Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T22:16:24.727Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Judicial Architecture at the Cross-Roads: Private Parties and Challenge to Ec Measures Post-Jégo Quéré

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2017

Angela Ward
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article maps out the channels at the disposal of private parties for challenging the legality of EC measures, and attempts some predictions of the future shape and content of this plank of the EU’s judicial architecture. This area of the law is in a state of flux, particularly in the light of rulings such as UEAPME v. Council, Masterfoods Limited v. HB Ice Cream, Fresh Marine Company AS v. Commission, Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Bergaderm SA, in liquidation, and Jean-Jacques Goupil v. Commission, Bocchi Food Trade International GmbH v. Commission, and most recently, and significantly, Jégo Quéré and Cie SA v. Commission. In this latter ruling the Court of First Instance prescribed a major change to the rules on locus standi under Article 230(4) of the EC Treaty, a hitherto much maligned aspect of the case law, by relaxing the requirement of ‘individual concern’ laid down in that article.

Type
Research Article
Information
Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies , Volume 4 , 2001 , pp. 413 - 444
Copyright
Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Case T–135/96 [1998] ECR II–2335.

2 Case C–344/98, Judgment of 14 December 2000.

3 Case T–178/98 Judgment of 24 October 2000.

4 Case C–352/98 P [2000] ECR I–5291.

5 Case T–30/99, Judgment of 20 March 2001; Case T–18/99 Cordis Obst und Gemüse Großhandel GmbH v. Commission, Judgment of 20 March 2001;Case T–52/99 T Port GmbH v. Commission, judgment of 20 March 2001.

6 Case T– 177/01, Judgment of 3 May 2002.

7 Case C–50/2000 Opinion of 21 March 2002.

8 Jégo–Quéré above n 6 at paras 41 and 42; The Opinion of AG Jacobs in UPA above n 7 at para 39.

9 E.g. Case C–63/89 Assurances du crédit and Compagnie belge d’assurance crédit v. Council [1991] ECR I–1799; Case C–55/90 Cato v. Commission [1992] ECR I–2533; Bergaderm above n 4.

10 Case 281/82 Unifrex v. Commission and Council [1984] ECR 1969.

11 Ibid.

12 Case 63/89 Les Assurances du crédit v. Council and Commission [1991] ECR 1799; Bergaderm above n 4.

13 Case T–30/99, judgment of 20 March 2001; Case T–18/99 Cordis Obst und Gemüse Großhandel GmbH v. Commission, judgment of 20 March 2001;case T–52/99 T Port GmbH v. Commission, judgment of 20 March 2001

14 For detailed discussion see eg Wils, ‘Concurrent Liability of the Community and a Member State’ 17 (1992) ELRev 191 Google Scholar; Oliver, ’Joint Liability of the Community and the Member States’ in Heukels, T. and McDonnell, A. (eds) The Action for Damages in Community Law (Deventer, Kluwer 1997)Google Scholar

15 Case C–188//92 TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf v. Germany [1994] ECR I–833, para 24.

16 Case 314/85 Foto–Frost v. Hauptzollamt Lübeck–Ost [1987] ECR 4199. For the criteria to be applied in awarding interim relief see Joined Cases C–143/88 and C–92/89 Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmarschen AG v. Hauptzollamt Itzehoe and Zuckerfabrik Soest GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Paderborn [1991] ECR I–415; Case C–465/93 Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft v. Bundesamt für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft [1995] ECR I–3761.

17 Note also that pursuant to Article 68(2) EC measures or decisions relating to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security are wholly excluded from Court of Justice review. This may mean that even national courts against whose decision there is no judicial remedy are precluded from reviewing questions pertaining to the validity of these measures. For a detailed discussion see Ward, “The Limits of the Uniform Application of Community Law and Effective Judicial Review: A Look Post-Amsterdam” in Kilpatrick, C. et al (eds) The Future of Remedies in Europe (2000) 213 Google Scholar.

18 Case 199/82 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. SpA San Giorgio [1983] ECR I–3595, the principles of which were extended to validity proceedings in Case C–212/94 FMC v. IBAP, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1996] ECR I–389.

19 FMC ibid.

20 Case C–282/90 Industrie- en Handel Sonderneming Vreugdenhil v. Commission [1992] ECR I–1937; this case followed Case 22/88 Vreugdenhil v. Minister van Landouw en Visserij [1989] ECR 2049;Case T–167/94 Nölle v. Council [1995] ECR II–2589, which followed Case C–16/90 Nölle v.Hauptzollamt Bremen--Friehafen [1991] ECR I–5163.

21 Compare the Opinion of AG Darmon in Vreugdenhil v. Commission ibid at paras 33–34, where he expressed the view that the Community must ‘stand surety’ for any loss that was not recoverable before a national forum.

22 See among others Arnull, A. ‘Private applicants and the action for annulment under Article 173 of the EC Treaty’ 32 (1995) CMLRev 7 Google Scholar and ‘Private Applicants and the Action for Annulment Since Codorniu’ 38 (2001) CMLRev 7; D. Waelbroeck and A–M Verheyden ‘les conditions de recevabilité des recours en annulation des particuliers contre les actes normatifs communautaires: à la lumière du droit comparéet de la Convention des droits de l’homme’ (1995) CDE 399; Greaves ‘Locus Standi Under Article 173 when Seeking Annulment of a Regulation’ 11 (1986) ELRev 119.

23 Case 169/84 Compagnie Francaise de l’Azote (COFAZ) SA v. Commission [1986] ECR 391.

24 Case 264/82 Timex v. Council and Commission [1985] ECR 849.

25 Case 75/84 Metro No 2 [1986] ECR 3021.

26 Case 25/62 Plaumann v. Commission [1963] ECR 95.

27 Case 25/62 Plaumann v. Commission [1963] ECR 95 at 107.

28 Joined Cases 789 and 790 Calpak v. Commission [1980] ECR 1949, para 9.

29 Ibid.

30 Case C–321/95P Stichting Greenpeace v. Commission [1998] ECR I–1651.

31 Case T–219/95R Danielsson and Other v. Commission [1995] ECR II–3051.

32 Ibid at para 70. Compare the Opinion of AG Cosmas in Stichting Greenpeace above n 30, who formulated a standing test which arguably vested litigants in the position of those in Danielsson with standing under Article 230(4).

33 E.g. Case 100/74 CAM v. Commission [1975] ECR 1393.

34 E.g. Joined Cases 41–44/70 NV International Fruit Company v. Commission [1971] ECR 411.

35 CAM v. Commission above n 33 at 1403.

36 Case 11/82 Piraiki–Patraiki v. Commission [1985] ECR 207; Case C–152/88 Sofrimport v. Commission [1990] ECR I–2477.

37 Case C–358/89 [1991] ECR I–2501.

38 Case C–309/89 [1994] ECR I–1853.

39 In Cordoniu the Court of Justice confined its observations to the fact that the Trade Mark, use of which the applicant was deprived of the impugned Regulation had been registered by the applicant in 1924. However, Arnull, above n 22 at 39 argues that the case supports the view that ‘particularly serious impact on the applicant’s business’ can satisfy individual concern.

40 The tone was set soon after the Court of First Instance took over jurisdiction with respect to Article 230(4) claims, in Case T–489/93 Unifruit Hellas EPE v. Commission [1994] ECR II–1201.

41 Above n 7.

42 Ibid at para 37.

43 Ibid at para 43.

44 Ibid at para 41.

45 Ibid at para 42.

46 Ibid at para 44.

47 Case 11/70 Internationale Handelsgesselschaft mbH v. Einfahr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel [1970] ECR 1125.

48 Case 4/73 Nold v. Commission [1974] ECR 491.

49 Opinion of AG Tizzano of 8 February 2001 BECTU v. Sec. o f State for Trade and Industry, para 28. See similarly AG Leger in Case C–353/99 P Council v. Hautala, especially at paras 80 to 83; AG Mischo Joined Cases C–20/00 and C–64/00 Booker Aquaculture v. The Scottish Ministers para 126.

50 Mancini, and Keeling, ‘Democracy and the European Court of Justice’ 57 (1994) MLR 175, 188CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 Case 69/69 Alcan v. Commission [1970] ECR 385.

52 CaseC–386/96 P Dreyfus v. Commission [1998] ECR I–2309, para 43.

53 Ibid.

54 Advocate General Tesauro in Case C–63/89 Les assurances du credit above n 9 at para 6 of his Opinion.

55 Joined Cases 83, 94/76, 4, 15, 40/77 HNL v. Council and Commission [1978] ECR 1209.

56 Case 5/71 Schöppenstedt [1971] ECR 975.

57 E.g. Case C-146/91 KYDEP v. Council and Commission [1994] ECR I–4199.

58 AG Darmon in Case C–55/90 Cato v. Commission [1992] ECR I–2533; AG Léger in Case C–5/94 The Queen v. Ministry for Agriculture Fisheries and Food ex parte Hedley Lomas Ireland Limited [1996] ECR I–2553; AG Tesauro in Joined Cases C–46/93 and C–48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame III [1996] ECR I–1029.

59 Joined Cases C–46/93 and C–48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame III [1996] ECR I–1029, para 65 of the AG’s Opinion.

60 Case C–152/88[1990] ECR I–2477.

61 Above n 15.

62 Above nn 9 to 15.

63 See cases cited above n 12.

64 Above n 7.

65 Ibid at para 41.

66 Foto–Frost above n 16.

67 For an example see the tortuous Case C–304/89 Oliveira v. Commission [1991] ECR I–2283; Case T–73/95 Oliveira v. Commission [1997] ECR II–381.

68 Above text nn 16 to 19.

69 Ibid.

70 TWD above n 15.

71 Case 222/84 Johnston v. Chief Constable of the RUC [1986] ECR 1651.

72 Above n 6.

73 Above n 37.

74 Above n 38.

75 OJ 2001 L 159/4.

76 Above n 6 at para 18.

77 Ibid at para 24.

78 Ibid at para 23.

79 Above nn 26 to 27.

80 Above n 6 at para 30.

81 Ibid at paras 32–33. See further above text nn 35 to 36.

82 Ibid at paras 34 to 36. See further above text nn 22 to 26.

83 Ibid at para 37.

84 Above n 37

85 Above n 38.

86 Above n 6 at para 41.

87 Ibid at para 43.

88 Above n 7 at para 43.

89 Ibid at para 45.

90 Ibid at para 46.

91 Above n 7 at para 59.

92 Ibid at para 49.

93 Ibid at para 47.

94 Ibid at para 51.

95 Above n 37.

96 Above n 38.

97 Above n 6 at para 26.

98 AG Jacobs in UPA above n 7 at para 79.

99 For the decision of the Court of Appeal See R v. Secretary of State for Health, and others ex parte Imperial Tobacco Ltd and others [2000] 1 CMLR 307.

100 Case C–376/98 Germany v. Parliament and Council (Tobacco Advertising) [2000] ECR I–8419.

101 Above text nn 42 to 43.

102 AG Tesauro Assurances du crédit above n 9 at para 9.

103 Above n 7 at para 46.

104 Ibid at para 47.

105 Ibid at para 48.

106 Ibid.

107 Above n 7 at para 60.

108 Ibid at para 49.

109 Above n 15.

110 Joined Cases T–172/98 and T–175/98 to T–177/98, judgment of 27 June 2000.

111 Above text n 99 to 100.

112 Ibid at para 54, citing, inter alia Case C–91/92 Faccini Dori v. Recreb [1994] ECR I–3325.

113 Ibid (my emphasis).

114 Above n 1.

115 OJ 1996 L 145/4.

116 Above n 1 at paras 69 to 82.

117 Ibid at para 89.

118 Above n 3.

119 Above text nn 54 to 58.

120 Regulation (EC) No 2529/97 OJ 1997 L 346/63

121 Case C–121/86 Anonymos Etaireia Epicheiriseon Metalleftikon Viomichanikon kai Naftiliakon AE and others v. Commission and Council [1989] ECR I–3919; Case T–167/94 Nölle v. Council and Commission [1995] ECR II–2589.

122 Fresh Marine above n 3 at para 57.

123 Ibid.

124 Ibid at para 61.

125 Above n 4.

126 See in particular at paras 41 to 44. For a discussion see Tridimas, “Liability for Breach of Community Law: Growing Up and Mellowing Down?” 38 (2001) CMLRev. Google Scholar The Bergaderm approach has been employed subsequently. See for example Cordis Obst und Gemüse Großhandel GmbH v. Commission, above n 5, esp at para 45; Bocchi Food Trade International GmbH v. Commission, above n 5, esp at para 50; T Port GmbH & Co KG v. Commission, above n 5, esp at para 45; Joined Cases T–198/95. T–171/96, T–230/97, T–174/98 and T–225/99 Comafrica SpA and another v. Commission, judgment of the CFI of 12 July 2001, esp at para 134.

127 Above n 4 at para 44.

128 Council Dir. 76/768 of 27 July 1976 OJ 1976 L 262/169.

129 Bergaderm, above n 4 at para 46.

130 Above text nn 55 to 56.

131 E.g. Case T-196/99 Area Cova SA and others v. Council and Commission, judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 December 2001, para 45. For further examples of application of the ‘sufficiently serious’ test see Bocchi Foods above n 5, para 50; Cordis above n 5, para 45; T Port above n 5, para 45; Case T–174/002 Biret International v. Council, judgment of 11 January 2002, para 45; Case T–210/02 Établissements Biret et Cie SA v. Council, judgment of 11 January 2002, para 52.

132 Cordis above n 5; T. Port above n 5.

133 Bocchi Foods above n 5 at paras 27–28.

134 Ibid at para 28.

135 Ibid at para 31. See also; Cordis above n 5 at para 26; T Port above n 5 at para 26; Biret International SA v. Council, above n 131, para 33; Établissements Biret et Cie SA v. Council, above n 131, para 36.

136 Ibid at para 32. See also: Cordis above n 5 at para 27; T Port above n 5 at para 27; Biret International SA v. Council, above n 131, para 34; Établissements Biret et Cie SA v. Council, above n 131, para 37.

137 Ibid at para 33. See also: Cordis above n 5 at para 28; T Port above n 5 at para 28; Biret International SA v. Council, above n 131, para 35; Établissements Biret et Cie SA v. Council, above n 131, para 38.

138 Case C–344/98 above n 2.

139 Case C–344/98 judgment of 14 December 2000 at para 47.

140 Ibid at para 51.

141 Ibid at para 52.

142 Ibid at para 57.

143 Matthews v. the United Kingdom 28 EHRR (1999) 361.

144 Above n 38.

145 Above n 4.

146 For a detailed discussion of the Amsterdam revisions see Albors–Llorens, ‘Changes in the Jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice under the Treaty of Amsterdam’ 35 (1998) CMLRev 1273 Google Scholar.

147 There is no right of direct access to the Court of First Instance, in the hands of private parties, to seek annulment of PJCC measures. Under Article 35(6) and (7), only Member States and the Commission can bring nullity proceedings. Further, Article 35(5) TEU precludes the Court of Justice from reviewing the validity or proportionality of operations carried out by police or law enforcement services of a Member State, and decisions relating to maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security. These matters may therefore be excluded from consideration in questions sent to the Court of Justice from national courts concerning PJCC measures.

148 Judge Nicholas, Forwood ‘The Evolving Role of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities’ (2000) 3 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 139, 146Google Scholar.

149 Ibid at 142–144.

150 Case C–50/00 P.

151 Ibid at para 43. See AG Jacobs above n 7 at paras 50 to 53.

152 Ibid at para 41.

153 Ibid at para 42.

154 Ibid at para 45.

155 Ibid at para 40.

156 Brussels, 18 June 2002 (20.06) CONV 116/02 WG II 1.

157 Ibid at 17.

158 Contribution of Mr Jacob Söderman, European Ombudsman: ‘Proposals for Treaty changes’, Brussels 26 July 2002 CONV 221/02, Contrib 76, The European Convention, the Secretariat.

159 Ibid at 4.

160 Brussels, 15 May 2002 CONV 50/02, The European Convention, the Secretariat.

161 Ibid at 3.

162 Ibid.