Art 263

Question 0

1. Admissibility - reviewable act?

Answer 0

Art 263(1) “acts… Intended to produce legal effects”

• Commission v Council (re ERTA) - even though the document was entitled a resolution, it was still intended to produce legal effects and was therefore reviewable
• IBM Corporation v Commission : in theory, a notification by the commissions of proceedings can be reviewable if it affects the legal position of the litigant. On these facts, the notification was not reviewable
• Les Verts v Parliament : French political group case

Question 1

1. Admissibility - time limits

Answer 1

Art 263(5) two months (+2 weeks) from either

• notification of the act
• publication of the act
• knowledge of the act

Question 2

1. Admissibility - standing of privileged applicants

Answer 2

Art 263(2)

Member states, EP, Council, Commission

Question 3

1. Admissibility - standing if semi-privileged applicants

Answer 3

Art 263(3)

Court of justice, ECB, Committee of the Region
Only have standing for their particular are of expertise

Question 4

1. Admissibility - standing of non-privileged applicants

Answer 4

Art 263(4) - any “natural or legal person” that falls into one if the following:

(1) Act addressed to the person

(2) Act which is of direct and individual concern to the person
- direct concern
. Microban : does the measure affect the legal position of the individual? Without any implementing measure needed?
. Japanese Ball-Bearing : the German government did not have discretion, so there was direct concern
- individual concern
. Plaumann v Comm : p, clementine importer, was not directly concerns because he was not a member of a closed, definable class
. Toepfer v Comm: applicants for a license on a specific day were individually concerned

(3) A regulatory act of direct concern not requiring implementation measures
- Inuit : a regulatory act is an act of general application that is not legislative
- direct concern
- Microban : as long as the implementing measure is not mandatory, then it is allowed

Question 5

2. Substantive grounds

Answer 5

Lack of competence

• France v Commision : commission signed an international agreement that should have been signed by the Council
• Tobacco Advertising

Infringement of an essential procedural requirement
- Maizena v Council : Council failed to consult EP when they were obliged to under the Treaty

Infringement if this Treaty
- KSH v intervention board : infringement if GPL of right to be heard

Infringement of any rule of law relating to the application of this Treaty

Misuse of powers

Question 6

3. Effect of judgment

Answer 6

Art 264(1)/(2)

Retroactive nullity
Proactive nullity