Judicial Review

Question 1

Foto-Frost

Answer 1

Court of Justice has exclusive jurisdiction where it comes to institutions.

Question 2

ERTA case

Answer 2

Sui generis acts are reviewable when they are intended to take legal effect, irrespective of form, and regulatory acts are reviewable when (1) they are intended to have legal effect, (2) no implementation measures are needed, and (3) individual concern of applicant can be demonstrated.

Question 3

IBM v Commission

Answer 3

IBM tried to seek annulment of letter from Commission notifying them that the Commission had initiated proceedings, held not reviewable as it was a preparatory act with no legal effect.

Question 4

SFEI

Answer 4

Closing of file was held to be reviewable

Question 5

Commission v BASF

Answer 5

Commission lost original documentation of decision and had altered it after it had formally been adopted, held not serious enough to find the decision non-existant.

Question 6

Plaumann

Answer 6

Individual concern criteria: (1) persons affected by certain attributes peculiar to them, (2) persons in circumstances differentiating them from all other persons and by virtue of these factors distinguishes them individually.

Question 7

Dreyfus

Answer 7

EU measure must directly affect the legal situation of an individual.

Question 8

Piraiki-Patraiki

Answer 8

If applicant belongs to a completely closed class of persons they will meet individual concern criteria.

Question 9

Spiker

Answer 9

Individual concern couldn’t be established where only one company was affected simply because other companies may be affected in the future.

Question 10

Jego Quere

Answer 10

For the Member States to ensure that citizens do not need to break the law in order to get standing to challenge it.

Question 11

Microban

Answer 11

First case to use category of regulatory acts which are of direct concern and do not entail implementing measures.

Question 12

Telephonica

Answer 12

EU banned tax/shareholding scheme, held that there were implementing measures as it did not define the consequences which the declaration would have for each taxpayer, seperate document would be required.

Question 13

Federolio

Answer 13

Three scenarios where interest groups or associations can claim standing, (1) a legal provision grants the association a series of procedural rights, (2) their members are themselves directly and individually concerned, (3) own interests of the association are affected, in particular their position as negotiator.

Question 14

France v Commission

Answer 14

Lack of competence as grounds of review, commission overstepped its power in concluding deal with the US.

Question 15

Tetra Laval

Answer 15

Manifest error of assessment and misuse of power was successfully used as grounds, Commission had based assessment on one economic report.

Question 16

X v Commission

Answer 16

Claim for privacy, AIDs test was taken against will of individual and he didn’t want to know the result, held that pre-recruitment tests shouldn’t be taken against a candidate’s will but there is no duty to appoint having refused tests.

Question 17

British American Tobacco and Imperial Tobacco

Answer 17

Indirect challenge - Article 267 can be brought up in the proceedings of another challenge.

Question 18

UPA

Answer 18

Advocate general disagreed with system for standing, having to break the law to gain standing was a denial of justice. Court disagreed, recommended a treaty amendment and confirmed old case law.

Question 19

Toepfer

Answer 19

Example of fixed, closed class. Those who had import licences on the 1st of October.