EU LAW CASES

Question 1

Foto-frost (general)

Answer 1

Judicial review is the way in which the CJEU reviews and ensures the correct application of EU law is being carried out by the institutions`

Question 2

standing- act addressed to the applicant

Answer 2

IBM- If an act is addressed to an applicant then they automatically have standing

Question 3

Standing- direct concern- case 1

Answer 3

NV FRUIT-

1. there must be legal causation between the act and the legal effect on the individual
2. must have a legal effect on the individual
3. must be solely from the EU without any fiddling from the MS

Question 4

Standing- direct concern - case 2

Answer 4

Bock-

1. must have this narrow interpretation because there are 28 legal systems in the EU, so must make it harder to get
2. the individual was told they had direct concern until or if the MS became involved in implementation

Question 5

Standing- direct concern- case 3

Answer 5

Dreyfus-

1. MS must have no discretion when it comes to the act
2. if the MS implements it differently to how it is intended they won’t have DC

Question 6

Standing- individual concern- main case (1)

Answer 6

Plaumann-closed groups case
an individual can only have IC if the act affects them in a unique way that won’t affect anyone else.
unique legal position

Question 7

Standing- individual concern- case 2

Answer 7

Spijker- no matter how small the group, even if you can narrow it down to one person, but there is still the chance of people joining in the future then it is an open group

Question 8

Standing- individual concern- case 3

Answer 8

KFC- if there is a pre-existing legal relationship between the people and it has already been established and no one can join newly then it is a closed group

Question 9

Standing- individual concern- case 4

Answer 9

PP- if there is a contract stating the members already then it is a closed group

Question 10

Standing- individual concern- case 5

Answer 10

Toepfer- confirmed Plaumann

Question 11

Exceptions to Plaumann- 3 cases

Answer 11

IP rights- Codorniu- intellectual property rights will exempt you.
Procedural involvement- such as aid
exceptional circumstances such as competition and anti-dumping - LES verts and Extramet

Question 12

what Quashed these exceptions

Answer 12

UPA- even though it was a case regarding aid it was not allowed individual concern

Question 13

What case tried to change the law again after UPA

Answer 13

Jego Quere- CA rejected higher courts argument- could not lower the idea of standing to only regard direct concern and to say it doesn’t matter about other individuals involved

Question 14

Regulatory acts- case 1

Answer 14

Inuit- defined regulatory act as a non-legislative act of general application.
which means directives, decisions and regulations cannot be caught under its scope

Question 15

Regulatory acts- case 2

Answer 15

Microban-
the first case to satisfy this legal route
satisfied DC
stated how general application meant it was addressed to all member states
implementing measures means there doesnt need to be any further implementation, it is done automatically

Question 16

Regulatory acts- case 3

Answer 16

PS- there is a difference between implementing measures and direct concern

Question 17

Regulatory acts- case 4

Answer 17

Telefonica- implementing measures is very narrow and means any measure used to put an act into operation

Question 18

Standing- for groups- case 1

Answer 18

Federolio- set out 3 criteria that need to be met in order for groups/associations to be able to get standing:

1. an act grants them procedural rights
2. the members in the group are all individually and directly concerned
3. their position as negotiator in the EU is affected by the act and its interests of the association are affected

Question 19

Standing- for groups- case 2

Answer 19

Greenpeace
agreed with federolio
protecting the environment rights were not seen as being individually concerned because everyone is concerned with the environment

Question 20

Reviewable acts case 1

Answer 20

IBM

a preparatory act was not seen as reviewable because it did not affect the person’s legal position

Question 21

Reviewable acts case 2

Answer 21

SFEI

must affect the person’s legal position for it to be reviewable

Question 22

reviewable acts case 3

Answer 22

max.mobil

the case must be opened/must be an open investigation to be reviewable

Question 23

Grounds of review- lack of competence case 1

Answer 23

Tobacco case
the decision-maker must act within treaty articles, must act in line with the law
principle of conferral

Question 24

Grounds of review- lack of competence case 2

Answer 24

France v commission
even though the commission had the power to apply the rules it did not give them the power to conclude on a deal with a non-memeber country

Question 25

reviewable acts case 4

Answer 25

BASF- non-existent acts | Cannot annul an act if it doesn’t exist in the first place

Question 26

Grounds of review- misuse of power case

Answer 26

Sermes cannot use their power for something other than what they are allowed to in the article they intended to use power for something other than what was meant to be

Question 27

Grounds of review- error of assessment case

Answer 27

tetra laval no mertis review - all they check to make sure there was no error of assessment is to make sure it is: accurate, complete, reliable and consistent

Question 28

Grounds of review- rights of process case

Answer 28

Kadi entitled to a fair hearing must be able to make a representation and defend their rights

Question 29

Grounds of review- breach of any rule of law list of cases

Answer 29

``` proportionality- Fedesa fundamental rights- x v commission legal certainty- heinrich legitimate expectations- staff salaries case discriminiation-Ruckdeschel ```

Question 30

Grounds of review- fundamental rights case

Answer 30

X v comission- the right to privacy is not a funamental right

Question 31

Grounds of review- legal certainty case

Answer 31

Heinrich- must tell the individual what rights they have and obligations they must follow

Question 32

indirect challenges - 277 CASE

Answer 32

Worhmann- art 277 is not a preferred route because it can only be enacted in line with another challenge plea of illegality

Question 33

indirect challenges - 267 case

Answer 33

Tobacco case- can use preliminary rulings as an alternative as well