#5842 - Review Of Legality Article 230 Ec - Irish European Union Law

Review of Legality – Article 230EC

The Court of Justice shall review the legality of acts adopted jointly by the European Parliament and the Council, of the Commission and of the ECB, other than recommendations and opinions, and of acts of the European Parliament intended to produce legal effect vís a vís third parties.

It shall for this purpose have jurisdiction in actions brought by a Member State, the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission on grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of this Treaty or of any rule of law relating to its application, or misuse of powers.

The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction under the same conditions in actions brought by the Court of Auditors and by the ECB for the purpose of protecting their prerogatives.

Any natural or legal person may, under the same conditions, institute proceedings against

a decision addressed to that person or against a decision which, although in the form of

a regulation or a decision addressed to another person, is of direct and individual concern to the former.

Parliament v Council (ECJ 1990)

Facts

• The Parliament sought an annulment of a regulation passed by Council, on the grounds that it lacked a legal basis based on the Treaties and Council had failed to submit an appropriate new proposal.

Issue

• Review of Legality – Standing of Parliament

Judgment

• As Parliament (at the time) is not mentioned in the list of institutions entitled to bring annulment proceedings and it is not a legal person, it is prima facie not entitled to bring proceedings.

• In the cases where it was previously decided that Parliament was not entitled to bring proceedings, there were other mechanisms for it to defend its prerogatives.

• However in this case, these may not be effectual – A) an action for a failure to act cannot be taken in respect of an act already passed, B) an action by a party otherwise entitled to mount one is a mere contingency that may not materialise and C) while the Commission has a duty to defend Parliament's prerogatives, this cannot extend to their defending a position with which they disagree.

• In order to protect the institutional balance created by the Treaties there must be a threat of penalty in case of infringement.

• The Court as interpreter of the Treaties, must provide an appropriate remedy when called on by Parliament to preserve the institutional balance of the Treaties.

Plaumann (ECJ 1963)

Issue

• Definition – Another Person – Individually affected

Judgment

• The words in the relevant section justify the widest interpretation and, in the interests of the rights of affected parties, should not be interpreted strictly.

• Thus, another person is capable of referring to Member States.

• To be 'individually affected', a person must be affected by a decision by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them and distinguishes them just as in the case of the person addressed.

• In this case, the applicant is an importer of clementines, an industry in which anyone can engage, and thus is not individually affected.

Piraiki-Patraiki (ECJ 1985)

Facts

• The case involved a challenge by a number of Greek cotton manufacturers, to the introduction of a series of quotas on imports of Greek cotton into France as part of the accession terms laid down for Greece.

Issue

• Standing – Direct and Individual concern

Judgment

• The fact that the Community action merely authorised rather than created the quota system does in and of itself prevent it being of direct concern to the applicants – since it was quite obvious that the French intended to introduce such a system it is of direct concern to the applicants.

• The applicants are affected by the decision in their capacity as exporters to France of cotton from Greece and, as this is a commercial undertaking which may be engaged in at any time by anyone, they cannot be said to be individually concerned by the measure.

• However, those undertakings which already had contracts with buyers in France for the time in which the quotas were in force were directly concerned by the Commission's failure to take steps to accommodate them.

Toepfer (ECJ 1965)

Facts

• The applicants challenged a decision by the Commission to authorise Germany to maintain protective measures on the imports of corn, millet and sorghum

Issue

• Direct Concern – Individual concern

Judgment

• A decision to authorise protective measures may be of direct concern to an individual.

• As the authorisation operated in such a way that it applied only to importers who applied for an import licence on a particular date, they were individually concerned – the Commission was in a position to know how its acts affected those importers alone.

Calpak (ECJ 1980)

Facts

• The applicants challenged certain measures adopted by the Commission which limited aid for the production of Williams pears preserved in syrup.

Issue

• Standing – Direct and Individual Concern

Judgment

• The form of the legislation is immaterial when deciding whether a measure is of direct and individual concern to an applicant.

• A provision which which limits the amount of aid available for producers of a given product to a uniform percentage of the quantity produced over a uniform preceding period is by nature a general measure.

• The fact that the producers in question pursues a system of production which results in highly variable yields so that the choice of assessment period disadvantages them, does not render it of individual concern to them.

Codorniu (ECJ 1994)

Facts

• The applicants challenged a system of labelling which applied to sparkling wines which had been introduced by the European Commission.

Issue

• Standing – Direct and Individual Concern

Judgment

• Just because a legislative measure applies to traders in general does not stop it being of individual concern to some of them.

• A contested provision is of individual concern to a natural or legal person if it affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances which differentiate them from all other persons.

• As this measure prevents the applicants from using their registered trademark, it is of individual concern to them.

Greenpeace (ECJ 1998)

Facts

• The applicants sought to challenge the grant of financial aid to Spain for the construction of two power stations.

Issue

• Standing

Judgment

• As far as natural or legal persons are concerned, where a person is not considered prior to the adoption of an act, and the act affects him/her only in a general and abstract fashion, s/he does not have standing – this applies regardless of whether the challenge is to a rule of environmental or economic law.

• The environmental effects of the power stations stem only indirectly from Community funding.

UPA (ECJ 2002)

Facts

• The applicants challenged a decision of the Council setting up a framework for a common market in olive oil.

Issue

• Standing

Judgment (Court of Justice)

• If a measure of general application affects natural or legal persons to the extent that it is in reality a decision in...