Case law of the community courts
- PDF / 1,818,719 Bytes
- 27 Pages / 450 x 684 pts Page_size
- 32 Downloads / 253 Views
Case Law of the Community Courts Leading Judgments 1 April 2004 to 31 July 2004 Editor: Richard Crowe, LL.M, Barrister Contributors: Laviero Buono, M.A.; Richard Crowe, LL.M, Barrister; Juliano Franco, Advogado; Dr. Angelika Fuchs, LL.M; Sarah Jund, LL.M; Dr. Mafia Pilar Nt~fiez Ruiz; Antonio Perez van Kappel, Mag. iur, Abogado; Joakim Swedenborg, LL.M. Agriculture
Commission v Jrgo-Qu6r6 (Case C-263/02P)
Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber): 1 April 2004 Appeal - Admissibility of an action for annulment of a regulation brought by a legal person It comes as little surprise following the judgment of the Court of Justice of 25 July 2002 in Unidn de Peque~os Agricultores (UPA) (C-50/00P [2002] ECR 1-6677) that the Court here decided to uphold the Commission's appeal against the earlier ruling of the Court of First Instance in Jdgo-Qudrd (T-177/01 [2002] ECR I1-2365). Essentially, the Court of First Instance had held that J~go-Qu~rr a fishing company, had standing under Article 230 EC to challenge a Commission fishing regulation of general application even though it was unable to establish that it was individually concerned by the regulation in accordance with the existing case law. Considering that application of the traditional test for individual concern deprived Jdgo-Qudrd of an effective remedy, the Court of First Instance opted to formulate and apply a more liberal test for individual concern. Less than three months later, however, the Court of Justice in UPA reaffirmed the traditional test for individual concern and ruled that any change in the system of remedies currently in force could only be brought about by an amendment to the Treaty.
450
The Commission's appeal was grounded on the argument that the Court of First Instance had infringed the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC by interpreting the requirement that the applicant be individually concerned in a manner contrary to the judicial system established by the Treaty. In its judgment, the Court of Justice followed its own reasoning in UPA and reiterated that it is not appropriate for an action for annulment before the Community Court to be available to an individual who contests the validity of a measure of general application, such as a regulation, which does not distinguish him individually in the same way as an addressee, even if it could be shown, following an examination by that Court of the particular national procedural rules, that those rules do not allow the individual to bring proceedings to contest the validity of the Community measure at issue. Such an interpretation would require the Community Court, in each individual case, to examine and interpret national procedural law. That would go beyond its jurisdiction when reviewing the legality of Community measures (with reference to UPA, paragraphs 37 and 43).
Case Law of the Community Courts
As to Jdgo-Qudrd's argument that it could only contest the validity of the regulation in question if it had first contravened it, since the regulation applied directly and there were no national implement
Data Loading...
