An Action for Annulment:
Article 263 TFEU: The Court of Justice of the European Union shall review the legality of legislative acts...It shall also review the legality of acts of bodies, offices or agencies
of the Union... 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 the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application, or misuse of powers.

Locus Standi:
Privilidged applicants= member states central governments, European Parliament, the Council + the Commissions
Semi Privilidged applicants= The court of Auditors, the ECB, the Committee of the Regions
Non-Privilidged = Natural and legal persons.
↳the act must be addressed to him and of direct and individual concern OR a regulatory act of direct concern which does not entail implementing measures.

ERTA: Dispute between Commission + Council as to whether the commission or member states had to right to negotiate a European Agreement with non-member states. When the community implements a common policy the member states no longer have an individual or collective right to undertake obligations with third party/ international countries as this would be incompatible with the uniform application of union law. Only the Community can exclusively negotiate and conclude external agreements, this suggests a limitation upon the member state's autonomous power. Implied powers doctrine; an implied international legal personality can be assumed which seems to conflict with this ruling. Held, all measures adopted by institutions which are intended to have legal force can be bought for an action of annulment.

IBM: A measure can be judicially reviewed with it is a formal legal act and when it is intended to produce legal effects. The measure must bring abut a distinct change in the applicant's legal standing. IBM challenged proceedings against them for breach of EU competition law. An act is open to review if it definitively lays down the position of the commission/council as a conclusion instead of a provisional measure (leading to the conclusion). In this case proceedings were merely preparatory as so did not compromise IBM's rights.

Reynolds Tobacco: There was no distinct change in the applicant's legal position. The applicants were a cigarette company whom were suspected of smuggling cigarettes into the EU. The Commission bought civil proceedings against them in the US. In the Us court the commission was seeking an injunction and damages for lost customs duties and VAT. This did not satisfy the IBM test as starting the legal proceedings did not determine the party's obligations.

Acts of the EU parliament, bodies and offices are intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties.

Les Verts: french political group sought the annulment of measures adopted by the EU parliament. The court held that one could challenge the EU parliament under what is now Article 263. It would be inconsistent with the spirit of the Treaty for measures adopted by the parliament to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties to be excluded from the scope of the action for annulment.

Grounds of review:

Lack of Competence (i.e. lack of authority to adopt a measure and exceeding power.)
Breach of an essential procedural requirement
Infringement of the Treaty/ any rule of law
Misuse of powers (must be determined upon objective policy grounds as opposed to administrative grounds).

Article 296 TFEU: Requires legal acts of the Union to state the legal basis on which they are based.

Commission v European Parliament and Council: the European Parliament sought the annulment of Council Decision in regards the surveillance of the sea external borders.

Omega Air: The validity of a regulation restricting the use of aeroplanes at European Airports was questioned. Omega was an aircraft trader, they were developing a programme for engine replacement that would meet with the regulation's noise standards.

Tobacco Case: Union measures will only be illegal if the action is manifestly inappropriate.The claimants were five companies involved in the tobacco industry who applied for judicial review to challenge the lawfulness of the limitations placed by the Tobacco Advertising Regulations on the basis that the restrictions imposed were in breach of Article 10 of the Convention since they went beyond the legitimate aim of preventing children being influenced and sought to deter adults buying cigarettes as to impair the "very essence" of commercial free speech. Held,

Art 263 TFEU: proceedings for a grounds of review must be bought within two months of being notified to the plaintiff.

Art 246 TFEU: Having identified a measure which has been established as an action for annulment, the court shall declare the act to be void.
Art 266 TFEU: The institution of required to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgement (e.g. adopting a new measure).

Certain aspects of the action may not necessarily be considered void.

Plaumann: Clementine importation; a person is not individual concerned merely because it carries a particular commercial activity which could be practiced by anyone. The clementine importation would affect all importers in the past, present and future. There was nothing to make the claimant particularly concerned.

Inuit Tapitiit Kanatami: The Paumann Formula stated that in order for an act to be of individual concern, the act must affect them in the same way of an addressee of a decision due to attributes particular to them alone. Direct concern = an applicant must show that at the time the act was adopted, the effect it produced on him is substantially certain.

Alacan v Commission: Decision adopted by the Commission addressed to Belgium disallowed importation of aluminium at a discounted rate. Alcan was an aluminium business whom believed this decision affected them. However, because there was no certainty that he would be using imported aluminium, his claim was dismissed. There must be no doubt of the discretion and the direct effect.

Piraiki-Patraiki: Applicants sought annulment of decision authorising France to restrict import of cotton yarn. This was held to go against the free movement of goods. Originally the applicants were not directly concerned as they had no idea whether the French Government were to actually enforce the authorisation. However, because the French government had asked for the authorisation it was assumed that the decision would be applied and so the action was of direct concern. It was also of individual concern of some of the applicants whom had entered into contracts before the decision was adopted- they were a closed class of individuals (the commission should have taken into account the effect upon the parties of these contracts).

Buralux: Court dismissed the challenge to a council regulation on the removal of waste as inadmissible. Contracts existed for disposing of waste from Germany to France. The French authorities adopted an action prohibiting household waste importation.The court upheld that the applicants were not individually concerned as this was not a closed group, it affected everyone within France and Germany whom were in the commercial business of waste disposal despite the fact that they were already in contracts.

UPA: UPA was a Spanish trade association representing Spanish farmers whom wished to bring an action for annulment against the council's decision to introduce new regulations which abolished aid to olive farmers. When bringing action against regulatory acts which do not entail implementing measures, direct concern= a substantial adverse effect on the applicant's interests. It is the responsibility of the member states to establish legal remedies and for national courts to interpretate national law in such a way that allows claimants to bring the procedure forward (now Article 19(1) TEU).

Jégo-Quéré: Challenged a commission regulation which imposed a minimum mesh size for fishing nets. Held, the applicant was not individually concerned under the Plaumann test particularly because no restrictions or obligations were imposed, merely a regulation. However, a remedy must still be bought forward, this must be done by the Member state themselves as opposed to the Commission.

Regulatory Acts:
Inuit Tapitiit Kanatami: Measure adopted to restrict trade of seal products under legislative procedure. Regulatory Acts= All acts of general application except for legislative acts (those adopted under both ordinary and special legislative procedure- Article 188 TFEU). As this measure was therefore legislative the applicant must establish direct and individual concern. There was held to be no individual concern as it was expressed in general terms and applied equally to all whom were covered by it.

Microban: Commission decision prevented the use of an additive which the applicants manufactured. This was held to be a regulatory act under Article 263 and did not entail implementing measures. It was also of direct concern to the applicants because it was a restrictive prohibition.

Rutgers: Applicants sought annulment of decision which did not entail implementing measures. Held, under Article 263 this was of general application even through it had been enforced by an Agency as opposed to the Commission itself. However although the applicants had standing the regulatory act was held to not be unlawful. There was nothing wrong with the substance of the act.

	Erstellt von cadhla_corrigan vor mehr als 10 Jahre

annulment proceedings in eu law