According to the European Court of Justice, the ability to review the legality of Community Acts is a part of "the complete system of legal remedies and procedures designed to permit the Court of Justice to review the legality of measures adopted by the institutions". Following article 230(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, the States are privileged claimants and are given a priority before the ECJ in challenging the legality of Community acts. This judicial action is extended in a restrictive way to individuals, who have to fulfill several conditions put together, to be admissible. They must be individually and directly concerned by the act in question. To put it another way, individuals can only challenge a decision, and not an act of general scope. However, it is important to notice that an individual can indirectly challenge the validity of a general act only if that act has entailed implementing measures. Therefore, in effect, he will not challenge the act itself, but the measure of implementation before the domestic judge. However, a problem arises when a regulation is involved. Individuals have no recourse at all against such an act, given that they do not have any implementing measure to challenge (the regulation being directly applicable).
[...] Signed in Lisbon on 13 December 2007, and in process of ratification through the different Member States. It should enter into force in January 2009. Plaumann v Commission (1963), ECJ. [xii] ECJ judgment, supra note 11; confirmed in Cordniu v Council (1994), ECJ. [xiii] Alfred Topfer and Getreide-Import Gesellschaft v Commission (1965) ECJ. [xiv] Union de PequeH os Agricultores v Council (2002), ECJ. Union de Pequeňos Agricultores v Council (2002), ECJ. [...]
[...] Until 2002, and in spite of several critics from the doctrine, the European judge was inclined to give a very restrictive interpretation of article 230 thus harming the fundamental right to an effective remedy. Indeed he traditionally considers that, for the requirement of “individually concerned” to be fulfilled by the applicants, the challenged act “must affect their position by reason of a certain attributes peculiar to them, or by reason of a factual situation which differentiates them from all other persons and distinguishes them individually in the same way as the addressee”.[xi] The case law of the Court has considerably restrained the scope of application of article 230 for individuals: in fact, the judge considers that an act will individually affect the claimant if it applies to group,[xii] and if it has been adopted depending one characteristics proper to the group in question[xiii]. [...]
[...] [xvi] Opinion of AG Jacobs in the UPA case, paragraph 102 [xvii] Supra note 15, paragraph 102 [xviii] CFI. [xix] Jégo-Quéré v Commission (2002), CFI, paragraph 51. Supra note 14. [xxi] Supra note paragraph 29. [xxii] Supra note paragraph 30. [xxiii] Supra note paragraph 38. [...]
[...] [iii] TEC. Article 230 The Court considers first of all the first requirement; if it is fulfilled, the Court will consider the second one. But both conditions are cumulative. As defined in article 249 TEC. [vii] Article 234 TEC. [viii] EU Charter. Commission v Jégo-Quéré (2004) ECJ. [...]
[...] Paul CRAIG and Gráinne DE BURCA, EU law Text, Cases, and Materials (Oxford University Press, 2007), and The evolution of EU Law (Oxford University Press, 2003). Nigel FOSTER, EU Treaties and Legislation 2007-2008 (Oxford University Press, 2007). Jean-Paul JACQUE, Droit institutionnel de l'Union Européenne (Dalloz, 2004). Cornelia KOCH, Commission v Jégo-Quéré case (The American Journal of International law, 2004). Angela WARD, Judicial review and the rights of Private Parties in EC law (Oxford University Press, 2000). ECJ. Parti Ecologiste Les Verts v Parliament (1986), ECJ. [...]
Bibliographie, normes APA
Citez le doc consultéLecture en ligne
et sans publicité !Contenu vérifié
par notre comité de lecture
