Part V Judicial Review before the Court of Justice of the European Union, 2 Direct Actions and Judicial Review before the Union Courts

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kreuschitz Viktor ◽  
Nehl Hanns Peter
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
State Aid ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Subject

This chapter addresses access to justice in the context of centralized enforcement of EU State aid law and judicial review before the Union courts. The subject matter of litigation is State aid measures adopted in particular by the European Commission as the main supervisory body in this field pursuant to Article 108 TFEU. The term ‘access to justice’ is meant to comprise both the various conditions of standing for bringing direct actions against such measures before the General Court (GC), which essentially comprise actions for annulment (Article 263 TFEU), actions for failure to act (Article 265 TFEU), and actions for damages (Article 268 in combination with Article 340(2) TFEU). The chapter also looks at the nature and the types of acts that are possibly subject to judicial review before the GC.

Part V Judicial Review before the Court of Justice of the European Union, 3 Decentralized Judicial Review and Enforcement of EU State Aid Rules

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kreuschitz Viktor ◽  
Nehl Hanns Peter
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
State Aid ◽  
Common Market ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Common

This chapter assesses the enforcement of EU State aid rules. The Commission is not the only authority involved in the monitoring of State aid. As regards the supervision of Member States' compliance with their obligations under Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, the national courts also have an important role to play. The implementation of that system of control is a matter for both the Commission and the national courts, their respective roles being complementary but separate. Whilst assessment of the compatibility of aid measures with the common market falls within the exclusive competence of the Commission, subject to review by the Courts of the European Union, it is for national courts to ensure the safeguarding, until the final decision of the Commission, of the rights of individuals faced with a possible breach by State authorities of the prohibition laid down by Article 108(3) TFEU.

Part I General and Introductory, 4 Subject-Matter Scope: Civil and Commercial Matters

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hartley Trevor C
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Hague Convention ◽  
Civil Matter

This chapter discusses the ‘subject-matter scope’ of Brussels 2012, Lugano 2007, and the Hague Convention. ‘Subject-matter scope’ refers to the scope covered by a measure as regards its subject matter, that is to say the branches and areas of the law to which it applies. For the three legal instruments under consideration, the relevant provisions are contained in Article 1 of Brussels 2012 and Lugano, and Articles 1 and 2 of Hague. A review of case law shows that the distinction between a civil matter and public matter is far from straightforward. There is a significant grey area in which the Court of Justice of the European Union could legitimately go either way.

scholarly journals A Few Remarks on the Scope of Judicial Review Performed by the Union Judge

Teisė ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 8-20
Author(s):  
Virgilijus Valančius
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Civil Service ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Texts ◽  
The Subject ◽  
General Aspects

This article presents some general aspects of the scope of judicial review applied by the Court of Justice of the European Union as well as its particularities in competition (the research comprises cases concerning agreements restricting competition and the abuse of a dominant position) and civil service cases. As legal texts of the European Union do not provide the precise scope of judicial control, the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union is one of the main sources giving clarifications on this issue. This article focuses accordingly on the presentation of the relevant jurisprudence, which analyzes the subject matter in general and reflects the evolution of this Court’s approach in the said competition and civil service cases.

4. Direct actions in the Court of Justice of the European Union: Articles 258–260, 263, 265, 277, and 340 TFEU

2020 ◽  
pp. 65-89
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Homewood
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

This chapter discusses articles in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) that provide for actions that are brought directly before the Court. Under Articles 258 and 259 TFEU (ex Articles 226 and 227 EC), respectively, the European Commission and Member States may bring enforcement proceedings against a Member State in breach of Treaty obligations. Article 260 TFEU (ex Article 228 EC) requires compliance with the Court’s judgment. Article 263 TFEU (ex Article 230 EC) concerns judicial review of EU acts. The outcome of a successful action is annulment. Article 265 TFEU (ex Article 232 EC) provides for actions against the EU institutions for failure to act.

scholarly journals Commitment Decisions: Is the Sky the Limit? - Commentary to Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2016, Case T-76/14, Morningstar, Inc. v European Commission

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-212
Author(s):  
Rita Leandro Vasconcelos
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Article 9 ◽  
Abuse Of Dominant Position ◽  
Limited Scope

In its judgment of 15 September 2016, the General Court ruled on whether the commitments offered by Thompson Reuters to the European Commission during an investigation of a possible abuse of dominant position were sufficient to address the competition concerns identified by the Commission. This is only the second time the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on Commission decisions rendering binding the commitments offered by an undertaking Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003. With regard to standing, the General Court ruled the appeal lodged by a competitor admissible. As for substance, the General Court generally confirmed the previous case law. It ruled on the commitments meet the competition concerns identified by the institution, the different proportionality standard in Article 9 decisions as compared to Article 7 Regulation 1/2003 decisions (formal decision finding an infringement), and the limited scope of judicial review of the Court of Justice of the European Union in these appeals.

4. Direct actions in the Court of Justice of the European Union: Articles 258–260, 263, 265, 277, and 340 TFEU

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Homewood
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

This chapter discusses articles in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) that provide for actions that are brought directly before the Court. Under Articles 258 and 259 TFEU (ex Articles 226 and 227 EC), respectively, the European Commission and Member States may bring enforcement proceedings against a Member State in breach of Treaty obligations. Article 260 TFEU (ex Article 228 EC) requires compliance with the Court’s judgment. Article 263 TFEU (ex Article 230 EC) concerns judicial review of EU acts. The outcome of a successful action is annulment. Article 265 TFEU (ex Article 232 EC) provides for actions against the EU institutions for failure to act.

Commission v. Kadi

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (4) ◽  
pp. 878-884
Author(s):  
Clemens A. Feinäugle
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
United Nations ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
International Terrorism ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Commission Regulation

In the joined cases brought by the European Commission (Commission), the United Kingdom, and the Council of the European Union (EU) against Yassin Abdullah Kadi, decided on July 18, 2013, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ or Court) sustained the judgment of the General Court that had annulled the Commission regulation freezing Kadi’s funds in accordance with the mandate of the United Nations Security Council’s sanctions committee. The ECJ ruled that, although the majority of the reasons relied on by EU authorities for listing Kadi were sufficiently detailed and specific to allow him to exercise his rights of defense and judicial review effectively, no information or evidence had been produced to substantiate the allegations, when challenged by Kadi, that he had been involved in activities linked to international terrorism.

Obywatele Unii Europejskiej – wyborcy Parlamentu Europejskiego – parlamentu ponadnarodowego

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 147-162
Author(s):  
Stefan Marek Grochalski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Legal Regulations ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Democratic State ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Direct Elections

Parliament – an institution of a democratic state – a member of the Union – is not only an authority but also, as in the case of the European Union, the only directly and universally elected representative body of the European Union. The article presents questions related to the essence of parliament and that of a supranational parliament which are vital while dealing with the subject matter. It proves that the growth of the European Parliament’s powers was the direct reason for departing from the system of delegating representatives to the Parliament for the benefit of direct elections. It presents direct and universal elections to the European Parliament in the context of presenting legal regulations applicable in this respect. It describes a new legal category – citizenship of the European Union – primarily in terms of active and passive suffrage to the European Parliament, as a political entitlement of a citizen of the European Union.

scholarly journals Has the Action for Failure to Act in the European Union Lost its Purpose?

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inga Daukšienė ◽  
Arvydas Budnikas
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
The Eu

ABSTRACT This article analyzes the purpose of the action for failure to act under article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The statements are derived from the analysis of scientific literature, relevant legislation, practice of the European Union Court of Justice (CJEU) and the European Union General Court (EUGC). Useful information has also been obtained from the opinions of general advocates of the CJEU. The article of TFEU 265, which governs the action for failure to act, is very abstract. For this reason, a whole procedure under the article 265 TFEU was developed by the EU courts. The original purpose of the action for failure to act was to constitute whether European Union (EU) institution properly fulfilled its obligations under the EU legislation. However, in the course of case-law, a mere EU institution’s express refusal to fulfill its duties became sufficient to constitute that the EU institution acted and therefore action for failure to act became devoid of purpose. This article analyzes whether the action for failure to act has lost its purpose and become an ineffective legal remedy in the system of judicial review in the EU. Additionally, the action for failure to act is compared to similar national actions.

Freiheit der Advokatur

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philipp Heinrichs
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Selection Procedure ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
German Constitution ◽  
Federal Court Of Justice ◽  
The Subject

Since the abolishment of singular admission to the higher regional courts in 2000, the judiciary has been asking itself the question whether singular admission to the Federal Court of Justice is compatible with the German Constitution and the laws of the European Union. In particular, the non-transparent selection procedure was and is the trigger of controversial discussions and the subject of legal disputes. The work questions the conformity of singular admission to the Federal Court of Justice with the German Constitution and considers the selection procedure to be without transparency, comprehensibility and rule of law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document