Lecture 21 - EU Law Notes PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Lecture 21 - EU Law Notes PDF

Description

EU Law Lecture 21 Judicial Review Cont. Summary: Article 263 TFEU specifies: • • • • •

Who can bring an action in judicial review (Locus standi) Grounds for judicial review Reviewable Acts Timeframe for bringing an action in judicial review Consequences of judicial review

Consequences of Judicial Review: Relevant Treaty Provision: Article 264 TFEU If the action is well founded, the Court of Justice of the European Union shall declare the act concerned to be void. However, the Court shall, if it considers this necessary, state which of the effects of the act which it has declared void shall be considered as definitive.

Case Example:  Case C-137/92 P Commission v BASF AG • • • • •

Decision that accused a company of an asserted practise (setting prices). Found guilty of this. The Commission issued a Decision against BASF, but made many procedural errors due to them being stretched for time GC declared the measure non-existent Court of Justice: declaring a measure non-existent is reserved for ‘quite extreme situations’ Decision annulled for infringement of essential procedural requirements

 Case C-295/90 Parliament v Council • • • • •

European Parliament challenged Council Directive on the right of residence for students who moved to a different member state to study Grounds: lack of competence- incorrect legal basis. Agreed with the substantive basis, just not the procedural factors involved. CJEU: the legal basis was incorrect act annulled, but effects limited Provisions of the Directive effective until replaced

Article 266 TFEU The institution whose act has been declared void or whose failure to act has been declared contrary to the Treaties shall be required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union. This obligation shall not affect any obligation which may result from the application of the second paragraph of Article 340. May cause a case for damage.

Article 340 TFEU [2] In the case of non-contractual liability, the Union shall, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States, make good any damage caused by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties. o An independent action (see Art 266 TFEU) o Can arise alongside other actions (e.g. Arts 263, 265, 277 TFEU) o Individuals may recover compensation from the EU even if they do not meet strict criteria for admissibility under other types of action

Damages for Unlawful Union Act: Conditions:  Case 4/69 Lütticke v Commission •

Test for contractual liability: 1. Actual damage 2. A causal link between the financial losssuffered by an individual and the European Union 3. The illegality of the conduct

 Limited by: Case 5/71 Zückerfabrick Schöppenstedt v Council •

Breach must be sufficiently serious

 Case C-352/98P Bergaderm and Goupil v Commission • •



action concerned the Council Directive 76/768- approximation of the law relating to cosmetic products claimed that the directive had caused the company significant financial damage, leading to its liquidation

Bergaderm and Goupil v Commission • • • •

This eventually led to their bankruptcy CJEU sought to harmonise approach to damages for breach of EU law. They were harmonizing the rules that govern the Member States for EU Law Protection of individual rights cannot vary. Doesn’t matter if it comes from a Member State or EU law. Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame conditions apply. (Conditions below)

 Case C-352/98P Bergaderm and Goupil v Commission •

•

Conditions for EU non-contractual liability = conditions for MS liability (i) the rule of law infringed must be intended to confer rights on individual (ii) Breach must be sufficiently serious (iii) Causal link Both cases must be sufficiently serious

1. The rule of law infringed must be intended to confer rights on individual – –

e.g. an action concerns a breach of: legitimate expectations, legal certainty, equality, non-discrimination, etc. An action will not succeed if it concerns a breach of: Art 296- duty to give a reason for a measure, & rules on division of competences between EU institutions

2. Breach must be sufficiently serious EU institution manifestly and gravely disregarded limits of its discretion Factors taken into account: • the complexity of the situation to be regulated, • difficulties in the application and interpretation of the texts, • A lot of cases will turn on the margin of discretion See: Case C-352/98P Bergaderm and Goupil v Commission • •



Conditions: Margin of Discretion: o If significantly reduced or no discretion- mere infringement could constitute serious breach (C-352/98P Bergaderm v Commission; C-5/94 Hadley Lomas) o Wide discretion: unlikely for the breach to be sufficiently serious (Case T-212/03 My Travel v Commission – Commission enjoys wide discretion in competition policy)

Case 20/88 Roquette Fréres v Commission • • •

Claimed damages on the basis of wrong application of a Regulation Commission’s error resulted in a discriminatory treatment CJEU refused this case because it was a technical error cannot be considered a manifest disregard of discretion

Case C-472/00 Commission v Fresh Marine Company • • •

Commission had a duty to act on the basis of best information available Commission amended information made available by the applicant without verifying it Breach was sufficiently serious

Damages for Unlawful Union Act: Remedies: • • •

No comprehensive set of principles: done on a case-by-case basis Actual financial loss may be recovered – recovery of a future loss may be problematic. Provided that it arises directly out of the Union’s act.

Summary: • • •

An independent action under Article 340 TFEU Conditions the same as for Member State liability Not all successful actions in judicial review will meet the criteria for EU noncontractual liability

Individual Enforcement of EU Law: Summary: Complete system of remedies: EU rights before national courts: • Direct effect, indirect effect, Member State Lability • Interpretation of EU law provided by the CJEU through Art 267 TFEU Preliminary Ruling Procedure – correct interpretation EU rights before the CJEU: • Judicial review of validity of a Union act (Art 263 TFEU) – their rights which will have been infringed by EU Law. (Above) The Locus standi in this case is very difficult to meet • Action for compensation under Art 340 TFEU when an act of an EU institution cause them a financial loss....