EU Law continue (from acts for annulment) Flashcards
(144 cards)
Action against failure of an institution to act under article 265 TFEU
“Should the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the Commission or the European Central Bank, in infringement of the treaties, fail to act, the Member States and the other institutions of the Union may bring an action before the Court of Justice of the European Union to have the infringement established…”
What may be challenged under Art 265 TFEU?
- Regarded as ‘the other side of the coin’ from actions under Art 263 TFEU
- Failure to act may be used to compel an institution to fulfil its union obligations
- An action will only be available where the applicant can show that such an obligation exists
Who has the right to challenge under Art 265 TFEU?
- Distinction between status of applicants
- Individuals may only challenge a failure to act when it concerns a binding act of which they would have been the addressee and in which they are able to establish direct and individual concern, or direct concern only in the case of a regulatory act that does not entail implementing measures
What are the relevant time limits for challenging an institution under Art 265 TFEU?
- Treaty does not specify any time limit during which an action must be initiated, but applicant must approach institution concerned beforehand and make clear that if it does not comply with union obligations to an act within 2 months, it will be subject to challenge
- Institution then has 2 months to define its position
- If this isn’t done, applicant has further 2 months within which to bring to action
What are the consequences of a successful challenge under art 265 tfeu?
- If action is upheld, court will declare that failure to act is contrary to the treaty and art 266 requires that the institution ‘must take the necessary measures to comply with the judgement of the CJ’ within a reasonable period of time
- If institution has defined its position but not adopted the dispute measure, it is not possible to bring an action for ‘failure to act’
Plea of illegality under art 277 TFEU
- Provides for a challenge to the act of an institution
- A plea of illegality under this act is an indirect action
- It is only available as a defence where other proceedings have been brought against the applicant and my be pleaded only in the course of proceedings which are already underway on other grounds
- If this plea succeeds, although the regulation itself will not be annulled, its basis for the decision in question will be ‘inapplicable’ and the decision will be void
Plea of illegality under art 277 TFEU
- Provides for a challenge to the act of an institution
- A plea of illegality under this act is an indirect action
- It is only available as a defence where other proceedings have been brought against the applicant and my be pleaded only in the course of proceedings which are already underway on other grounds
- If this plea succeeds, although the regulation itself will not be annulled, its basis for the decision in question will be ‘inapplicable’ and the decision will be void
What does art 267 TFEU enable?
- Enables national courts and tribunals to refer questions of european union law that require to be decided in a case pending before them to the CJEU for a ruling
- In the future, the general court may be granted jurisdiction over certain art 267 actions, via amendments to the statute of the court of justice (art 256.3)
- This procedure has also proved to be the springboard for the development of some of the most fundamental concepts of union law, such as direct effect and supremacy
What is a benefit of the preliminary ruling procedure?
The preliminary ruling procedure gas allowed them to mount challenges to the validity of union acts in a manner which is much less restrictive that the procedural requirements of judicial review
What is the preliminary rulings procedure for?
- An indirect action involving the national court hearing a case concerning a point of union law and asking for guidance on its interpretation from CJEU
- Represents a dialogue between a national court and the CJEU
- Parties in the case cannot compel a national judge to make a request for a preliminary ruling to Luxembourg
What does the preliminary rulings procedure involve?
- National court seeking guidance on a point of interpretation, or validity of european law by formulating a question(s) for clarification by CJEU
- The case in the national court is then suspended until a ruling is given
- CJ does not investigate the facts of the case, nor does it apply the law to the case. It simply clarifies the point of European law
- The judgement is binding on national court referring the q, who then continues the case and gives judgement in light of CJ interpretation
What does the preliminary rulings procedure involve?
- National court seeking guidance on a point of interpretation, or validity of european law by formulating a question(s) for clarification by CJEU
- The case in the national court is then suspended until a ruling is given
- CJ does not investigate the facts of the case, nor does it apply the law to the case. It simply clarifies the point of European law
- The judgement is binding on national court referring the q, who then continues the case and gives judgement in light of CJ interpretation
What are the 2 powers of CJ concerning preliminary rulings?
- Court’s interpretation of union law
- Power to rule on the validity of acts of the institutions
(Does not have the power to call into question the validity of the founding constitutional texts, such as TEU, TFEU and Euratom Treaty)
What may the CJ look at when making interpretations?
- Text of the treaties
- General scheme of treaty as a whole
- Broad policy objectives of treaty
Does art 267 contain any restrictions as to grounds on which validity of union acts may be contested?
No
Is there a time limit in which questions of validity may be raised under art 267?
No
Is there a time limit in which questions of validity may be raised under art 267?
No
What is a compulsory reference?
‘a court against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy’
- If a question of union law - interpretation or validity - is raised before a court from which there is no appeal, then that court is bound to send a question to the european court
- Failure to do so invoke the liability of the MS
- The purpose of this is to avoid a mistaken interpretation of union law being given by the highest courts in the land, with other courts bound by that decision through precedent
Which courts in a MS are subject to the obligation to refer?
2 theories:
- Abstract theory: only National courts which are always a court of last resort in the hierarchy for judicial precedent (e.g. Supreme Court in Scotland)
- Concrete theory: Court of appeal or, in exceptional case, Scottish court of session when leave of appeal to the house of lords has been refused
What are the essential characteristics of ‘any court or tribunal’ within union context?
The body:
- Is established by law
- is permanent
- has compulsory jurisdiction
- its procedure is inter pares
- applies the rule of law
- is independent
Who does not have locus standi to submit questions for preliminary rulings?
Parliaments
Governments
Union institutions
What are the 3 circumstances in which a national court of last resort need not refer a question in the case of CILFIT [1982]
- Where a question of union law is irrelevant to the case at issue
- Where the point has already been decided by a previous decision of the CJ (acte eclaire)
- If the correct application of union law is so obvious as to leave no doubt as to the manner in which the matter is to be resolved (acte clair)
- where the matter is equally obvious to the courts of the other MS and to the CJ
What are the problems if a national supreme court were not to ask for a preliminary ruling in the previous circumstances
- EU law is drafted in several different languages all of them equally authentic and binding, so any interpretation by a national court would require a comparison of all different language versions
- Union law has its own particular terminology, such legal concepts do not necessarily have the same meaning in union law as they do in national law
- union law must always be interpreted in context and in the light of the evolution of union law at that particular time, in other words, the interpretation is by the teleological method
The preliminary rulings procedure……
- gives individuals the opportunity for an indirect challenge to the validity of union law within their own national courts
- allows an individual to obtain domestic remedies which would otherwise not be available in the event of a direct challenge under art 263
- is a court-to-court dialogue only
- provides guidance to a national court when applying the law
- is not an appeals procedure
- allows union law to be interpreted by 1 authoritative source in a consistent and uniform manner throughout all member states
- has allowed the CJEU to extend the scope and effectiveness of the union legal order
- is not limited to the 4 grounds of review essential under art 263
- may be raised by a national court at any time
- must be raised by a national court or tribunal (within union context) unless national court applies CILFIT doctrine
- binds the court or tribunal which made the reference to the court of justice