Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-04T20:28:46.735Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Another Step towards a Definition of ‘Implementing Measures’?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Camilla Buchanan  and
Luca Bolzonello
Luca Bolzonello
Affiliation:
Legal Affairs Unit/Registry of the Board of Appeal, European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Case T-397/13, Tilly Sabco v Commission, Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 January 2016, ECLI:EU:T:2016:8

Article 263 TFEU allows applicants to challenge regulatory acts which are of direct concern to them and do not entail implementing measures. In this judgment the General Court held effectively that the implementing measure cannot be hypothetical but must follow-on naturally from the underlying regulatory act. This note discusses the significance of this seemingly new element in the meaning of ‘entail implementing measures’ and its potential consequences.

Type
Case Notes
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 223 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016

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 Most notably, the Court defined the concept of ‘regulatory act’ in Case C-583/11 P, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council, EU:C:2013:625, at para. 61. The question of what are ‘implementing measures’ has also been broached in several cases, see e.g. Case T-262/10, Microban International Ltd and Microban (Europe) Ltd v Commission, EU:T:2011:623; Case C-274/12 P, Telefónica v Commission, EU:C:2013:852; Case C-456/13 P, T&L Sugars Ltd and Sidul Acúcares v Commission, EU:C:2015:284.

2 Buchanan, C. and Bolzonello, L., Towards a definition of implementing measures under Article 263, paragraph 4, TFEU, 2015 EJRR 6(4), p. 671–676.Google Scholar

3 The French company Doux SA intervened in support of Tilly- Sabco in this case and also brought its own similar action in Case T-434/13, Doux v Commission, EU:T:2016:7. Notably France also brought an action for annulment against the Commission on the same matter in Case T-549/13, France v Commission, EU:T:2016:6.

4 Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation), OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

5 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultrymeat, OJ L 196, 19.7.2013, p. 13 (henceforth the ‘contested Regulation’).

6 See Case T-397/13, Tilly Sabco v Commission, EU:T:2016:8, para. 8–9.

7 Tilly-Sabco, supra, note 6, para. 30-32; citing Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, note 1 supra , para. 61; Case T-18/10, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council, EU:T:2011:419, para. 56; and Microban, note 1 supra, para 21.

8 Tilly-Sabco, note 6 supra, para. 34.

9 Tilly-Sabco, supra, note 6, para. 35.

10 Tilly-Sabco, supra, note 6, para. 36–38.

11 Tilly-Sabco, supra, note 6, para. 41, citing Telefónica, supra note 1, para. 30–31.

12 Tilly-Sabco, supra, note 6, para. 42.

13 Tilly-Sabco, supra, note 6, para. 43. The judgment is only available in French at the time of writing (the language of the case). The French text states: « Cela signifie que peuvent seulement constituer des mesures d’exécution au sens de cette disposition des mesures que les organes ou organismes de l’Union ou les autorités nationales adoptent dans le cours normal des affaires. Si, dans le cours normal des affaires, les organes ou organismes de l’Union et les autorités nationales n’adoptent aucune mesure pour mettre en oeuvre l’acte réglementaire et pour concrétiser ses conséquences pour chacun des opérateurs concernés, cet acte réglementaire ne « comporte » pas de mesures d’exécution ».

14 Tilly-Sabco, supra, note 6, para. 43–44

15 Tilly-Sabco, supra, note 6, para. 45: « [I]l doit s’agir de mesures qui suivent naturellement l’acte réglementaire. Il n’est pas suffisant qu’un opérateur ait la possibilité d’obliger, de manière artificielle, l’administration à adopter une mesure susceptible de recours, car une telle mesure ne constitue pas une mesure que l’acte réglementaire « comporte ». »

16 Tilly-Sabco, supra, note 6, para. 59–62

17 Tilly-Sabco, supra note 6, para. 65; see also Telefónica, note 1 supra, para. 65.

18 Tilly-Sabco, supra, note 8, para. 65: « À plus forte raison, il n’est pas exclu qu’un règlement fixant à zéro le montant de restitutions ne comporte pas de mesures d’exécution, tandis qu’un règlement « similaire » fixant des restitutions à un montant positif en comporte. »

19 Tilly-Sabco, supra, note 6, para. 41–42, citing Telefónica, supra, note 1, para. 30–31. See also T&L Sugars, supra, note 1, para. 32, and Case C-132/12 P, Stichting Woonpunt and Others v Commission, EU:C:2014:100, para. 50.

20 See Buchanan, C. and Bolzonello, L., Towards a definition of implementing measures under Article 263, paragraph 4, TFEU, 2015 EJRR 6(4), p. 671–676 Google Scholar; see also Case T-279/11, T&L Sugars Ltd and Sidul Açúcares v Commission, EU:T:2013:299, para. 49–50; cf. Tilly-Sabco, supra, note 8, para. 43.

21 Case C-84/14 P, Forgital v Council, EU:C:2015:517, para. 52.

22 Tilly-Sabco, supra, note 6, para. 43.

23 Tilly-Sabco, supra, note 6, para. 62.

24 Tilly-Sabco, supra, note 6, para. 64–65.

25 See for example C-552/14 P, Canon v Commission, EU:C:2015:804, paras. 50–51.