PECULIARITIES OF THE ACTION FOR ANNULMENT OF DECISIONS OF THE BOARDS OF APPEAL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION DECENTRALISED AGENCIES
Abstract
There are ten EU decentralised agencies empowered to take decisions that are intended to produce legal effect vis-à-vis private persons in the context of regulating the internal market. In order to ensure effective protection of the rights of private persons against these agencies, the mechanisms of internal and external legal control of their decisions were established within the EU law. Internal control is achieved through the mechanism of administrative appeals before the Boards of Appeal (BoAs) established within each of the agencies. The BoA’s decision on the appeal is final and legally binding on the parties to the appeal proceedings. It is therefore the subject of an action for annulment before the Court, which ensures external control of the agency decisions. The action for annulment of the BoA’s decision is subject to the same rules that apply to the annulment of any act of EU law intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties, but there are certain peculiarities in the context of the judicial review of the agency decisions. These peculiarities exist in four aspects of the action for annulment, namely: 1) the jurisdiction of the Court; 2) the grounds for annulment – the scope and intensity of the review performed by the BoA; 3) the effects of the first-instance judgment – alteration of the BoA’s decision in some agencies; and 4) the appeal against the first instance judgment – filtering mechanism under Art. 58a of the Court Statute. These peculiarities are the subject of this paper.
References
Alberti, J. (2022). The Position of Boards of Appeal: Between Functional Continuity and Independence. In Chamon, M., Volpato, A. and Eliantonio, M. (eds.), Boards of Appeal of EU Agencies: Towards Judicialization of Administrative Review? (pp. 245–272). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Alberti, J. (2019). The draft amendments to CJEU’s Statute and the future challenges of administrative adjudication in the EU. Federalismi.it – Rivista di diritto pubblico italiano, comparato, europeo. 3. 1–32.
Chamon, M. (2016). EU Agencies: Legal and Political Limits to the Transformation of the EU Administration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chirulli, P., De Lucia, L. (2021). Non-Judicial Remedies and EU Administration: Protection of Rights versus Preservation of Autonomy. London; New York: Routledge; Turin: Giappichelli.
Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU]. (2023). Statistics concerning the judicial activity of the Court of Justice, Retrieved 1 September 2023, from https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2023-03/stats_cour_2022_en.pdf.
Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU]. (2022). Request submitted by the Court of Justice pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 281 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, with a view to amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 30.11.2022.
Craig, P. (2020). Judicial review and judicial deference. In Scholten, M. and Brenninkmeijer, A. (eds.), Controlling EU Agencies: The Rule of Law in a Multi-jurisdictional Legal Order (pp. 98–116). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Craig, P. (2010). Legal Control of Regulatory Bodies: Principle, Policy and Teleology. In In P. Birkinshaw and M. Varney (eds.), The European Legal Order after Lisbon (pp. 93–116). Alphen Aan Den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer.
De Lucia, L. (2022). The Boards of Appeal as Hybrid Adjudicators: On Some Shortcomings of Article 58a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In Chamon, M., Volpato, A. and Eliantonio, M. (eds.), Boards of Appeal of EU Agencies: Towards Judicialization of Administrative Review? (pp. 175–194). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
European Commission. (2023). Opinion on the draft amendment to Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, presented by the Court of Justice on 30 November 2022, COM(2023) 135 final/2, 2022/0906(COD), Brussels, 10.3.2023.
European Parliament. (2023). Report on the draft regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 07307/2022 – C9-0405/2022 – 2022/0906(COD), 27.9.2023.
Hanf, D. (2022). The Trailblazers: The Boards of Appeal of EUIPO and CPVO. In Chamon, M., Volpato, A. and Eliantonio, M. (eds.), Boards of Appeal of EU Agencies: Towards Judicialization of Administrative Review? (pp. 59–83). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Krajewski, M. (2019). The Many-faced Court: The Value of Participation in Annulment Proceedings. European Constitutional Law Review. 15 (2). 220–246.
Lamandini, M., Ramos Muñoz, D. (2020). Law and Practice of Financial Appeal Bodies (ESAs’ Board of Appeal, SRB Appeal Panel): A view from the Inside. Common Market Law Review. 57 (1). 119–160.
Lenaerts, K., Gutman, K., Nowak, J.T. (2023). EU Procedural Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Magiera, S., Weiß, W. (2014). Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in the European Union Law. In Dragos, D. and Neamtu, B. (eds.), Alternative Dispute Resolution in European Administrative Law (pp. 489–536). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Marcetti, B. (2017). Administrative Justice Beyond the Courts: Internal Reviews in EU Administration. In Marcetti, B. (ed.), Administrative Remedies in the European Union: The Emergence of a Quasi-Judicial Administration (pp. 1–19). Torino: G. Giappichellie Editore.
Mullier, E., Cana, R. (2018). The ECHA Board of Appeal and the Court of Justice: Comparing and Contrasting Chemicals Litigation. International Chemical Regulatory and Law Review. 1 (3). 105–113.
Ritleng, D. (2022). Boards of Appeal of EU Agencies and Article 47 of the Charter: Uneasy Bedfellows?. In Chamon, M., Volpato, A. and Eliantonio, M. (eds.), Boards of Appeal of EU Agencies: Towards Judicialization of Administrative Review? (pp. 299–320). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schima, B. (2019). TFEU, Article 251–281. In Kellerbauer, M., Klamert, M. and Tomkin, J. (eds.), Commentary on the EU Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights (pp. 1751–1878). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Simoncini, M., Verissimo, M. (2022). The EASA Board of Appeal in Search of Identity: An Effective Filter between Administration and Courts?. In Chamon, M., Volpato, A. and Eliantonio, M. (eds.), Boards of Appeal of EU Agencies: Towards Judicialization of Administrative Review? (pp. 103–121). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Simoncini, M. (2018). Administrative Regulation beyond the Non-Delegation Doctrine: A Study on EU Agencies. Oxford: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
Šadl, U., Lucía López, Z., Stein Arne, B., Naurin, D. (2022). Law and Orders: the Orders of the European Court of Justice as a Window in the Judicial Process and Institutional Transformations. European Law Open. 1 (3). 549–575.
Tovo, C. (2022). The Boards of Appeal of Networked Services Agencies: Specialized Arbitrators of Transnational Regulatory Conflicts?. In Chamon, M., Volpato, A. and Eliantonio, M. (eds.), Boards of Appeal of EU Agencies: Towards Judicialization of Administrative Review? (pp. 34–58). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Volpato, A., Mullier, E. (2022). The Board of Appeal of the European Chemicals Agency at a Crossroads. In Chamon, M., Volpato, A. and Eliantonio, M. (eds.), Boards of Appeal of EU Agencies: Towards Judicialization of Administrative Review? (pp. 84–102). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Volpato, A. (2019). Judicial Review of the Acts of EU Agencies: Discretion Escaping Scrutiny?. CERiM Paper Series: CERiM Online Paper. 1. 1–27.
Legal acts
Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs, OJ L 3, 5.1.2002, p. 1–24.
Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1–36.
Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 78, 24.3.2009, p. 1–42.
Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights, OJ L 227, 1.9.1994, p. 1–30.
Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, OJ C 202, 7.6.2016, p. 210–229.
Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 154, 16.6.2017, p. 1–99.
Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2019/629 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, PE/1/2019/REV/1, OJ L 111, 25.4.2019, p. 1–3.
Case-law
Case C-16/06 P, Les Éditions Albert René SARL v OHIM, ECLI:EU:C:2008:739.
Case C-29/05 P, OHIM v Kaul GmbH, ECLI:EU:C:2007:162.
Case C-61/15 P, Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG v EASA, ECLI:EU:C:2016:59.
Case C-97/20 P, Société des produits Nestlé SA v Amigüitos pets & life and EUIPO, ECLI:EU:C:2020:442.
Case C-214/05 P, Sergio Rossi SpA v OHIM, ECLI:EU:C:2006:494.
Case C-263/09 P, Edwin Co. Ltd. v OHIM, ECLI:EU:C:2011:452.
Case C‑534/10 P, Brookfield New Zealand Ltd and Elaris SNC v CPVO and Schniga GmbH, ECLI:EU:C:2012:813.
Case T-63/01, Procter & Gamble v OHIM (Soap bar shape), ECLI:EU:T:2002:317.
Case T‑102/13, Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG v EASA, ECLI:EU:T:2014:1064.
Case T-112/18, Pink Lady America LLC v CPVO, ECLI:EU:T:2019:679.
Case T-125/17, BASF Grenzach GmbH v ECHA, ECLI:EU:T:2019:638.
Case T-135/08, Schniga GmbH v CPVO, ECLI:EU:T:2010:397.
Case T‑163/98, Procter & Gamble v OHIM (Baby-Dry), ECLI:EU:T:1999:145.
Case T-165/06, Elio Fiorucci v OHIM, ECLI:EU:T:2009:157.
Case T-177/16, Mema GmbH LG v CPVO, ECLI:EU:T:2019:57.
Case T-252/04, Caviar Anzali SAS v OHIM (Asetra), ECLI:EU:T:2006:199.
Case T-308/01, Henkel KGaA v OHIM (Kleencare), ECLI:EU:T:2003:241.
Case T-735/18, Aquind Ltd v ACER, ECLI:EU:T:2020:542.
Case T-755/17, Federal Republic of Germany v ECHA, ECLI:EU:T:2019:647.
Opinion of Advocate General Ćapeta delivered on 13 July 2023, Case C‑382/21 P, EUIPO v KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann GbR, ECLI:EU:C:2023:576.