C-50/00 P) [2002] E.C.R. 1-6677;
10. [2002] 3 C.M.L.R. 1 at [36].
11. Direct challenges were possible only in limited areas, namely anti-dumping regulations (see Craig and de Bürca, EULaw, 2008, pp.5 I8-521).
12. Arnaudv Council (C-131/92) [1993] E.C.R. 1-2573 at [14].
13. Abertal Sat Limitada v Commission (C-2 13/91) [1993] E.C.R. 1-3177 at [17];
14. Rica Foods v Commission (T-47/00) [2002] E.C.R. 11-113 at [39].
15. Union de Pequeños Agricultores v Council (T-173/98) [1999] E.C.R. 11-3357 at [61].
16. Opinion in UniOn de Pequeños Agricultores v Council (C-50/00 P) [2002] E.C.R. 1-6677.
17. Jégo-Quéré & Cie SA v Commission (T-177/Ol) [2002] E.C.R. 11-2365;
18. [2002] 2 C.M.L.R. 44 at [41]-[51].
19. Commission vJégo-Quéré & Cie SA (C-263/02) [2004] E.C.R. 1-3425;
20. [2004] 2 C.M.L.R. 12.
21. See e.g. R. (on the application of International Air Transport Association (IA TA)) v Department of Transport (C-344/04) [2006] E.C.R. 1-403;
22. [2006] 2 C.M.L.R. 20;
23. Alan Dashwood and Angus Johnston, "The institutions of the enlarged EU under the regime of the constitutional treaty" (2004) 41 C.M.L. Rev. 1481, 1507.
24. See A. Albors-Liorens, "The standing of private parties to challenge Community measures: has the European Court missed the boat?" (2003) 62 C.L.J. 72;
25. J. Usher, "Direct and individual concern - an effective remedy or a conventional solution?" (2003) E.L. Rev. 575.
26. cf. C. Koch, "Locus standi of private applicants under the EU Constitution: preserving gaps in the protection of individuals' right to an effective remedy" (2005) E.L. Rev. 511, 521.
27. These doubts were already raised under art.llI-365 CT: Dashwood and Johnston, "The institutions of the enlarged EU under the regime of the constitutional treaty" (2004)41 C.M.L. Rev. 1481, 1509;
28. M. Dougan, "The Convention's draft Constitutional Treaty: bringing Europe closer to its lawyers?" (2003) E.L. Rev. 763, 790;
29. Koch, "Locus standi of private applicants under the EU Constitution: preserving gaps in the protection of individuals' right to an effective remedy" (2005) E.L. Rev. 511, 519-521.
30. Commission v Jégo-Quéré & Cie SA (C-263/02) [2004] E.C.R. 1-3425.
31. Unión de Pequeilos Agricultores v Council (C-50-00 P) [2002] E.C.R. 1-6677.
32. U. Evening, "Rechtsschutz in der Europaischen Union nach dem Vertrag von Lissabon" (2009) Europarecht, Beiheft 1,71,74.
33. M. Dougan, "The Treaty of Lisbon 2007: winning minds, not hearts" (2008)45 C.M.L. Rev. 617, 675-679;
34. J. Bast, "Legal Instruments and Judicial Protection" in A. von Bogdandy and J. Bast (eds), Principles of European Constitutional Law, 2nd edn (Beck: Munich, 2010), pp.345, 396-397.
35. Opinion in Belgium v Commission (C-i 10/03) [2005] E.C.R. 1-2801;
36. [2006] 2 C.M.L.R. 5 n. 14.
37. This Opinion referred to art.llI-365(4) CT, but the wording of that provision is identical to art.263(4) TFEU.
38. A Turk, Judicial Review in EU Law (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2009), pp.1 68-169;
39. R. Banents, Het verdrag van Lissabon: achtergronden en commentaar (Kiuwer: Deventer, 2008), p.508;
40. R. Streinz, C. Ohier and C. Herrmann, Der Vertrag von Lissabon zur Reform der EU, 3rd edn (Munich: Beck, 2010), p.1 16;
41. Dashwood and Johnston, "The institutions of the enlarged EU under the regime of the constitutional treaty" (2004) 41 C.M.L. Rev. 1481, 1509;
42. A. Hatje and A. Kind, "Der Vertrag von Lissabon-Europa endlich in guter Verfassung?" (2008) N.J.W. 1761, 1767.
43. Turk, Judicial Review, 2009, pp.1 68-169;
44. Koch, "Locus standi of private applicants under the EU Constitution: preserving gaps in the protection of individuals' right to an effective remedy" (2005) E.L. Rev. 511, 520.
45. R Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp.306-307.
46. Koch, "Locus standi of private applicants under the EU Constitution: preserving gaps in the protection of individuals' right to an effective remedy" (2005) E.L. Rev. 511, 520.
47. Craig and de Bürca, EULaw, 2008, p.73.
48. Bast, "Legal Instruments and Judicial Protection" in von Bogdandy and Bast (eds), European ConstitutionalLaw, 2nd edn (Beck: Munich, 2010), pp.345, 396.
49. Final report of the discussion circle on the Court of Justice, CONV 63 6/03, para.22.
50. Articles on the Court of Justice and the High Court, CONV 734/03, p.20.
51. Commission v Luxembourg (C- 193/05) [2006] E.C.R. 1-8673 at [13];
52. Opinion of A.G. Mischo in Commission v Spain (C-278/01) [20031 E.C.R. 1-14141 at [85].
53. Opinion of A.G. Tizzano in Commission vFinland (C-229/0O) [2003] E.C.R. 1-5727 at [10].
54. Opinion of A.G. Cosmas in Huls AG v Commission (C-199/92) [1999] E.C.R. 1-4287;
55. [1999] 5 C.M.L.R. 1016 at [15].
56. Opinion of A.G. Tesauro in Les Assurances du Credit SA v Council (C-63/89) [1991] E.C.R. 1-1799;
57. [1991] 2 C.M.L.R. 737 at [9].
58. Francovich v Italy (C-6/90 & C-9/90) [1991] E.C.R. 1-5357;
59. [1993] 2 C.M.L.R. 66 at [33].
60. Union de Pequenos Agricultores v Council (C-50/00 P) [2002] E.C.R. 1-6677 at [44].
61. Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, art.6 ECHR.
62. Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (222/84) [19861 E.C.R. 1651;
63. [1986] 3 C.M.L.R. 240 at [18].
64. Germany v Commission (C-399/95) [1996] E.C.R. 1-2441 at [46].
65. Union de Pequeños Agricultores v Council (C-50/00 P) [2002] E.C.R. 1-6677 at [38]-[46].
66. Unión de Pequeños Agricuirores v Council (C-50/00 P) [2002] E.C.R. 1-6677 at [44], [45].
67. e.g. in February 2010, 74 Regulations were published in the Offi cial Journal, all of which were non-legislative acts. In March 2010, 106 Regulations were published in the Official Journal, of which only one was a legislative act. below and International Air Transport Association v Department for Transport (C-344/04) [2006] E.C.R. 1-403 at [80].
68. The English courts recognise no limit to Parliament's legislative power (Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke and George [1969] 1 A.C. 645 at 723;
69. [1968] 3 W.L.R. 1229;
70. [1968] 3 All E.R. 561 at 573 PC) save where legislation is incompatible with EU law;
71. cf. Halsbury's Laws of England (reissue), Vol.8(2), para.232.
72. Limited judicial review of legislation is now possible under s.4(2) of the Human Rights Act 1998, but such review cannot affect the validity of Acts of Parliament (s.3(2)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998).
73. Under art.61(2) of the French Constitution, ordinary laws will be reviewed by the Conseil Constitutionnel only before their coming into force and only on application of the President, the Prime Minister, the President of the Assemblée nationale or the Senate, or 60 senators or members of the Assemblée. The only way for private litigants to obtain judicial review of parliamentary laws is based on recent constitutional reform, whereby the Cour de Cassation or the Conseil d'Etat can refer issues of validity of parliamentary laws to the Conseil Constitutionnel (art.6 1-1 of the Constitution).
74. Dougan, "The Treaty of Lisbon 2007: winning minds, not hearts" (2008)45 C.M.L. Rev. 617, 678.
75. See, e.g. InternationalAir Transport Association v Department for Transport (C-344/04) [2006] E.C.R. 1-403, where the validity of the Regulation 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights [2004] OJ L46/l (Passengers' Rights Regulation) was challenged for a number of reasons (inter alia, violation of the principles of legal certainty, of equal treatment and of proportionality). "Among the most recent cases,
76. see Zuckerfabrikiulich AG v HauptzollamtAachen (C-5106) [2008] E.C.R. 1-3231;
77. Ikea Wholesale Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (C-35 1/04) [2007] E.C.R. 1-7723;
78. F TS. International B V v Belastingdienst (C-3 10/06) [2007] E.C.R. 1-6749.
79. International Chemical Corp v Amministrazione delleJmnanze dello Stato (66/80) [19811 E.C.R. 1191;
80. [1983] 2 C.M.L.R. 593.
81. See also Opinion of A.G. Jacobs in Union de Pequeños Agricultores v Council (C-50/00 P) [2002] E.C.R. 1-6677 at [41].
82. The argument related to the length of proceedings leading to a preliminary ruling was rejected by the Court of First Instance in UniOn de Pequeuios Agricultores v Council (T- 173/98) [1999] E.C.R. 11-3357 at [64], but again, this was based on the express conditions laid down by art.230(4) EC (then 173(4) EC) which have now been changed.
83. International Air Transport Association v Department for Transport (C-344/04) [2006] E.C.R. 1-403 at [95];
84. R. (on the application of Swedish Match AB and Swedish Match UK Lid) v Secretary of State for Health (C-2 10/03) [2004] E.C.R. 1-11893;
85. [2005] 1 C.M.L.R. 26 at [70].
86. TWD TexiilwerkeDeggendorfGmbHv Germany (C-188/92) [1994] E.C.R. 1-833;
87. [1995] 2 C.M.L.R. 145 [15].
88. Commission v Greece (C-183/9l) [1993] E.C.R 1-3131 at [10].
89. Nachi Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld (C-239/99) [2001] E.C.R. 1-1197 at [36]-[37].
90. TMNachi Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld(C-239199) [2001] E.C.R. 1-1197 at [40];
91. Eurotunnel SA v SeaFrance (C-408/95) [1997] E.C.R. 1-63 15;
92. [1998] 2 C.M.L.R. 293 at [28] and [29].
93. Nachi Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld (C-239/99) [2001] E.C.R. 1-1197 [37] (emphasis added).
94. Similarly M. Vogt, "Indirect judicial protection in EC law-the case of the plea of illegality" (2006) E.L. Rev. 364, 377.
95. Ministero deli 'Economia e delle Finanze v Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze SpA (C-222/04) [2006] E.C.R. 1-289;
96. [2008] 1 C.M.L.R. 28 at [72]-[74].
97. International Air Transport Association v Departmentfor Transport (C-344/04) [2006] E.C.R. 1-403.
98. Internationai Air Transport Association v Department for Transport (C-344/04) [2006] E.C.R. 1-403 at [49].
99. InternationalAir Transport Association v Departmentfor Transport (C-344/04) [2006] E.C.R. 1-403 at [35] (on the former art.300(7) EC).
100. Commission v Germany (C-61/94) [1996] E.C.R. 1-3989;
101. [1997] 1 C.M.L.R. 281 at [52];
102. Bellio Fratelli Sri v Prefettura di Treviso (C-286/02) [2004] E.C.R. 1-3465;
103. [2004] 3 C.M.L.R. 34 at [33].
104. Air Transport Association v Department for Transport (C-344/04) [2006] E.C.R. 1-403 at [64], [78], [93].
105. Administragion des douanes v Gondrand Frères and Garancini (169/80) [1981] E.C.R. 1931;
106. Gebroeders van Es Douane Agenten B Vv Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en AccUnzen (C- 143/93) [1996] E.C.R. 1-431 at [27];
107. Belgium v Commission (C-I 10/03) [2005] E.C.R. 1-280 1.
108. Käserei Champignon Hofmeister v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (C-2 10/00) [2002] E.C.R. 1-6453 at [59];
109. R. (on the application of British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd and Imperial Tobacco Ltd) v Secretary of State for Health (C-49 1/01) [2002] E.C.R. 1-11453;
110. [2003] 1 C.M.L.R. 14 at [122];
111. Swedish Match AB and Swedish Match UKLtd(C-210/03) [2004] E.C.R. 1-11893 at [47].
112. International Air Transport Association v Department for Transport (C-344/04) [2006] E.C.R. 1-403 at [95];
113. Swedish Match AB and Swedish Match UK Ltd (C-2 10/03) [2004] E.C.R. 1-11893 at [70].
114. International Air Transport Association v Department for Transport (C-344/04) [2006] E.C.R. 1-403 at [80].
115. United Kingdom v Council (C-84194) [1996] E.C.R. 1-5755;
116. [1996] 3 C.M.L.R. 671 at [58];
117. Germany v Parliament and Council (C-233/94) [1997] E.C.R. 1-2405;
118. [1997] 3 C.M.L.R. 1379 at [55] and [56];
119. R. v MA FF Exp. National Farmers' Union (C- 157/96) [1998] E.C.R. 1-2211;
120. [1998] 2 C.M.L.R. 1125 at [61];
121. British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd and Imperial Tobacco Ltd (C-491/01) [2002] E.C.R. 1-11453 at [123].