This is an extract of our Review Of Legality Article 230ec document, which we sell as part of our Irish European Union Law Notes collection written by the top tier of Trinity College Dublin students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Irish European Union Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
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 vis a vis 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
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Irish European Union Law Notes.