Source: https://www.oxbridgenotes.co.uk/revision_notes/law-european-law/samples/jr-and-standing
Timestamp: 2020-04-06 17:31:40
Document Index: 243782138

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art 263', 'Art 267', 'Art 263', 'Art 267', 'Art 267', 'Art 263', 'Art 263', 'Art 267', 'Art 267', 'Art 263', 'Art 263', 'Art 267', 'Sui generis']

Jr &amp; Standing | Oxbridge Notes
This is an extract of our Jr & Standing document, which we sell as part of our European Law Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.
Judicial Review & Standing
2 ways to challenge EU acts (1) Direct (Art 263 TFEU) (2) Indirect (Art 267 TFEU)
? If C can't challenge the measure directly under Art 263, could seek to challenge the implementing measures by way of preliminary reference under Art 267 ?only where: a) C wouldn't have standing under Art 267 o TWD Textilwerke: Comm. held aid given by German govt.to TWDincompatible w/free market
& had to be repaid; decision addressed to govt. which informed TWD it could challenge it under Art 263but TWDchose to challenge under 267; ECJ: no indirect challenge possible b/cTWDwas informed it could challenge under 263 but failed to do so in the specified time limit. It was 'obvious' P would have had standing under Art 263 b) Not clear whether C would have standing under Art 267 o Eurotunnel SA v Seafrance [1997]: C could challenge provisions of Dir. addressed to MS under Art 267, if it was unclear whether he would have been granted standing under Art 263. TWD distinguished. Direct Review
1. Body amenable to JR
2. Act of the type that can be challenged
3. Institution/person has standing
4. Illegality one of the 4 grounds of review in 263(2)
5. Challenge brought within applicable time limits Body amenable to JR(Art 263(1))
Council, Commission, ECB - all acts, incl. legislative acts, other than recommendations & opinions
EP, European Council, other EU bodies, agencies etc. - only acts intended to produce legal effects on TPs Acts open to review (i) Pre-Lisbon
? Decisions - Cs to whom they're addressed/Cs directly & individually concerned
? Regulations - individuals directly & individually concerned (even 'true' regulation)
? Directives - little, if any, possibility, since MS had large margin of discretion (ii) Post Lisbon
? Acts addressed to C/ of direct & individual concern to C
? Regulatory acts of direct concern to C not entailing implementing measures
? Meaning of "regulatory acts" not defined in Treaty - travaux preparatoire referred to non-legislative acts of gen. application (as opposed to acts of individual application). B/c under Lisbon legal acts are divided into a. Legislative acts (adopted through legislative procedure) b. Delegated acts c. Implementing acts Conclusion: "regulatory acts" = all non legislative acts (delegated & implemented) of general application. Remains to be seen how strictly court will interpret this category. a. Regulations - no implementing measures, C must show direct concern
e.g. Jego Querre would now be likely to have standing b. Directives - have implementing measures, so Lisbon relaxation won't apply (can still challenge under Art 267); concerns of AG Jacobs remain unresolved c. Decisions - 3 situations a) decision addressed to C (often competition law) ? automatic standing b) decision addressed to TP as legislative/regulatory act w/no implementing measures ? C must show direct concern c) decision addressed to TP as legislative/regulatory act w/implementing measures
? no standing d) decision addressed to TP as an act of individual application ? likely no standing, since not a "regulatory act" under Lisbon
? Sui generis acts w/binding force & legal effect
= Key: substance, not form + challenged measure must be final, not preparatory