2. Action for annulment Flashcards

1
Q

Legal basis

A

Article 263, 264 and 266 TFEU

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is the objective of the procedure?

A

The objective of this procedure is to protect the individuals, the institutions, the MS against unlawful acts.
This action enables the Court to review the legality of acts producing legal effect and adopted by the European institutions, bodies, offices or agencies. In case of illegality, the act is void.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Who is involved / which acts are targeted?

A

1) Before Lisbon Acts of:
• the Council
• the Council and of the European Parliament (codecision); But the OLP as you know now is also a co-decision of the Council and the EP they are exactly on the same level.
• the Commission
• the ECB
• the EIB (art. 237(b) and (c))
• the European Parliament which have legal effect vis-à-vis third parties

NOT
- of the CJEU (not against its own judgments but
against its decisions as an employer; art. 236 CE)
- Not acts of the European Council nor of the organs created by the TEU !!!

2) Article 263 TFEU (After Lisbon)
The acts:
- legislative acts - an act adopted by the OLP or an
SLP
- of the Council
- of the Commission
- of the ECB
- of the EIB (article 271 b et c TFEU)
- of the European Parliament, of the European
Council, of the bodies or agencies of the EU which
have legal effects vis-à-vis third parties.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What does “EP which have legal effect vis-a-vis third parties” mean?

A

o the acts which are reviewable are reviewable if they have legal effects.
o C-294/83 Les Verts: the Court accepted the legal personality of the EP, on the condition that the act of concern of the EP has legal effects on third parties - a sole internal act is not sufficient –> recognition of the EP as an institution with powers.

  • the passive legitimation = the acts of the EP could be attacked in an action for annulment
  • the active legitimation = possibility for some organ, institution to be the applicant
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

How has the GC filled the gap with other organs of the EU in the annulment procedures?

A

Article 230 TFEU (nowadays 263) did not target the organs of the EU.
Court has filled the gap:

  1. C-370/89 SGEEM v. EIB:
    this case is taken not from the case law about annulment but about damages. In the Treaty, it is written (art.240) that you can bring an action for damages against the institutions of the EU, but the EIB is not an institution. The Court said: it would be against the intent of the authors that the EC would escape to its responsibility.
  2. T-411/06 Sogelma v. European Agency for Reconstruction: The GC decided that in fact, the judgment Les Verts was a sort of general principle. The EC as a whole and all those participating to the architecture of the EU community cannot escape their responsibility.
  3. T-117/08 Italy v. European Economic and Social Committee:
    Once again the GC said of the general principle: everybody in the EC should be controlled in terms of legality.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Which acts are targeted today in annulment procedure?

A
Article 263: 
The acts:
-	legislative acts - an act adopted by the OLP or an SLP
-	of the Council
-	of the Commission
-	of the ECB
-	of the EIB (article 271 b et c TFEU)
-	of the European Parliament, of the European Council, of the bodies or agencies of the EU which have legal effects vis-à-vis third parties. 

The simplified revision procedure in Art. 48 §6 TEU, where the Treaty can be modified but by a decision of the EU Council could be attacked in an action for annulment because the decision comes from the EU Council!

NOT THE ACTS OF THE MS

  • Art. 48 TEU: the revision which is decided by the MS. It cannot be attacked in an action for annulment.
  • §1-5 it is coming from a decision of the MS. Always be aware that only an EU act may be attacked in an action for annulment before a EU court!
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Can you bring an action for annulment against acts established in Art. 48 TEU paras 1-5?

A

NO - §1-5 it is coming from a decision of the MS. Always be aware that only an EU act may be attacked in an action for annulment before a EU court!

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Can you bring an action for annulment against acts established in Art.48 para 6 TEU?

A

YES- The simplified revision procedure in §6, where the Treaty can be modified but by a decision of the EU Council could be attacked in an action for annulment because the decision comes from the EU Council!

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Can you bring an action against Council for an act of COREPER?

A

YES - C-626 and 659/15 Commission v. Council (COREPER)
The Council says no that’s not me, its COREPER and it’s not in the list. It is not an agency not a body it has no legal personality but the Court is looking at the substance.
The Court said that the decision (the act of the COREPER) had legal effects which went beyond the preparation of a decision of the council or the execution of the decision of the Council. In this case – it is the only one I know – the Court considered that act from which the author was the COREPER could be the object of an action for annulment.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Can you bring an action for annulment against a Delegation of the EU?

A

T-395/11 ELTI v. Delegation of the EU in Montenegro
The delegation of the EU in Montenegro does not have the legal personality.
To attack an action for annulment of somebody this somebody has to have the legal personality.
In these cases the Court says you have to attack the institution to which the act of the delegation in this case is imputable; This act was imputable to the commission

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Can you bring an action for annulment against a decision of appointing an AG?

A

NO - important point is to make the distinction
between the Council on one side
and
the representatives of the MS (not COREPER, no, the Governments = the ministers of the 27 MS).
When it’s a decision of the governments, it cannot be controlled by the court. That’s not an author of an act listed in art. 263 TFEU.

C-424/20P(R) Representatives of the Member States v. Sharpston: That’s an intergovernmental meeting and its precisely said in the Treaties that the judges and the AG’s are appointed by the governments of the MS.
–> inadmissible

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Can you bring an action for annulment against a decision of a meeting, where the Commission was present and the Commission was appointed to coordinate the operation, sending money to a non-EU country?

A

NO - important point is to make the distinction
between the Council on one side
and
the representatives of the MS.
When it’s a decision of the governments, it cannot be controlled by the court. That’s not an author of an act listed in art. 263 TFEU.

C-181 and 248/91 European Parliament v. Council and Commission: The Court decided is not the decision of the Council or the Commission. It is a decision of the 12 governments of the European Community.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Can you bring an action for annulment against a decision with Turkey to block the refugees on Turkish soil to prevent them to come to the EU?

A

NO - important point is to make the distinction
between the Council on one side
and
the representatives of the MS.
When it’s a decision of the governments, it cannot be controlled by the court. That’s not an author of an act listed in art. 263 TFEU.

T-192 and 257/16 NF-NM v. European Council: GC said the decisions were by the representatives of the MS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Can you bring an action for annulment against a decision of Eurogroup?

A

NO - important point is to make the distinction
between the Council on one side
and
the representatives of the MS.
When it’s a decision of the governments, it cannot be controlled by the court. That’s not an author of an act listed in art. 263 TFEU.

Chrysostomides: the Eurogroup is not an author the act of which can be attacked in an action for annulment. That’s an intergovernmental body.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Can you bring an action of annulment against acts of the European Food Safety Authority?

A

YES - important point is to make the distinction
between the Council on one side
and
the representatives of the MS.
When it’s a decision of the governments, it cannot be controlled by the court. That’s not an author of an act listed in art. 263 TFEU.

Hautala and Tweedale:
an action of annulment against acts of the European Food Safety Authority and because it has a legal personality, that’s a body or an agency of the EU and so, these actions have been declared of course admissible.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Can you bring an action of annulment against a national decision for dismissal of a governor of a national central bank?

A

Rimsevics and ECB v. Latvia:
Latvia had decided to suspend mister Rimsevics from his office, his duty as governor of the central bank of Latvia.
Action for annulment because that’s the competence of the ECB.
This was to obtain the annulment of a decision, of a NATIONAL DECISION
That’s the only case where you can bring a European action for annulment against a national act. Remember: the only possibility!

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Which acts can be challenged?

A
  1. Existing acts
  2. Acts having binding legal effect
  3. whatever their form and nature
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Which acts cannot be challenged?

A
  1. Abstentions
  2. Confirmatory acts
  3. purely political acts, resolutions, declarations of intent
  4. Internal instructions and guidelines of the institutions, administrative circularise, communications
  5. purely executive acts
  6. Preparatory acts
  7. acts of contractual nature
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Is it possible to challenge acts which are supplementing or amending the existing act?

A

No - only the existing acts can be challenged

Iran Insurance Cy v. Council: All the future and hypothetical acts cannot be attacked by an action of annulment, you may only act for annulment of an existing act.

Organisation of Modjahedines of Iran v. Council:
the court has allowed the applicant to redirect his action against the new act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Can you bring an action for annulment against the Commission which took the decisions to bring judicial proceedings in the USA?

A

NO - acts having binding legal effect means acts which are changing something in your legal position.
- Reynolds v. Commission : Court said it does not change your legal position.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Can you bring an action for annulment against the OLAF to give information to prosecutors in Italy.

A

NO

- Commission v. Violetti: the court decided it has no binding legal effect.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Can you bring an action for annulment against the decision of the EU to open the negotiations after having received the letter of the British government to withdraw?

A

NO, because there is no binding legal effect.
- Schindler v. Council
this decision of the European Council does not have any legal effect on you. It does not reduce your rights, it’s not a confirmation of the notification of the British government, it does not have to be confirmed.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Natural person attacking a decision of the European Council to make an international agreement with Turkey?

A

No, because there is no binding legal effect - it does not change one’s legal position
- NF-NM v. European Council
According to the GC, it had the result of this meeting between Europeans and Turkish delegates, this meeting did not have any binding legal effect.

24
Q

Can you bring an action for annulment against a communication which is looking like an obligation?

A

YES - Normally, communication has no binding legal effect.
However, in France v. Commission (C-325/91) there was in the text obligation of the MS.
The Court pays attention to the content and vocabulary of the communication.

25
Q

Can you bring an action for annulment against a ‘code of conduct’ which “Requires full compliance, expresses obligation arising from the regulation”?

A

YES - the act has binding legal effect because of its vocabulary.

  • France v. Commission (C-303/90): for the CoJ the text was going further than an explanation; it was imposing supplementary obligations.
26
Q

Can you bring an action for annulment against a resolution of the EP?

A

NO - the act has no binding legal effect.

exception: G-D Lux v. European Parliament where the vocabulary of the resolution was more than a resolution.

27
Q

Can you bring an action for annulment against ‘conclusions of the council’, which is a decision to hold in abeyance an ongoing deficit procedure

A

Yes - the conclusions by its vocabulary may create binding legal effect.
- Commission v. Council: there was a decision to hold in abeyance an ongoing deficit procedure, to stop a procedure; that’s a binding legal effect.

28
Q

Can you bring an action for annulment against abstentions?

A

NO, because that’s not an act. Abstentions can be challenged in another procedure, an action for failure to act.

29
Q

Can you bring an action for annulment against a second communication of the Commission concluding that the procedure is finished and a person is found guilty?

A

NO - because that’s a confirmatory act. In this letter of the commission there is no new decision; the decision has been made and communicated in the first letter.

SGL Carbon v. Commission, the GC said : an act is confirmatory when it does not contain any new element, any new examination

Commission v. Ferriere Nord. In this case, that was the decision of the Commission to refuse to accede to the request of the company to agree to pay the fine in a particular way, in fact, in Italian currency instead of ECU
The commission refuses and asks for the payment of the rest of the fine. Is it a new decision? No; that’s just an execution of the principal decision that was the condemnation to a fine.

30
Q

Can you bring an action for annulment against the EP in the past had voted a resolution against apartheid in South-Africa?

A

NO, because it is a purely political act.

–> Purely political acts, resolutions, declarations of intent are excluded from challengeable acts

31
Q

Can you bring an action for annulment against A framework agreement between the EP and the Commission?

A

NO, because internal instructions are excluded from the challengeable acts.
e.g. Stauner a.o. v. European Parliament and Commission

Exception: when the EP is organizing its meetings in Brussels or in Strasbourg, that’s more than internal and it is admissible

32
Q

Can you bring an action for annulment against the act of the EP defining the conditions to form a political group in the parliament?

A

YES, because it has binding legal effect vis-a-vis third parties.

Martinez a.o. v. European Parliament. GC said no, that’s not an internal instruction. It has legal binding effect vis-à-vis third parties; the political parties are the members of the parliament.

33
Q

Can you bring an action for annulment against the EP for waiving of immunity of a person?

A

YES, because it has binding legal effect vis-a-vis third parties.

Mote v Parliament: the GC said it’s more than internal organisation; it has effects outside, on mister Mote because his immunity has disappeared.

34
Q

Can you bring an action for annulment against the Commission for sending another letter confirming the previous decision to withdraw the subsidies of a MS?

A

NO, because it is a purely confirmatory act.

Hungary v. Commission

35
Q

Can you bring an action for annulment against a legislative proposal of the commission?

A

NO, because it is a preparatory act.

36
Q

Can you bring an action for annulment against a decision of the commission to communicate confidential documents to a complainant?

A

YES, because although it is a preparatory act, they are closing a special procedure, procedure of inspection, a procedure of search, a procedure of communication of confidential documents (AKZO)

37
Q

Can you bring an action for annulment against a letter of the Commission accepting an audit report of the research and development contract?

A

NO, because it is an act of contractual nature.
Cross Czech v. Commission: the European courts are very flexible; they propose to the applicant to change the action, to redirect it to art. 272 or to national law.

38
Q

Which grounds for annulment?

A

Article 263 para 2 TFEU:

  1. lack of competence (can be raised by judge ex officio)
  2. violation of essential procedural requirements (can be raised by judge ex officio)
  3. violation of the Treaties or other rules regarding their application (can be raised only by the parties in the proceedings)
  4. misuse of powers (can be raised only by the parties in the proceedings)
39
Q

Who can act?

A
  1. Article 263 para 2 TFEU: the super-privileged
    - MS
    - Council
    - Commission
    - European Parliament
  2. Article 263 para 3 TFEU: the semi-privileged
    - ECB
    - Court of Auditors
    - Committee of Regions
  3. Article 263 para 4 TFEU The individuals
    - Natural or legal persons
40
Q

What does violation of essential procedural requirements means?

A

o the act adopted could have ended up being fundamentally different
o the violation concerns an essential institutional rule
o the judicial review is not possible
o the motivation is lacking or insufficient

There is no description in art. 263 §2 TFEU: there are merely examples out of case law.

Eurobolt: The Court said that the non-respect in a legislative or executive procedure of a 10 days period that was binding was to be considered as essential procedural requirement.

Transocean Association: Violation of the rights of defense about the renewal of an exemption. The Court said that the commission could exercise this power, but under duty to preliminary hear the objections of the companies involved.

T-209/04 Spain v. Commission: translation for invitation is NOT an essential procedural requirement

41
Q

What are the super-privileged?

A

They can act without having a specific interest: only for legal or political reasons, even if the act they are attacking has no effect in the MS in question.

42
Q

What are the semi-privileged?

A

They can bring an action for annulment only in order to safeguard their own prerogatives

43
Q

What is the legal personality requirement in Article 263 para 4?

A

Legal personality requirement: individuals, natural legal persons must have the legal personality under the national law in order to have a legal personality to bring an action for annulment before the CJEU or GC.
ALSO THE THIRD STATES

Exceptions:
–> Author of the act (the defendant) has recognized the claimant as a negotiating partner during the procedure leading to this act. In this case, even if there is no legal personality, it has in some sense been recognized in the preparation of the act

–> E.g. an association has been allowed by the Commission to take part in a tendering procedure. This association not having legal personality must be recognized of having some kind of legal personality since it has been recognized by the Commission as a candidate to obtain the market. Very limited exception

!! T-236/06 Landtag Schleswig Holstein v. Commission: too limited legal personality is not sufficient for the admissibility

44
Q

Requirements for the individuals?

A

Article 263 para 4: individuals have to justify a « direct and individual interest to the annulment » AND their action is admissible only

a. against acts of the EU addressed to them
b. against acts which are of direct and individual concern to them
c. against regulatory acts of direct concern which do not entail implementing measures

45
Q

What does the direct concern mean?

A

direct: the contested act does not require any other intervention or intermediate decision in order to affect the applicant (unless the authority which has to make the intermediate decision has no choice)

46
Q

What does the individual concern mean?

A

individual: the contested act identifies the claimant as an addressee among a general category; it singles him out within a general category
- Spijker
- Sofrinport
- Piraiki-Patraiki
- Codorniu v Galileo

47
Q

What does the “regulatory act” of direct concern mean?

A
  • Union de Pquenos Agricultores
    The “regulatory act” does not mean the act of general application.
    Regulatory act does not mean legislative acts (of OLP and SLP)
48
Q

what does regulatory act of “direct concern” mean?

A

direct concern: Direct concern = it fluences your legal situation without an intermediary position of somebody or an institution, without an intermediate decision, except an intermediary which has no competence, no margin of appreciation. (same as in the option b for the individuals)

49
Q

“do not entail implementing measures”?

A

Implementing measures are not challengeable according to Article 263 (4).
TL Sugar
the allegedly mechanical nature of the implementing measure is irrelevant. The problem was that the member state had to give certificates, which were decided by the EU. That was purely mechanical, purely automatic. Of course that was the reason why there was a direct concern,
but is there an implementing measure? The court said yes, so you may not use (c) of 263 (4) TFEU.

Internacional de Productos Metálicos: the court found an implementing measure in an act which came before the act attacked for annulment.

50
Q

Time limit to start proceedings for annulment?

A

Art. 263(6) TFEU and 50 RPC: 2 months + 10 days

UNLESS force majeure or excusable error

51
Q

Effects of the decision of annulment

A

Article 264: the act concerned is void.

  • ex tunc: retroactively
  • erga omnes: effective beyond the parties (except: AssiDoman)
  • in its entirety

Art. 266: the author must take any measure to comply with the decision

52
Q

Is the voidance of the act always retroactive?

A

No, because Art. 264 para 2 says that the Court shall modulate the effects of the act.
Besides that the Court has also the possibility to annul an act, it can maintain not only the effects in the past, but also to maintain the act for a short period of time, until its author has taken the necessary measures to give effect to the judgment.

53
Q

Can a company who has been found cartellist by the Commission get the reimbursement of the fine if another company of the cartel has succeeded in annulment decision?

A

NO
Article 264: the act shall be void.
This includes principle of erga omnes, meaning the decision is effective beyond the parties.
However, this does not apply in case of reimbursement of fines imposed by the Commission (case AssiDoman)

54
Q

Which is the competent court?

A

Art. 256-257 TFEU + Art. 51 Statute of the Court

55
Q

What does the Unlimited Jurisdiction mean?

A

Art. 261 TFEU
revision of the penalty (upwards and downwards)
Regulations adopted jointly by the Parliament and by the Council may give the CJEU unlimited jurisdiction with regard to the penalties provided for in such regulations.

So 2 conditions:
- the regulation gives possibility for an institution to impose a penalty to the companies
- the regulation has to give this unlimited jurisdiction to the Court (E.g. competition law)
= normal jurisdiction: the Court can check the legality and validity + appropriateness of the amount of the fine

The unlimited jurisdiction: Court has the power to adapt the amount of the fine and it can go downwards and it can also go upwards - Infineon case