Podcast
Questions and Answers
Which article of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) covers preliminary rulings?
Which article of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) covers preliminary rulings?
- Article 263
- Article 340
- Article 258
- Article 267 (correct)
What is the primary purpose of infringement proceedings under Articles 258-260 TFEU?
What is the primary purpose of infringement proceedings under Articles 258-260 TFEU?
- To sanction EU institutions for damages.
- To annul EU legal acts.
- To enforce EU law. (correct)
- To interpret EU law.
Which type of action seeks to annul an EU legal act?
Which type of action seeks to annul an EU legal act?
- Preliminary ruling
- Action for damages
- Infringement proceedings
- Action for annulment (correct)
Under Article 263 TFEU, what is the objective of judicial review?
Under Article 263 TFEU, what is the objective of judicial review?
According to the provided material, which of the following acts can be reviewed by the CJEU?
According to the provided material, which of the following acts can be reviewed by the CJEU?
In the context of grounds for judicial review, what constitutes 'lack of competence'?
In the context of grounds for judicial review, what constitutes 'lack of competence'?
Which case established the principle that a regulation could be annulled for failure to consult the Parliament?
Which case established the principle that a regulation could be annulled for failure to consult the Parliament?
What does the term 'misuse of powers' refer to as a ground for judicial review?
What does the term 'misuse of powers' refer to as a ground for judicial review?
According to the listed grounds for review, what constitutes an infringement of the treaties?
According to the listed grounds for review, what constitutes an infringement of the treaties?
What is the time limit for bringing an action for judicial review?
What is the time limit for bringing an action for judicial review?
Which of the following is an example of a privileged applicant in judicial review proceedings?
Which of the following is an example of a privileged applicant in judicial review proceedings?
What is the significance of the 'Plaumann formula' in judicial review?
What is the significance of the 'Plaumann formula' in judicial review?
In the context of infringement proceedings, what must a member state do if the Court of Justice of the EU finds that it has failed to fulfil an obligation under the treaties?
In the context of infringement proceedings, what must a member state do if the Court of Justice of the EU finds that it has failed to fulfil an obligation under the treaties?
What is the role of the Commission in infringement proceedings?
What is the role of the Commission in infringement proceedings?
According to the provided material, what are the potential consequences for a member state that fails to transpose an EU directive into national law by the specified deadline?
According to the provided material, what are the potential consequences for a member state that fails to transpose an EU directive into national law by the specified deadline?
In the Francovich & Bonifaci v Italy case (1991), what key principle was established?
In the Francovich & Bonifaci v Italy case (1991), what key principle was established?
In the context of the Brasserie du Pêcheur SA v Germany case (1996), what did the CJEU confirm regarding state liability?
In the context of the Brasserie du Pêcheur SA v Germany case (1996), what did the CJEU confirm regarding state liability?
Which case reinforced that national courts must set aside national laws that conflict with EU law?
Which case reinforced that national courts must set aside national laws that conflict with EU law?
What is the significance of the 'reasoned opinion' issued by the Commission in infringement proceedings?
What is the significance of the 'reasoned opinion' issued by the Commission in infringement proceedings?
What are the criteria considered when determining the size of a penalty in infringement proceedings, according to the information provided?
What are the criteria considered when determining the size of a penalty in infringement proceedings, according to the information provided?
According to the provided material, under what conditions can individuals claim damages against EU institutions?
According to the provided material, under what conditions can individuals claim damages against EU institutions?
In the context of Article 263 TFEU, how does the CJEU assess whether a non-privileged applicant is 'individually concerned' by a decision?
In the context of Article 263 TFEU, how does the CJEU assess whether a non-privileged applicant is 'individually concerned' by a decision?
What is the legal basis for a member state bringing an action against another member state for an alleged infringement of an obligation under the treaties?
What is the legal basis for a member state bringing an action against another member state for an alleged infringement of an obligation under the treaties?
What does the principle of 'sincere cooperation,' outlined in TEU art 4(3), entail for member states in the context of EU law?
What does the principle of 'sincere cooperation,' outlined in TEU art 4(3), entail for member states in the context of EU law?
A member state argues as a defense in infringement proceedings that the directive's objectives were achieved through administrative measures and not national laws. Based on the material, how would the CJEU likely respond?
A member state argues as a defense in infringement proceedings that the directive's objectives were achieved through administrative measures and not national laws. Based on the material, how would the CJEU likely respond?
A national court is uncertain about the interpretation of a complex provision within an EU directive. Instead of seeking a preliminary ruling, it interprets the provision in a way that arguably conflicts with the directive's objectives. What potential consequences could arise from this action?
A national court is uncertain about the interpretation of a complex provision within an EU directive. Instead of seeking a preliminary ruling, it interprets the provision in a way that arguably conflicts with the directive's objectives. What potential consequences could arise from this action?
An EU directive requires member states to achieve a specific environmental target by a certain date. A member state fails to meet this target, but argues in its defense that another member state is also in breach of the same directive. How is the CJEU likely to view this argument?
An EU directive requires member states to achieve a specific environmental target by a certain date. A member state fails to meet this target, but argues in its defense that another member state is also in breach of the same directive. How is the CJEU likely to view this argument?
Imagine the CJEU, in unprecedented circumstances, discovers a member state intentionally concealed evidence during infringement proceedings that would have proven their non-compliance with an environmental directive, leading to significant ecological damage across several neighboring countries. What actions, beyond the standard penalties, might the CJEU consider to address this egregious breach of trust and ensure future compliance?
Imagine the CJEU, in unprecedented circumstances, discovers a member state intentionally concealed evidence during infringement proceedings that would have proven their non-compliance with an environmental directive, leading to significant ecological damage across several neighboring countries. What actions, beyond the standard penalties, might the CJEU consider to address this egregious breach of trust and ensure future compliance?
The European Commission, after long deliberation, decides to discontinue infringement proceedings against a member state despite clear evidence of ongoing non-compliance with a key directive on renewable energy. A coalition of environmental NGOs, deeply concerned by the potential long-term ecological consequences, seeks to challenge the Commission's decision, arguing a violation of its duty to uphold EU law. Based on the EU treaties and relevant case law, what is the most likely outcome of their challenge and why?
The European Commission, after long deliberation, decides to discontinue infringement proceedings against a member state despite clear evidence of ongoing non-compliance with a key directive on renewable energy. A coalition of environmental NGOs, deeply concerned by the potential long-term ecological consequences, seeks to challenge the Commission's decision, arguing a violation of its duty to uphold EU law. Based on the EU treaties and relevant case law, what is the most likely outcome of their challenge and why?
Flashcards
Judicial Review Purpose
Judicial Review Purpose
CJEU ensures EU institutions stay within their legal powers.
Reviewable Acts
Reviewable Acts
EU institutions' legislative acts that produce legal effects for third parties.
Grounds for Judicial Review
Grounds for Judicial Review
Lack of competence, procedural errors, misuse of powers, treaty infringements.
Time Limit for Review
Time Limit for Review
Signup and view all the flashcards
Who Can Seek Review?
Who Can Seek Review?
Signup and view all the flashcards
Locus Standi for Individuals
Locus Standi for Individuals
Signup and view all the flashcards
Plaumann Formula
Plaumann Formula
Signup and view all the flashcards
Indirect Review of EU Acts
Indirect Review of EU Acts
Signup and view all the flashcards
Infringement Proceedings
Infringement Proceedings
Signup and view all the flashcards
Who Starts Infringement Proceedings?
Who Starts Infringement Proceedings?
Signup and view all the flashcards
Stages of Infringement
Stages of Infringement
Signup and view all the flashcards
Commission's Discretion
Commission's Discretion
Signup and view all the flashcards
State's Obligation After Ruling
State's Obligation After Ruling
Signup and view all the flashcards
Article 260(3) TFEU
Article 260(3) TFEU
Signup and view all the flashcards
Penalty Size Factors
Penalty Size Factors
Signup and view all the flashcards
Compliance Must Be Law
Compliance Must Be Law
Signup and view all the flashcards
Another's Breach Not Excuse
Another's Breach Not Excuse
Signup and view all the flashcards
Late Compliance
Late Compliance
Signup and view all the flashcards
Individual Redress
Individual Redress
Signup and view all the flashcards
State Liability
State Liability
Signup and view all the flashcards
Conditions for State Liability
Conditions for State Liability
Signup and view all the flashcards
Francovich v Italy (1991)
Francovich v Italy (1991)
Signup and view all the flashcards
Brasserie du Pêcheur SA v Germany (1996)
Brasserie du Pêcheur SA v Germany (1996)
Signup and view all the flashcards
Factortame case
Factortame case
Signup and view all the flashcards
Study Notes
Proceedings Before the CJEU
- Cases before the CJEU commonly involve interpreting laws (Art 267 TFEU), enforcing laws (Art 258-260 TFEU), annulling EU legal acts (Art 263-266 TFEU), and sanctioning EU institutions (Art 268 & 340 TFEU).
Judicial Review
- Judicial review is used to verify the legality of EU acts, as outlined in Article 263 TFEU.
- It ensures EU institutions stay within their legal powers.
- An act can be declared void through judicial review.
- Legislative acts of EU institutions can be reviewed if they intend to produce legal effects.
- Recommendations are excluded from review.
- Regulations, directives, and decisions can be reviewed (Art 288 TFEU).
- Only the CJEU can review the legality of EU measures, demonstrated in foto-frost v Hauptzollamt Lubeck-Ost 1987.
Grounds for Review
- Acts can be challenged for any sufficiently serious reason.
- Grounds include actions exceeding exclusive competence (e.g., customs duties) where the power belongs to the EU.
- Shared competence (e.g., movement of goods) allows both the EU and member states to act.
- Lack of competence (Art 5 TEU)
Article 263 TFEU Grounds for Review
- Infringement of an essential procedural requirement led to the annulment of a regulation in Maizena GmbH v Council 1980 due to failure to consult parliament.
- Misuse of powers was seen in giffrida v council (1976), involving competition for a post designed to appoint a specific person.
- Infringement of treaties or any related rule of law can be grounds for review.
- Infringement of treaties or any rule of law relating to their application enables acts to be challenged.
- Overlap with "lack of competence" under treaties (Art 5, TEU).
- Includes general principles of law developed by the CJEU, such as proportionality, subsidiarity, legal certainty, legitimate expectations, non-discrimination, and fundamental human rights.
Time Limit for Judicial Review
- Proceedings must be instituted within two months of the measure's publication or notification to the plaintiff.
Who Can Seek Review
- Privileged, semi-privileged, and non-privileged applicants can seek review.
- Privileged applicants (member states, European Parliament, Council, Commission) always have standing.
- Semi-privileged applicants (Court of Auditors, European Central Bank, Committee of the Regions) can seek review to protect their prerogatives under the treaties.
- Non-privileged applicants (companies, individuals) can challenge acts addressed to them or legislative acts where they are directly and individually concerned, particularly regulatory acts not requiring implementing measures.
Non-Privileged Applicants and Locus Standi
- Natural or legal persons: Must be the direct addressee of the act or be of direct and individual concern, as defined by case law.
- Requires a "closed class," not open-ended, based on Plaumann & Co v Commission (1963).
The Plaumann Formula
- Applies to those other than the decision's addressees, claiming individual concern based on attributes peculiar to them or circumstances differentiating them, singling them out just as in addressing them.
- Example: A 'group of importers of clementines' too broad.
- Limited opportunities for NGOs demonstrated in union de pequenos agrricultores v council 2002.
- Alternative route: Using national courts under TFEU art 267 for preliminary ruling, fulfilling its conditions is essential.
Indirect Review of EU Acts
- Preliminary ruling procedure
- Challenging domestic rules based on invalid EU rules.
- Challenging the legality of an EU regulation provision.
Infringement Proceedings (Art 258-260 TFEU)
- Involves claims that a member state is not abiding by treaty obligations.
- Examples include domestic rules breaching EU law, like Italy taxing French camembert imports (Art 30 TFEU), or failing to implement a directive by its due date.
- Started by the Commission, though member states may also initiate them.
- The Commission learns of problems through state reports, complaints, legislative checks, and public complaints.
Stages of the Infringement Procedure (Art 259-260 TFEU)
- An administrative stage begins with a written notice, offering the member state a chance to respond.
- The Commission issues a reasoned opinion, defining the issue and setting a compliance date.
- Proceedings can go before the Court, where the Commission has a high success rate.
- If non-compliance persists, a second court reference may occur (Art 260(2)), with potential financial penalties.
Commission Discretion
- The Commission has discretion not to proceed at any stage, but member states can bring action against each other (Art 259(3) TFEU).
- Most cases do not reach court, but the threat of action is powerful.
- Example: Star fruit company SA v Commission (1989).
Member State Actions
- Infringement procedures can be initiated if a member state believes another has failed to fulfill treaty obligations (Art 259 TFEU).
- Before action, the matter must be brought before the Commission.
- The Commission delivers a reasoned opinion after both states present their cases.
- Absence of a Commission opinion within three months does not prevent the matter from being brought before the Court.
Ensuring Compliance (Art 258-260 TFEU)
- Effects of a judgment (Art 260 TFEU): Member states must take necessary measures to comply if found in breach.
- States are obligated to comply with court rulings, potentially implementing EU directives or challenging incompatible national laws.
- General obligation to ensure fulfillment of treaty obligations (TEU art 4(3)), including sincere cooperation between the Union and member states.
Further Commission Options
- Has the authority to refer back to the court and seek penalties (Art 260(2) TFEU), including lump sums or periodic payments, if a member state breaches EU law.
- Enforcing the transposition of EU directives into national law of the member states, Art 260(3) TFEU.
- The Commission recommends penalties and the Court cannot go beyond that, relating to the failure to fulfill the obligation to notify measures transposing a directive (TFEU art 260(3)).
Penalties for Late Transposition
- In Commission v Romania, a penalty of 3,000,000 euro was issued (Art 260(3)).
- Article 260(3) aims to incentivize member states to transpose directives within deadlines.
Sanctions General
- In Commission v Greece (2000), a penalty payment of 20,000 euro/day was enforced.
- Criteria for penalty size depends on the duration and seriousness of the infringement, along with the member state's ability to pay.
- Commission v Spain (2003): Failure to comply with a 1998 bathing waters directive resulted in an annual penalty of 624,150 euro for each 1% of non-compliant waters.
- Commission v France 2005: Failure to comply with a 1991 judgment on fisheries conservation measures led to a 20 million euro lump sum and a 57,761,250 euro penalty every 6 months until compliance.
Unsuccessful Defenses
- Compliance achieved in practice, not laws (Commission v Netherlands 1982).
- A directive’s result achieved by direct effect (Commission v Germany).
- Another state also in breach (Commission v UK 1991)
- Member state-remedied breach, after the date of the reasoned opinion (Commission v Italy 1961).
Compliance Through Administrative Measures
- CJEU compliance with EU law must be implemented properly in national legislation—not just via administrative practices.
Claims Regarding Direct Effect
- A Member State cannot argue that a directive's goal is already met through direct effect, they still determine and enforce rights in national courts (Commission v Germany).
Another Member State in Breach
- Another country violating EU law does not excuse a Member State from complying.
Breach Remedied After Deadline
- Compliance after the deadline does not stop infringement proceedings. The issue is whether the state complied on time.
Potentially Successful Defenses
- EU decision being enforced is unlawful (commission v Greece 1988)
- Commission has given member state too short a time to comply with reasoned opinion (Commission v Belgium 1988).
Additional Protection for Individuals
- Individuals can claim damages against EU institutions for damages arising from illegal legislative acts via Art 368 & 340 TFEU.
- The act or omission must be an official act of the union.
State Liability
- Claim against EU member states for being harmed by the member state not abiding by EU law.
- Those directly harmed by a state's failure to comply with EU law may recover damages, illustrated in Francovich and bonifaci v Italy 1991, brasserie du pecheur sa v Germany 1996, and the Factortame case.
- Set conditions.
State Liability Conditions
- The infringed rule of law must intend to confer rights on individuals.
- The breach must be sufficiently serious, with a direct causal link between the state's breach and the damage sustained by injured parties.
- The body must have manifestly disregarded the limits on its discretion.
Key Cases
- Francovich & Bonifaci v Italy (1991): Italy failed to implement an EU directive protecting workers' rights, establishing state liability and enabling individuals to sue their government for damages if the directive confers clear rights, and there is a causal link between the state's failure and the damage suffered.
- Brasserie du Pêcheur SA v Germany (1996): A French brewery sued Germany for violating EU free movement rules, expanding state liability and affirming individuals or businesses can claim compensation even for legislative measures.
- Factortame Case (series from 1990 onwards): The UK's law restricting foreign ownership of fishing vessels violated EU free movement rules, reinforcing national courts must set aside conflicting national laws and strengthening the principle of state liability.
Studying That Suits You
Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.