LOCUS СTANDI OF NON-PRIVILEGED APPLICANTS IN EU ANNULMENT ACTIONS
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to analyze the circumstances under which private parties (natural and legal persons) can have standing in annulment actions in EU Law. The limitations imposed on them justifiably mark them as non-privileged applicants. Besides proving grounds for initiating an annulment action and the compliance with the short preclusion period, two additional conditions must be cumulatively met - that the challenged act affect non-privileged applicants in a direct and individual manner. The latter requirement, which is more difficult to achieve, is even more stringent in the Court of Justice jurisprudence. Therefore, the central part of the paper is dedicated to the analysis and criticism of Plaumann test as an extremely strictly set application test for acquiring legal standing of private parties. In light of understanding EU law as a fully rounded legal order with a complete system of protection of individual rights, the paper gives an overview of arguments and counter-arguments for its reform. It is concluded that the limiting conditions for locus standi of non-privileged plaintiffs, as well as the occasional unavailability of legal remedies before national courts, are shortcomings of EU law as an order that strives to achieve the rule of law as well as bringing the EU closer to the citizens. In the past decades the Plaumann test served as a specific tool for effectively denying standing to private parties. Although the Treaty of Lisbon has made some progress in the direction of liberalizing the acquisition of locus standi, it is only the case in a limited, narrowly defined number of situations.
References
· Abaquense de Parfouru, A., Locus standi of Private Applicants Under the Article 230 EC Action for Annulment: Any Lessons to be Learnt From France?, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 14 (4), 2007, pp. 361-402;
· Albors-Llorens, A., Private parties in European Community Law. Challenging Community Measures, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996;
· Albors-Llorens, A., The standing of private parties to challenge community measures: has the European Court missed the boat?, Cambridge Law Journal, 62 (1), 2003, 72-92;
· Arnull, A., The action for annulment: a case of double standards?, O'Keeffe, D., Bavasso, A. (Eds.), Judicial Review in European Law, Liber Amicorum in Honour of Lord Slynn of Hadley, The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2000;
· Balthasar, S., Locus standi rules for challenges to regulatory acts by private applicants: the new Article 263 (4) TFEU, European Law Review, 2010, 35, pp. 542-550;
· Barents, R., The Court of Justice after the Treaty of Lisbon, Common Market Law Review, 47 (3), 2010, pp. 709-728;
· Biernat, E., The Locus standi of Private Applicants under article 230 (4) EC and the Principle of Judicial Protection in the European Community, Jean Monnet Working Paper, 12 (3), 2003;
· Brown, C., Morijn, J., Comment on Jégo-Quéré, Common Market Law Review, 41 (6), 2004, 1639-1659;
· Brownlie, I., Principles of International Public Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008;
· Chalmers, D., Monti, G., European Union Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006;
· Cortés Martin, J. M., Ubi ius, Ibi Remedium? – Locus standi of Private Applicants under Article 230 (4) EC at a European Constitutional Crossroads, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 11 (3), 2004, pp. 233-261;
· Corthaut, T., Comment on Jégo-Quéré, Columbia Journal of European Law, 9 (1), 2002-2003, pp. 141-166;
· Craig, P., De Burca, G., EU Law, Text, Cases and Materials, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003;
· Craig, P., Legality, Standing and Substantial Review in Community Law, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 14, 1994, pp. 507-537;
· Craig, P., Standing, Rights, and the Structure of Legal Arguments, European Public Law, 9 (4), 2003, pp. 493-508;
· Cygan, A., Protecting the interests of civil society in Community decision-making – the limits of article 230 EC, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 52 (4), 2003, pp. 995-1012;
· Delaney, E., Right to an Effective Remedy: Judicial Protection and European Citizenship, Federal Trust Constitutional Online Paper Series, 17, 2004;
- Ђорђевић Алексовски, С., Тумачења међународних уговора Европске уније применом правила из Бечке конвенције о уговорном праву од стране Суда правде ЕУ, Усклађивање права Србије са правом ЕУ - зборник радова, књ. 7, Ниш, Правни факултет, 2020, стр. 203-221;
· Editorial, What should replace the Constitutional Treaty?, Common Market Law Review, 44 (3), 2007, pp. 561-566;
· Enchelmaier, S., No-One Slips Through the Net? Latest Developments, and Non-Developments, in the European Court of Justice’s Jurisprudence on Art. 230 (4) EC, Yearbook of European Law, 24, 2005, pp. 173-221;
· Flogaitis, S., Pottakis, A., Judicial Protection Under the Constitution, European Constitutional Law Review, 1, 2005, pp. 108-111;
· Garcia De Enterria, E., The Extension of Jurisdiction of National Administrative Courts by Community Law: the Judgment of the Court of Justice in Borelli and Art. 5 of the EC Treaty, Yearbook of European Law, 13, 1993, pp. 19-37;
· Gormley, W. P., The Procedural Status of the Individual before International and Supranational Tribunals, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1966;
· Harding, C., The Impact of Art 177 of the EEC Treaty on the Review of Community Action, Yearbook of European Law, 1, 1981, pp. 93-113;
· Harlow, C., Accountability in the European Union, Oxford University Press, 2002;
· Harlow, C., Towards a Theory of Access for the European Court of Justice, Yearbook of European Law, 12, 1992, pp. 213-248;
· Koch, C., European Community – Challenge of Community Fisheries Regulation – Admissibility of Individual Applications under Article 230(4), American Journal of International Law, 98(4), 2004, pp. 814-819;
· Koch, C., Locus Standi of private applicants under the EU constitution: Preserving gaps in the protection of individual’s right to an effective remedy, European Law Review, 30 (4), 2005, pp. 511-527;
· Kombos, C., The Recent Case Law on Locus standi of Private Applicants under Art. 230 (4) EC: A Missed Opportunity or A Velvet Revolution?, European Integration Online Papers, 9 (17), 2005;
· Lewis, X., Standing of Private Plaintiffs to Annul Generally Applicable European Community Measures: if the System is Broken, where Should it be Fixed?, Fordham International Law Journal, 30 (5), 2006-2007, pp. pp. 1496-1544;
· Brown, L. N., Kennedy, T., The Court of Justice of the European Communities, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2000;
· Радивојевић, З., Реформа поступка судске контроле ваљаности аката институција ЕУ: тужба за поништај, Пројекат Усклађивање права Србије са правом ЕУ: зборник радова, Књига 4, Ниш, Правни факултет, 2017, стр. 31-48;
· Ragolle, F., Access to justice for private applicants in the Community legal order: recent (r)evolutions, European Law Review, 28 (1), 2003, pp. 90-101;
- Раичевић, Н., Дејство пресуде Европског суда правде о претходном питању, Зборник радова Правног факултета у Нишу, 68, 2014, стр. 825-842;
· Rasmussen, H., Why is Article 173 interpreted against private plaintiffs?, European Law Review, vol. 5, 1980, pp. 112-127;
· Ross, M., Challenging State Aids: The Effect of Recent Developments, Common Market Law Review, 23 (4), 1986, pp. 867-894;
· Shaw, J., Law of the European Union, Palgrave Law Masters, 2000;
· Tridimas, T., Poli, S., “Locus Standi” of Individuals under Article 230 (4): the Return of Euridice?, Tridimas, Т., Poli, S. (Eds.) Making European Community law: the legacy of AG Francis Jacobs at the European Court of Justice, 2008, pp. 77-99;
· Usher, J., Direct and individual concern – an effective remedy or a conventional solution?, European Law Review, 28 (5), 2005, pp. 575-600;
· Ward, A., Amsterdam and amendment to Article 230: an opportunity lost or simply deferred?, Dashwood, A., Johnston, A. (Eds.) The future of the judicial system of the European Union, Cambridge, Hart Publishing, 2001, pp. 37-40;
· Ward, A., Locus standi under Article 230 (4) of the EC Treaty: Crafting a Coherent Test for a Wobbly Polity, Yearbook of European Law, 22 (1), 2003, pp. 45-77.