EU Judicial Procedures Flashcards
Case 25-62 Plaumann v Commission
judicial review actions - art 263 TFEU
action for annulment was inadmissible. The Treaty itself does not define what is of ‘individual concern’ = this case set out the relevant test. On the facts, the applicant had been affected by the disputed decision as an importer. However, as this activity could be carried on by anyone at the time, the applicant did not belong to a closed category of people.
‘‘Persons other than those to whom a decision is addressed may only claim to be individually concerned if that decision affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons and by virtue of these factors distinguishes them individually just as in the case of the person addressed.’’
the test was a narrow one ( see quote)
Facts: A German importer from non-EU countries challenged a Commission decision addressed to the German Government refusing authorisation to partially suspend the collection of customs duties. The Commission argued that non-addressee individuals could not bring an action for annulment.
Joined cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich and Bonifaci and others v Italian Republic ECLI:EU:C:1991:428:
state liability -
The Court stated that the principle of Member States’ liability for damages
is “inherent in the system of the Treaty.”14 ( para 35)
= breach of Community law by a Member State by virtue of its failure to transpose Directive 80/987 (entails the grant to employees of a right to a guarantee of payment of their unpaid wage claims.within the prescribed period). As is clear from the examination of the first part of the first question, the content of that right can be identified on the basis of the provisions of the directive.
= Consequently, the national court must, in accordance with the national rules on liability, uphold the right of employees to obtain reparation of loss and damage caused to them as a result of failure to transpose the directive.
= Member State is required to compensate loss and damage caused to individuals by failure to transpose Directive 80/987
relevant in cases involving failure to implement a directive
Mr Francovich, who had worked in Vicenza for CDN Elettronica SnC, was owed 6 million Lira, and Mrs Bonifaci and 33 of her colleagues were owed 253 million Lira together after their company, Gaia Confezioni Srl, had gone bankrupt
Joined cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame
state liability
see also factortame in the public law cases
“the right to reparation is the necessary corollary of the direct effect of the Community provision whose breach caused the damage sustained”.
Argument: state liability should only be available when EU provisions don’t have direct effect. The ECJ disagrees
“It follows that that principle holds good for any case in which a Member State breaches Community law, whatever be the organ of the State whose act or omission was responsible for the breach”.
if the obligation to make good this damage depended on domestic rules EU law could not be applied in a uniform manner. The rules applied under Article 215 of the Treaty for non-contractual liability of the Community for legislative measures take into account the complexity of the situations to be regulated, difficulties in the interpretation of the text and the margin of discretion available to the author of the act.
In such circumstances, Community law confers a right to reparation if:
- the rule of law infringed intends to confer rights on individuals;
- the breach is sufficiently serious,
- and there must be a direct causal link between the breach of the obligations resting on the State and the damage sustained by the injured parties.
relevant in cases involving the application of conflicting national law
The French company Brasserie du Pêcheur brought an action against Germany seeking damages for reparation of the loss suffered due to a restriction to the import of beer, restriction which had been held as incompatible with Article 30 of the Treaty by a Court judgment in a case between the Commission and Germany. Factortame and other United Kingdom companies claimed for the damages caused due to a limitation to register in the register for British fishing
boats, limitation which had been held as incompatible with Article 52 of the Treaty by a Court judgment in a case between the Commission and the United Kingdom. In connection with both proceedings, the relevant Courts referred each for a preliminary ruling questions concerning the conditions under which a Member State may incur liability for damage caused to individuals by breaches of Community law attributable to that State
Case C-224/01 Köbler v Republik Österreich ECLI:EU:C:2003:513
state liability -
decisions of national courts can still be submitted to Francovich liability
the decision of Highest courts of a counry are subject to state liability undeer EU law.
= state liability be attached when the decision comes from the court. The threshold once again for imposing that liability is quite high = need for a ‘manifest breach’. Court answers yes => State argues that it causes problems regarding the separation of powers and judicial independence, legal certainty.
on the facts the breach was not sufficiently serious.
Professors who had completed 15 years service in Austrian universities were granted more pay
Professor Köbler (K) argued that years of service non-Austrian universities should also be considered
K’s claim was rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court, the highest administrative court in Austria
K claimed damages at the Vienna Civil Court claiming that the Administrative Court had infringed EU law
C-50/00PUnión de Pequeños Agricultores[2002] ECR I-6677
standing cases
AG Jacob’s opinion:
- A person shall be deemed to have individual concern: ‘where, by reason of his particular circumstances, the measure has, or is liable to have, a substantial adverse effect on his interests.’ + ‘be granted locus standi where that individual would otherwise be denied
effective judicial protection owing to the difficulty of challenging the regulation
indirectly through proceedings in national courts.’ - The current case law on standing of individuals is problematic as an individual cannot directly challenge a measure which adversely affects him if it is not of individual concern
= he acknowledges the existence of the preliminary ruling procedure but underlines its disadvantages
- National courts may refuse to refer questions
- It may be impossible for an individual to challenge Community measures which do not require any acts of implementation by national authorities
- may not offer adequte judicial protection
- The extra stage of preliminary reference as compared to direct action may involve substantial extra delays and costs
Held: The applicants did not have standing ⇒ The court rejected the proposed test by AG Jacobs for individual concern under Article 263 TFEU, under which any person adversely affected by a EU measure will have individual concern
‘in each individual case, to examine and interpret national procedural law … would go beyond its jurisdiction when reviewing the legality of Community measures.’:
- UPA, a trade association, sought the annulment of a Council Regulation withdrawing aid granted to producers of olive oil under Article 173 EEC Treaty (now Article 263 TFEU)
- As the regulation did not require implementing measures, there was no way to contest the validity of the regulation in national court
- UPA argued that its right to effective judicial protection would be denied if it is not given standing for a direct action to annul the regulation before the ECJ
- In the Court of First Instance, it was held that the measure was not of individual concern UPA and this was not challenged on appeal by UPA
- C-583/11PInuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council, 3 Oct 2013.
standing case
Held: under art 263(4) regulatory means acts of general application andlegislative acts are not included.
Facts: This case is the appeal fromCase T-18/10Inuit: companies, associations and natural persons sought the annulment of a regulation on seal products under paragraph 4 of Article 263 TFEU. The EU Parliament and Council argued that the action was inadmissible notably because the contested regulation is not a regulatory act ⇒ The applicants appealed on the ground, inter alia, that the general court’s interpretation of ‘regulatory’ disregarded their right to effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the CFREU)
