1 / 22

EU Law – E509 Direct Actions and Course Review February 3, 2009 (Daemen)

EU Law – E509 Direct Actions and Course Review February 3, 2009 (Daemen). Direct Actions. Direct Actions: Overview. Direct action = attempt to annul EU legislative activity Different types Art. 230 (review of institutional acts) Art. 234 (national court reference for review)

tory
Télécharger la présentation

EU Law – E509 Direct Actions and Course Review February 3, 2009 (Daemen)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EU Law – E509Direct Actions and Course ReviewFebruary 3, 2009(Daemen)

  2. Direct Actions

  3. Direct Actions: Overview • Direct action = attempt to annul EU legislative activity • Different types • Art. 230 (review of institutional acts) • Art. 234 (national court reference for review) • Art. 232 (review of failure to act) • Arts. 235/288 (damages caused by acts) • Art. 241 (incidental challenges) • As always, treaty based procedures and requirements vary significantly • Success = annulment, in whole or in part • See, e.g., Arts. 231 and 233

  4. Article 230 Direct Actions • Potential defendants (i.e., which institutions are subject to Art. 230 review) • Treaty says COM and Council… ...but the court extended to EP given rising power and importance of democratic check • Reviewable acts • “legally binding acts” • Treaty says Regulations, Directives and Decisions… …but the court expanded to anything that could impact the legal status of others

  5. Article 230 Direct Actions (2) • Reviewable acts (cont.) • Class discussion: Les Verts (Rachel Feller, Liz Little) • Les Verts is not unique; hundreds of cases have expanded reviewable acts beyond the 3 specifically delineated in the Treaty • Time limits • 2 months from • Date of publication • Date of notice, or • Date when plaintiff became aware

  6. Article 230 Direct Actions (3) • Potential plaintiffs • “Privileged” status • Always have right to object • Identified in Art. 230 • Member States, Council, COM, EP • “Semi-privileged” status • Includes agencies such as Court of Auditors • Limited to “protection of prerogatives” • “Non-privileged” status • Anyone else • Art. 230(4) details standing requirement • In short, can challenge if directly addressed or of direct and individual concern • Very difficult standing requirement, leading to extensive debate about this seemingly restrictive approach

  7. Article 230 Direct Actions (4) • Challenging a Regulation • General rule • Individuals can’t challenge b/c Regulations are directly and generally applicable • Regulations quasi-primary law and not easily contested • Exceptions • “closed group” (e.g., fruit importers) • Plaintiff named in Regulation (e.g., anti-dumping) • Direct and individual concern • Direct concern: if individuals can be identified with high-level of certainty • Individual concern: factors that distinguish plaintiffs • Once again, hundreds of cases

  8. Article 230 Direct Actions (5) • Grounds for annulment • General rule • Art. 230(2) (block quote on p. 211) • Grounds frequently overlap • Lack of competence/authority • Hundreds of cases • Recall the tobacco advertising case from previous class • Infringement of essential procedural requirement • E.g., consult EP as required • E.g., identify treaty basis as required

  9. Article 230 Direct Actions (6) • Grounds for annulment (2) • Infringement of treaty • Most common b/c extremely broad • E.g., right of fair hearing, human rights protection, etc. • Misuse of power • E.g., failure to follow appointment process

  10. Article 234 Direct Actions • Overview • Reference from national court to ECJ when national law at issue • Viewed as means of bypassing 230 limits • Limitations time based on national law • Potentially easier for individuals • But longer litigation process

  11. Article 232 Failure to Act (1) • Overview • Failure to act can have significant legal ramifications • Frequently pled in conjunction with standard Art. 230 claim

  12. Article 232 Failure to Act (2) • Potential defendants (i.e., which institutions are subject to Art. 232 review) • EP, Council, COM • Potential plaintiffs • “Privileged” status • Always have right to object • Identified in Art. 232(1) • Member States, Council, COM, EP • “Non-privileged” status • Individuals have limited rights since only theoretical impact

  13. Article 232 Failure to Act (3) • Procedural Issues • Invitation to Act • Art. 232(2): must first call upon the institution • Two months to respond • Definition of Position • Explaining a refusal = taking a position • Many cases acknowledge legislative/administrative discretion and “approve” explained refusals • But seeTransport Policy

  14. Article 282 Non-K Liability (1) • Overview • EU institutions subject to damages caused by improper conduct • “Non-contract” phase deliberately vague to account for divergent national laws and yet provide necessary legal protections • In short, includes civil wrongs caused by EU • Very difficult and rare due to significant legislative discretion

  15. Article 282 Non-K Liability (2) • Potential plaintiffs • Far less restrictive than earlier options • Plaintiff must be affected and damaged, and suffer some degree of loss • Must file within 5 years • Class discussion: Lütticke (Rachel C Waters, Emily Nauman, Tanja Alexandra Douay) • Potential defendants • All EU-level institutions • Member States when implementing EU measures

  16. Article 282 Non-K Liability (3) • Liability requirement • Community liability based on general principles of law in the Member States • Key criteria – breach of duty was proximate cause of damage • Can result from legislative and/or administrative action and/or inaction • Administrative acts • EU given broad discretion • But seeStanley Adams

  17. Article 282 Non-K Liability (4) • Legislative acts • Again, EU given broad discretion • ECJ recognizes difficult of finding “injury free” solutions to complex problems • Criteria • Breach of superior rule (e.g., fundamental rights implicated) • Rule exists to protect persons (i.e., legal and natural) • Violation must be sufficiently serious (i.e., mere breach insufficient)

  18. Article 282 Non-K Liability (5) • Damages • Can be purely economic or “moral” • Must exceed normal business risks • Causation • Sufficiently direct consequence • Third parties can break chain

  19. Article 241 Plea of Illegality • Overview • “Catch all” claim of EU-level illegality • Potential plaintiffs • Intended to cover those without rights under other provisions, but nonetheless impacted by EU-level activity (or inactivity) • Reviewable actions • Generally limited to Regulations • Impact of ruling • Regulation void for that particular case

  20. Course Review

  21. Group Project • Step one: break into groups • Step two: select a group leader • Step three: discuss what you learned during the assigned class • Step four: after 20 minutes, identify: • 3 important things you learned; and, • 2 questions that remain

  22. Groups Class Three: Lee, Jung Hyun Lindquist, Nicole Joy Little, Elizabeth Anne Nauman, Emily Lorraine Nikiforova, Marianna Osawa, SazaSumie Penar, Anna Marie Prongdong, Temsiri Radics, George Baylon Ren, Lisha Class Four: Ringland, Kristina Lynn Sanoja, Natalia Alexis Santamaria-Schwartz, Rachel Angela Shim, Hyunjin Shultz, Theodore Judson Silk-Eglit, Kyle John Waters, Rachel C Wishaar, Angela Rae Zhou, Jingdi Class One: Antonio, RayoAzucenas Bond, Katharine Sue Bridge, Marc Daniel Campbell, Sara Lorraine Chang, KyoungSoo Curnutt, Jeffrey Garth Damm-Luhr, Tobias Franz Dean, Robin Allison Douay, Tanja Alexandra Class Two: Feichtmeir, Alicia Marguerite Feller, Rachel Sarah Flaschen, Joan Steward Huang, Hui-I Jeong, In-Seop Jiang, Hong Johnson, Steven Peter Kinukawa, Yasuhisa Knaphus, Emily S Lee, Ji Won

More Related