Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2014:2229
Date: 2014-09-17
Language of the case: Estonian
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Economic, social and territorial cohesion;European Social Fund (ESF);European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Estonia

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 17 September 2014 1. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the Courts of the European Union — Action brought against a decision of a monitoring committee instituted by a Member State under Regulation No 1083/2006 — Inadmissibility — Jurisdiction of the national courts (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1080/2006; Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Art. 63(1) and (2)) 2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for an interpretation of a measure which was not adopted by an institution, organ or body of the European Union — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267, first para., (b), TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1080/2006; Council Regulation No 1083/2006) 3. Economic, social and territorial cohesion — European Regional Development Fund — Management and control — Monitoring committees — Programme manual of a monitoring committee providing that the decisions of that committee rejecting applications for aid cannot be subject to legal review — Unlawful — Infringement of the right to an effective remedy (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 47 and 51(1); European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1080/2006; Council Regulation No 1083/2006) 4. Fundamental rights — Right to effective judicial protection — Obligations of national courts — Examination, irrespective of any national procedural rules precluding it, of the lawfulness of a decision of a national authority falling within the scope of EU law (Art. 19(1), second para., TEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47) 5. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Interpretation — Temporal effects of judgments by way of interpretation — Retroactive effect — Limits — Financial consequences of the judgment — Consequences not justifying the limitation in time of the effects of the judgment (Art. 267 TFEU) 1. Article 263 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of an operational programme under Regulation No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation No 1260/1999 and Regulation No 1080/2006 on the European Regional Development Fund and repealing Regulation 1783/1999 and intended to promote European territorial cooperation, an action against a decision of a monitoring committee rejecting an application for aid does not fall within the jurisdiction of the General Court of the European Union. A monitoring committee instituted as part of an operational programme to promote European territorial cooperation is not an institution or a body, office or agency of the European Union instituted by the EU legislature and given powers to adopt measures that are legally binding on natural or legal persons in specific areas. Under Article 63(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1083/2006, each monitoring committee draws up its rules of procedure within the institutional, legal and financial framework of the Member State concerned. The European Union Courts have no jurisdiction to rule on the lawfulness of a measure adopted by a national authority. (see paras 46-49, 52, operative part 1) 2. Point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a programme manual adopted by a monitoring committee in the context of an operational programme under Regulation No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation No 1260/1999 and Regulation No 1080/2006 on the European Regional Development Fund and repealing Regulation No 1783/1999 and intended to promote European territorial cooperation between two Member States does not constitute an act of an institution, body, office or agency of the European Union and, in consequence, the Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to review the validity of the provisions of such a manual. (see para. 56, operative part 2) 3. Regulation No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation No 1260/1999, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a provision of a programme manual adopted by a monitoring committee in the context of an operational programme established by two Member States and intended to promote European territorial cooperation, where that provision does not provide that a decision of the monitoring committee rejecting an application for aid can be subject to appeal before a court of a Member State. Accordingly, since the adoption of the programme manual by a monitoring committee in the context of an operational programme under Regulations Nos 1083/2006 and 1080/2006 on the European Regional Development Fund and repealing Regulation 1783/1999 constitutes implementation of EU law for the purposes of Article 51(1) of the Charter, that committee is required to comply with the provisions of the Charter. (see paras 65, 66, 76, operative part 3) 4. To ensure that the right to an effective remedy laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union within the EU is upheld, the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU requires the Member States to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law. In that regard, the requirement for judicial review of any decision of a national authority constitutes a general principle of EU law. Pursuant to that principle, it is for the national courts to rule on the lawfulness of a disputed national measure and to regard an action brought for that purpose as admissible even if the domestic rules of procedure do not so provide in such a case. (see paras 68, 75) 5. See the text of the decision. (see paras 81-83)