Judicial Review Flashcards
What can be reviewed?
YES:
- Regulations
- Directives
- Decisions
NO:
- Treaties
- Opinions
- Recommendations
Grounds for Judicial Review
i) Lack of competence
ii) Infringement on an esesntial procedural requirement
iii) Infringement of the Treaty or ant rule of law relating to its application
iv) Misuse of power
Germany v EP & Council
- Germany challenged EU about tobacco advertising saying they did not have ability to impede on freedom of speech
- ECJ said they did
- Challenge dismissed
Roquette Freres v Council
- P said that Council had failed to consult with EP as part of legislative procedure
- Regulation annulled
Houtala v Council
- Argued that EU power used disproportionately
- Did not conform to principle of proportionality when decision was made
UK v Council (re Working Time Directive)
- EU seen as not misusing power
Different levels of applicants
1) Privileged
2) Semi-Privileged
3) Non-privileged
Privileged Applicants
Can automatically make a challenge for judicial review
* Council
* Commission
* European Parliament
* Member States
Semi-Privileged Applicants
Can make a challenge so long as the act falls within their area/affect them in some way
- European Central Bank
- Court of Auditors
Non-Privileged Applicants
Can apply for judicial review so long as one of three conditions are satisfied
1) An act addressed to that person
2) An act of direct and individual concern
3) A regulatory act of direct concern with no implementing measures
Societe Luis Defrays
Legislation directly affected plaintiff so they could make an application
Plaumann
One has to show they are in a fixed, closed class
- P imported clementines
- He wanted to challenge a piece of legislation that affected clementine importers
- Individually concerned about clementine importers
- Court said it was not fixed as anybody could import clementines whenever they wanted
- Therefore not a fixed, closed class
- Court of Justice’s classification is nonsensical with this viewpoint
Alfred Toepfer v Commission
- Applied for license, EU placed moratorium for 24 hours (prohibited)
- Created a legitimate fixed, closed class of people who had applied for a license in the particular time frame
- Found that there was individual concern
- Controversial as legislation is typically ongoing and not within a time period, as seen in Toepfer’s case
Calpak
- Attempted to expand Plaumann test
- Abstract terminology test
- Look beyond the legislation and observe it for what it really is
- As long as something is written in general terms, it will not be sufficient to directly affect an individual
UPA
- UPA challenged a regulation which withdrew subsidies from olive oil producers
- UPA admitted the measure was a true regulation, and the applicants lacked individual concern, but argued that because it did not require implementation at national level, there was no way to challenge the action before national courts, and it would be denied effective judicial protection unless it could bring a direct action
- if there was no redress through national courts, the MS would be at fault
Greenpeace v Commission
- Greenpeace, a body for local fishermen and environment challenged a Commission decision to award financial aid for the building of power stations on the Canary Islands
- Held that just because somebody suffers as a result of the decision does not mean they are individually concerned
Inuit v EP & Council
Attempted to define a regulatory act
European Parliament v Commission
- There must have been a duty for the defendant to act
- EP challenged Commission that they had a duty to consult the EP when it came to a legislative decision
Lord Bethel v Commission
- There must be a person to whom the decision would have been addressed
- Lord Bethel said that Commission should have produced guidance for a group of airplane companies
- Court said that if those regulations had been produced, it would not be Lord Bethel that it would concern, but all of the airplane companies
- So he could not apply for judicial review
