European Union Law ( EU Law) - A description of the reference procedure.
References requesting an interpretation of EU law A request for a decision on the interpretation of the disputed provision may be made whenever a dispute regarding the proper interpretation of a provision of EU legislation emerges during a legal dispute before a court or tribunal in one of the Member States. The case is put on hold by the national court or tribunal until the ECJ rules. Following the ECJ's ruling, the national court or tribunal continues where it left off by using the ECJ's interpretation of EU law. Because the ECJ's preliminary judgement creates a precedent that all Member State courts and tribunals must follow going forward, this is meant to produce uniformity or consistency in the interpretation of all EU law. If national courts were left in charge of interpreting EU law, they might all come up with different interpretations; instead, having one court interpret all EU law ensures that the same meaning is provided throughout the Union. Given that the EU currently has 24 official languages, this is probably the case. Every one of them contains a copy of the Treaties. There will inevitably be differences between all the different translations because translation is not an exact science; nevertheless, using the ECJ helps minimize the differences. Without the preliminary reference process, courts and tribunals in the Member States would have to interpret EU legislation on their own. As a result, there would be a very real possibility that the same articles of EU law would have different interpretations in various Member States. If that happened, the entire structure of EU law may start to fall apart. The Court has the authority to interpret clauses in both Treaties as well as "acts of the institutions, authorities, offices or agencies of the Union," which essentially refers to all secondary EU law (most notably Regulations and Directives). Additionally, it has the authority to decide how international agreements signed by such organizations should be interpreted (Hageman (Case 181/73) [1974] ECR 449]. For a "act" to be interpretable, it need not be immediately effective (Mazzalai (Case 111/75) [1976] ECR 657).
0 Comments
European Union Law ( EU Law) - Involvement with Member States in Article 267 TFEU and the preliminary reference procedure
Any national court or tribunal in any Member State may ask the ECJ to interpret a provision of EU law by using the Article 267 procedure. The ECJ just interprets EU law; the national court then has the responsibility of applying the law, as interpreted. This is an important point to keep in mind. According to Lord Denning's explanation in Bulmer v. Bollinger [1974] Ch. 401 at the Court of Appeal: JUDGMENT "It is crucial to make a distinction between the tasks of interpreting the Treaty—to determine its meaning—and applying it—to apply its provisions to the particular case at hand. [First], the obligation to implement the Treaty. The English judges in our courts have the final say on this issue. They are the only judges with the authority to make the final decision in the case. They must gather the necessary information, articulate the issues, render a verdict in favor of one party or the other, and ensure that the verdict is upheld. The meaning and impact of the Treaty must be determined before the English judge can apply it. The English judges are no longer the final arbiters when it comes to interpreting the Treaty. They are no longer qualified to render decisions with legal force. The European Court of Justice is the highest court responsible for interpreting the Treaty. It is important to recognize that Article 267 does not provide for an appeals process. National courts or tribunals initiate it during the actual dispute. Because of this, the procedure is known as the "preliminary reference," and the Court's decisions are referred to as "preliminary judgements." The decisions are intended to help the national court or tribunal come to a final decision. Therefore, the national courts and the ECJ have joint jurisdiction. The national courts render decisions on issues of fact and national law; they also administer both national and EU law. Only abstract concerns regarding the interpretation of EU law are decided by the ECJ (as well as questions touching the legality of EU secondary legislation). Advocate-General Lagrange stated that the "provisions of [Article 267] must lead to a real and fruitful collaboration between the municipal courts and the Court of Justice with mutual respect for their respective jurisdiction" in the first-ever preliminary reference case, De Geus v. Robert Bosch (Case 13/61) [1962] ECR 45. Much more recently, Advocate-General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer used the following culinary analogy to demonstrate how the preliminary rulings system works in Gintec (Case C-374/05) [2007] ECR I-9517: The European Union manual clearly lays out the various ingredients that go into the recipe for a preliminary ruling, but theory runs up against the different conditions that arise every time the dish is prepared, such as the heat source, the pans, the state and country of origin of the ingredients, and even the cook's state of mind. While the national courts are ultimately responsible for the dish, the Court of Justice just serves as the crucial [Union] seasoning while remaining neutral in areas that do not directly affect it. However, the national and European components frequently blend together, forcing each to take on and perfect the flavors of the other in order for them to fulfill their respective roles. It is the responsibility of the Court of Justice to offer the [national court] some instructions by giving it a useful instrument for settling the disagreement, much like a trustworthy kitchen assistant who is unable to prepare an entire dish but serves as the chef's advisor. European Union Law ( EU Law) - Actions against institutions for damages under Article 340 of the TFEU
Paragraph 2 of Article 340 stipulates that in the instance of non-contractual liability, the EU shall make good any damage caused by the institutions or by its servants in the course of their duties in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the member states. So, it is possible to understand how the Article 340 action and a specific kind of general tort action are related. However, it is important to keep in mind that five of the initial six EC members had civil liability laws based on the French Civil Code. As a result, it is more accurate to see liability under Article 340 as being based on this type of liability. In any instance, the Treaty stipulates that the CJEU shall hear any cases brought pursuant to Article 340. The circumstances for culpability and the requirements for claim admission are two important concerns to take into account. Admissibility In such claims, locus standi must necessarily be practically limitless. As a result, any individual—natural or legal—can file a lawsuit. The primary criteria for admissibility is that the person filing the claim can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he has experienced harm as a result of an institution's or its agent's deed or omission. This prevented the action from being launched, for example, by a trade union on behalf of a member or members. Werhahn Hansamuhle v. Council (Cases 63 to 69/72) [1973] ECR 1229, the ECJ determined that the claim must be specifically stated against an organization or its employee. Therefore, it was impossible to make a claim against the EU as a whole. Five years from the date of the alleged occurrence that produced the damage and gave rise to the action should be the proper time limit for filing a claim. prerequisites for liability To make a valid claim, the following three conditions must be met: First, the occurrence of the applicant's damage: This could involve not only financial loss but also any kind of bodily harm, such as loss of profits as well as actual harm. The requirement in general is that the harm be certain, demonstrable, and quantified. Future loss is also recoverable, but under very specific conditions. A claim for a future loss was recognized in Kampffmeyer et al. v. Commission (Cases 5, 7 and 13 to 24/66) [1967] ECR 245 when contracts were already cancelled at the time the illegal measure was created. In some cases, even highly speculative and immaterial losses have been accepted: Case 145/83 - Adams v. Commission (1986) QB 138 As a result of his discovery that Hoffmann La Roche was in violation of EC [now EU] competition legislation when he was working for the pharmaceutical company, Adams notified the Commission as required by law. However, his wife hanged herself after he was detained for industrial espionage. This was acknowledged as damage that might be recovered and created liability. Second, the existence of fault on the part of the institution complained about: In this context, it suffices to demonstrate that the institution owed the applicant a duty that was later broken, as was the case in Adams v. Commission (1986). The CJEU may be less inclined to reach this conclusion, though, if the institution was directly involved in formulating policy decisions and committed judgment mistakes that contributed to the harm that was sustained. Case 5/71) Zuckerfabrik Schoppenstedt v. Council [1971] ECR 975 In this case, a regulation established actions to balance out the variations between national sugar prices and Community [now EU] reference prices that were effective as of a specific date. The applicant claimed that the criteria were incorrect and had cost him money, but he was unsuccessful in his claim. The ECJ established some standards for determining fault, known as the "Schoppenstedt formula": there must be a legislative measure that involves decisions about economic policy; this must involve a serious enough violation of a higher standard of legal conduct; and the higher standard of legal conduct must be of a type that was intended to protect individuals. Fault will only be apparent if all components are satisfied. Third, it must be possible to establish a link between the alleged action and the harm sustained: As a result, an action for damages under Article 340 cannot be brought simply because a damage exists. Liability cannot be established based solely on evidence of damage without also showing that the challenged institution's actions directly contributed to the damage. In this approach, it is evident that distance from the damage is a crucial consideration: Pool v. Council (Case 49/79), ECR 569 (1981). The conversion rates for sterling (UK currency), also referred to as "green rates," allegedly caused a cattle farmer in England to lose money. His argument was dismissed by the ECJ as being too speculative. European Union Law ( EU Law) - Article 265 actions against institutions for a failure to act1/29/2023 European Union Law ( EU Law) - Article 265 actions against institutions for a failure to act
When the Council, the Commission, the Parliament, and the European Central Bank fail to act when they are obligated to, the Member States and the EU institutions have the right to hold them accountable under Article 265. The addition of this to Article 263's annulment procedures is definitely necessary. As there are times when the institutions exceed the authority granted to them by the Treaties, there is also a chance that when one of the institutions would be required to act in accordance with the law, it chooses not to. The Commission's failure to take action after discovering a violation of Article 101 or Article 102 of the Competition Act is a well-known example. Through the Article 265 action, the Treaty has given the injured party a means of redress in such circumstances. A test for admissibility must be passed by applicants, and they must also demonstrate that there are good reasons for the review. Admissibility There is no specific deadline for filing a claim under Article 265, but before the Court will accept that a claim has been filed, it will determine if three requirements have been met: The applicant must first be able to establish locus standi. According to the Article, "the member states and other institutions" are the "privileged claimants" in this situation. Since Parliament v. Council (Case 377/87) [1988] ECR 4051, Parliament is included in this. The European Central Bank is included after the TEU. Additionally, "natural and legal persons" have the right to file a lawsuit against a community institution for failing to send them anything besides a recommendation or an opinion. This inevitably implies that the act must be binding. It also implies that, had it been passed, the instrument would have required to be addressed to the applicant. The second requirement is the existence of a "Indictable Institution." The Council, the Commission, the Parliament, and the Central Bank are the institutions covered by this article. The institution must have failed to intervene in situations when it was actually legally compelled to do so for the claim to be admissible. Third, the institution must have been contacted beforehand. The CJEU must be convinced that the applicant has already addressed the institution in search of remedy before it will consider an application. If no response is received within two months, this strategy must mention the potential of a challenge under Article 265 in its terms. Reasons to review When the applicant can demonstrate that they were entitled to a decision but none was actually addressed to them, the CJEU will examine the case. When a decision has not been made that directly affects them personally and individually, that is an alternate ground. In reality, there aren't many rules because there aren't many situations that are accepted. In general, any attempt to ignore an obligation will be covered by Article 265 if there is a result to be reached and the obligation is sufficiently well defined. (Case 13/83) Parliament v. Council (1987) ECR 1513 In this case, it was claimed that the Council had failed to guarantee the freedom of international transportation and to set the requirements for non-resident carriers to conduct business in another Member State. This was approved as a justification for review. European Union Law ( EU Law) - The results of a successful application
Article 263 effectively allows for an action to be brought against an EU action that violates a substantive or procedural legal principle. Thus, the main goals of the Article 263 procedure are to first establish the admissibility of the applicant's (particularly NPA's) claim and then to ascertain if the contested EU action is in fact unlawful. The outcome is outlined under Article 264 TFEU, which states that such a measure shall be deemed unlawful, if the ECJ determines that the measure is truly legally deficient. This has the result of treating the measure as if it never existed in the first place. Upon delivery of the ECJ decision, a repealed measure becomes invalid, entirely or partially (ex tunc). According to Commission v. AssiDomän (Case C-310/97 P) [1999] ECR I-5363 and Corus v. Commission (Case T-171/99) [2001] ECR II-2967, the decision declaring the measure to be invalid applies to everyone who might be impacted or worried by it (erga omnes). If an application is successful, the CJEU will invalidate the instrument as a result. This has the result that the measure is handled as if it never occurred. European Union Law ( EU Law) – The Time Limit of the Procedure.
The establishment of a hard deadline for taking an action is the most crucial procedural criterion for making an application. The time restriction is two months from the day the measure was published, the date the applicant received notice of the decision, or the date it came to the applicant's attention, under Article 263(6). The actual time restriction for litigation against a measure taken by an institution, however, will be computed from the end of the 14th day following publication, according to Article 50 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice (RPCJ) (L 265/1). Since the Regulation was only published in the OJ for 15 days, the countdown would actually begin then. NPAs may also benefit from an additional 10 days, taking into consideration distances that may impede or slow down the procedure of publication or notification (Article 51 RPCJ). Additionally, the Court of Justice may choose to extend the applicant's time limit (Article 52 RPCJ). However, the time limit requirement is typically applied very tightly. Transportes Evaristo Molina (Case C-36/09 P) [2010] ECR I-145; or where an EU measure is deemed deficient if, for example, its legal foundation or the rights/obligations it generates are indeterminable. Derogations could only be used in these situations. According to the ECJ's ruling in BASFAG & Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Joined Cases T-79, 84-86, 89, 91, 92, 94, 96, 98, 102 and 104/89) [1992] ECR II-315], "such a measure produces no legal effects and may be challenged outside the limitation periods." European Union Law (EU Law) - Misuse of Authority
This ground simply refers to a circumstance where an institution uses a power that it actually possesses but for a goal that is different from the one for which the power was granted. Therefore, it might encompass any unauthorized use of a power. Case Study Case 62/70 Bock v. Commission (1971) ECR 897 (The Chinese Mushrooms case) (The Chinese Mushrooms case) Although the subject of proportionality was ultimately decided in this case, the problem of power abuse was also taken into consideration, and it was determined that there was evidence of cooperation between the Commission and the German government in the publication of a judgement. European Union Law (EU Law) - violation of any treaty or rule pertaining to its application, or both1/29/2023 European Union Law (EU Law) - violation of any treaty or rule pertaining to its application, or both
This basis is simple to understand. It expressly enables the CJEU to assess whether the institution's actions comply with EU law. Any infringement of EU legislation, regardless of its nature, may be deemed invalid on the grounds that it violates the law in this case, which includes broad legal principles. (Case 17/74) Transocean Marine Paint Association v. Commission [1975] 2 CMLR D75 In this case, the association had been granted a ten-year exemption from Article 81 (now Article 101 TFEU). The exception was subsequently unilaterally examined by the Commission, who added whole new requirements. This was illegal because it violated the right to be heard generally and the norm of legal certainty generally. European Union Law (EU Law) - infringement of a crucial procedural requirement
A number of procedural processes are put in place by EU law to serve as safeguards for the preservation of natural justice. Such fundamental procedural requirements can be divided into several groups: In order to prepare the bill, there are a number of procedural requirements, such as the need for prior consultation. For instance, the Council neglected to consult Parliament on agricultural budgeting measures as required in Roquette Frères v. Council (Case 138/79) [1980] ECR 3333, which resulted in the measure's invalidity. In addition, the way the measure is generated must adhere to certain rules. This could be demonstrated by the need to provide justifications so that all parties impacted by the measure can comprehend how the institution has applied the law. In the case of Germany v. Commission (Case 24/62) [1963] ECR 63, a judgment regarding wine imports was addressed to Germany, but it lacked justification and was therefore unlawful. European Union Law - The substantive Grounds for the Review
Once an application's admissibility has been established, the applicant must then demonstrate that the challenge to the decision relates to one of the four specific grounds listed in the Article: lack of competence; violation of a crucial procedural requirement; violation of the Treaties or of any rule pertaining to the application of the Treaties; and abuse of power. a lack of ability In English administrative law, there is no true counterpart for this complaint basis. But according to Lasok and Bridges, it is "broadly analogous" to the supra vires theory that we are all familiar with. Simply put, it is feasible to spot a lack of competence when an EU institution looks to exercise a power that was not actually granted to it by EU law, when it exercises a power that does not exist, or when it actually infringes on the authority granted to another institution. The ECJ has established the legal framework through case law, but it will infrequently accept a challenge from one institution against another because, first, the Treaty clearly outlines the various institutions' respective authority and, second, because it will, in any case, typically interpret these authority in a broad sense. Case 22/70: Commission v. Council (Re: European Road Transport Agreement) (The case of ERTA) [1971] ECR 263 In this case, the ECJ rejected a Commission argument that the Council lacked the authority to shape the relevant agreement, despite the fact that the Commission is the body responsible for negotiating international agreements while the Council is in charge of concluding them. In this approach, it is more possible that the ground will be used in regard to powers that the institution being challenged in the application does not have at all. Commission v. Ford (Europe) (Cases 228 and 229/82) [1984] ECR 1129 In this case, the Commission had issued an interim ruling regarding Ford's ban on selling right-hand drive Ford automobiles to German dealerships. Because the Commission lacked the authority to make temporary rulings, a challenge was possible. When power is improperly delegated, the ground is most frequently accepted. This was the situation in Meroni v. High Authority (Case 9/56) [1956–58] ECR 133, where the Commission (High Authority) had granted decision-making authority to a body that in reality lacked it. In this case, the Commission's conduct was improper. |
Kembara's Legal InfosInfos about legal issues and legal concepts that are available online . Archives
February 2023
Categories
All
|