Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Individual Rights in EU Law pp 93–156Cite as

Primary Remedies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 811 Accesses

Abstract

Article 263(1) TFEU (cf. Article 230(1) TEC(A), Article 173(1) TEEC) gives the Court of Justice the competence to review the legality of European Union acts. The Member States, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission are all potential applicants, according to Article 263(2) TFEU, and need not show any particular reasons for a specific application, i.e. where the conditions in the first paragraph are fulfilled, they must be granted standing. Article 263(3) TFEU concerns the Court of Auditors, the European Central Bank and the Committee of Regions, all of which may have standing when acting to protect their prerogatives. Individuals, for their part, will have to rely on Article 263(4) TFEU, under which any legal or natural person may institute proceedings ‘against an act addressed to that person or which is of direct and individual concern to them, and against a regulatory act which is of direct concern to them and does not entail implementing measures’.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cf., e.g. Case C-376/98 Germany v European Parliament and Council (Tobacco Advertising) [2000] ECR I-8419.

  2. 2.

    Cf., e.g., Joined Cases 138 and 139/79 Roquette Frères [1980] ECR 3333.

  3. 3.

    Cf., e.g., Case 17/74 Transocean Marine Paint [1974] ECR 1063.

  4. 4.

    Cf., e.g., Case C-84/94 United Kingdom v Council [1996] ECR I-5755.

  5. 5.

    Cf. Barents (2014), p. 1447.

  6. 6.

    Joined cases 16 and 17/62 Confédération nationale des producteurs de fruits et légumes and others v Council of the European Economic Community [1962] ECR 471.

  7. 7.

    Council Regulation 23/62/EEC of 4 April 1962 on the progressive establishment of a common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ 1962 B 30/965); and Council Regulation 26/62 of 20 April 1962 applying certain rules of competition to production of and trade in agricultural products (OJ 1962 B 30/993). Cf., now, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (OJ 2011 L 157, p. 1); and Council Regulation (EC) No 1184/2006 of 24 July 2006 applying certain rules of competition to the production of, and trade in, agricultural products (Codified version) (OJ 2006 L 214, p. 7).

  8. 8.

    Joined cases 16 and 17/62 Confédération nationale des producteurs de fruits et légumes and others v Council of the European Economic Community [1962] ECR 471, p. 478.

  9. 9.

    Case 25/62 Plaumann v Commission [1963] ECR 95.

  10. 10.

    Case 25/62 Plaumann v Commission [1963] ECR 95, p. 107. One case that well illustrates the situation where an applicant is indeed sufficiently affected by a decision addressed to another individual is Case C-441/07 P Alrosa [2010] ECR I-5941. Alrosa concerned an agreement between two companies dealing in the production and supply of rough diamonds. The company Alrosa had agreed to supply some subsidiaries of the company De Beers with diamonds and the two companies notified the Commission with a view to obtain negative clearance or an exemption from the regulation concerning the implementation of competition rules at the time (Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing Articles [81] and [82] of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959–1962, p. 87). The Commission had objections and opened an investigation. This ultimately led to an individual commitment decision concerning De Beers (Commission Decision 2006/520/EC of 22 February 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 of the EC Treaty and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/B-2/38.381—De Beers) (OJ 2006 L 205, p. 24), i.e. not a joint commitment of the two companies. The commitment provided for a progressive reduction, and ultimately a discontinuation, of the supply from Alrosa to De Beers. Subsequently, Alrosa sought judicial review of the individual decision concerning De Beers, arguing inter alia that its procedural rights had not been respected. In this case, Alrosa clearly had both an individual and direct concern, as was swiftly noted by the Court of First Instance, cf. Case T-170/06 Alrosa [2007] ECR II-2601, paras 38–41.

  11. 11.

    Case C-358/89 Extramet Industrie SA v Council [1991] ECR I-2501.

  12. 12.

    Council Regulation (EEC) No 2808/89 of 18 September 1989 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of calcium metal originating in the people's Republic of China and the Soviet Union and definitively collecting the provisional anti-dumping duty imposed on such imports (OJ 1989 L 271, p. 1).

  13. 13.

    Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in Case C-358/89 Extramet Industrie SA v Council [1991] ECR I-2501, para 46.

  14. 14.

    Case C-309/89 Codorniu SA v Council [1994] ECR I-1853.

  15. 15.

    Council Regulation (EEC) No 2045/89 of 19 June 1989 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3309/85 laying down general rules for the description and presentation of sparkling wines and aerated sparkling wines (OJ 1989 L 202, p. 12).

  16. 16.

    Council Regulation (EEC) No 3309/85 of 18 November 1985 laying down general rules for the description and presentation of sparkling wines and aerated sparkling wines (OJ 1985 L 320, p. 9). Cf., now, Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671).

  17. 17.

    Case C-309/89 Codorniu SA v Council [1994] ECR I-1853, para 17.

  18. 18.

    Case C-309/89 Codorniu SA v Council [1994] ECR I-1853, para 19.

  19. 19.

    Case C-50/00 P Unión de Pequeños Agricultores (UPA) v Council [2002] ECR I-6677.

  20. 20.

    Case C-263/02 P Commission v Jégo-Quéré [2004] ECR I-3425.

  21. 21.

    Cf. Dougan (2007), p. 679. The rationale behind the generally restrictive approach to standing is not obvious. But the reason behind there being different possibilities for individuals to challenge legislative rather than regulatory acts—at least in national contexts—is normally that legislative acts, by nature, have democratic legitimacy as they generally stem from a parliamentary procedure. The motivation behind the Court of Justice’s restrictive approach to giving individuals direct access perhaps has more to do with upholding a preference for the preliminary reference procedure under Article 267 TFEU (Article 234 TEC(A), Article 177 TEEC). If the reasoning had been that the threshold for challenging European Union legislation should be harder to pass due to its status as a higher ranking source of law, this same approach should have applied to the possibility to challenge the validity of Union legislation via the preliminary reference procedure. From an equality perspective, options to challenge the validity of acts directly before the Union courts may be preferable, as otherwise individuals are dependent on domestic rules on standing and other procedural rules governing the proceedings in which preliminary references may be made.

  22. 22.

    Cf., on this topic, Pernice (2013), pp. 385 et seq.

  23. 23.

    Case C-583/11 P Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council [2013] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 3 October 2013) (OJ 2013 C 344, p. 14) (EU:C:2013:625).

  24. 24.

    Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on trade in seal products (OJ 2009 L 286, p. 36).

  25. 25.

    Case T-18/10 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council [2011] ECR II‑5599.

  26. 26.

    Case C-583/11 P Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council [2013] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 3 October 2013) (OJ 2013 C 344, p. 14) (EU:C:2013:625), para 60.

  27. 27.

    It should be noted that Article 297(2) TFEU presumes that also non-legislative acts may be adopted in the form of regulations, directives and decisions. This adds weight to the conclusion that the Treaty revision is not without consequences. For instance, the Regulation at issue in Case C-263/02 P Commission v Jégo-Quéré [2004] ECR I-3425, would now have to be considered a regulatory act, while the act challenged in Case C-50/00 P Unión de Pequeños Agricultores (UPA) v Council [2002] ECR I-6677, would have had to be adopted via the legislative procedure in accordance with Article 43(2) TFEU and, consequently, could not have been considered a ‘regulatory’ act in the sense provided for by Article 263(4) TFEU.

  28. 28.

    Case C-583/11 P Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council [2013] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 3 October 2013) (OJ 2013 C 344, p. 14) (EU:C:2013:625), para 70.

  29. 29.

    The judgment has been followed up in Case C-274/12 P Telefónica v Commission [2013] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 19 December 2013) (OJ 2014 C 52, p. 12) (EU:C:2013:852), in which the Court of Justice did not dwell on the ‘regulatory act’ issue. It held that a Commission decision finding a national tax system partly involved unlawful state aid could not be brought before the General Court, as the decision called for implementation measures. It should be mentioned that the judgment did not deal with the operative part of the decision which contained an order for recovery of the aid. In the next seal products case (Case C-398/13 P Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami v Commission [2015] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 3 September 2015) (EU:C:2015:535)) none of the EU Courts discussed the issue of standing.

  30. 30.

    Cf. Sect. 16.5.3.2.

  31. 31.

    Cf. Case C-39/03 P Commission v Artegodan and Others [2003] ECR I-7885, para 52.

  32. 32.

    Cf. Barents (2014), p. 1448.

  33. 33.

    Unreported judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2007 in Case T-47/03 Sison I.

  34. 34.

    Case C-229/05 P PKK and KNK v Council [2007] ECR I-439.

  35. 35.

    Case C-229/05 P PKK and KNK v Council [2007] ECR I-439, para 109.

  36. 36.

    Case C-229/05 P PKK and KNK v Council [2007] ECR I-439, para 110.

  37. 37.

    Case C-229/05 P PKK and KNK v Council [2007] ECR I-439, para 111.

  38. 38.

    Case T-341/07 Sison [2011] ECR II-7915, para 46.

  39. 39.

    Case T-341/07 Sison [2011] ECR II-7915, para 52.

  40. 40.

    One scholarly work underscores the fact that the Court of Justice ‘has consistently interpreted its mandate in the perspective of effective legal protection, in particular regarding access to justice, both at the level of the Union and at the national level’. Whilst ‘the right to an effective remedy has become the leading principle for the interpretation of the provisions of the Treaties on direct actions and the function of national courts to guarantee the full effect of Union law in the Member States’, he nevertheless notes that ‘as far as access to court is concerned, the only significant trace in Union law of the conception of objective legality control is the admissibility conditions for actions for annulment brought by private applications’, cf. Barents (2014), p. 1448. In other words, the question of standing in actions for judicial review seems to be perhaps the only area in which rights have not necessarily become the dominant point of departure.

  41. 41.

    Case C-263/02 P Commission v Jégo-Quéré [2004] ECR I-3425, para 29; cf., also, Case C-50/00 P Unión de Pequeños Agricultores (UPA) v Council [2002] ECR I-6677, para 39.

  42. 42.

    Beljin (2008), p. 104.

  43. 43.

    Case T-180/01 Euroagri [2004] ECR II-369, para 41.

  44. 44.

    The legal basis of the duty to state reasons has become somewhat complex. First, the duty is dealt with in the Charter, Article 41(2)(c). Jurisprudence has been unclear as to whether the obligation concerns the European Union institutions alone or whether Member States’ authorities are also included (where the Charter as a whole comes into play, cf. Article 51). In Case C-482/10 Teresa Cicala [2011] ECR I-14139, the Court of Justice recalled that Article 41(2)(c) was addressed ‘not to the Member States but solely to the EU institutions and bodies’ (para 28). In Case C-277/11 M. M. v Minister for Justice [2012] (OJ 2013 C 26, p. 9) (EU:C:2012:744), the Court, however, held that the same provision was ‘of general application’ (para 84). There seems to be no reason why this obligation should be confined to the Union institutions. Apart from the Charter, Case C-70/95 Sodemare [1997] ECR I-3395 also dealt with the obligation to state reasons and seems founded on the idea that while this obligation is generally imposed upon European Union institutions whenever they adopt a ‘[l]egal act’ under Article 296 TFEU (cf. Article 253 TEC(A), cf. Article 190 TEEC), a comparable obligation—unwritten, but derivable from, inter alia, Case 222/86 Heylens [1987] ECR 4097—applies to institutions of the Member States. However, this unwritten obligation, according to the Court of Justice, ‘concerns only individual decisions adversely affecting individuals against which the latter must have some remedy of a judicial nature, and not national measures of general scope’ (Sodemare, para 19). Póltorak (2016), p. 436, suggests that the obligation to give reasons for decisions is now possibly to be considered as granting rights to individuals ‘as part of the Charter’s right to good administration’.

  45. 45.

    Cf. Chap. 16.

  46. 46.

    Case C-404/96 P Glencore Grain v Commission [1998] ECR I-2435, para 41; Case C-125/06 P Infront WM [2008] ECR I-1451, para 47; and Case C-343/07 Bavaria and Bavaria Italia [2009] ECR I-5491, para 43.

  47. 47.

    Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Case C-583/11 P Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council [2013] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 3 October 2013) (OJ 2013 C 344, p. 14) (EU:C:2013:625), footnote 45, referring to Case 169/84 Cofaz and Others v Commission [1986] ECR 391 and Case C-525/04 P Spain v Lenzing [2007] ECR I-9947; Case T-114/02 BaByliss v Commission [2003] ECR II-1279, para 89; and Case T-158/00 ARD v Commission [2003] ECR II-3825, para 60.

  48. 48.

    Cf. Case 222/83 The Municipality of Dufferdange [1984] ECR 2889.

  49. 49.

    Cf. Case 11/82 Piraiki-Patraiki and Others v Commission [1985] ECR 207, paras 7–9; and Joined Cases C-445/07 P and C-455/07 P Commission v Ente per le Ville Vesuviane and Ente per le Ville Vesuviane v Commission [2009] ECR I-7993, paras 58–62. Cf., also, Case C-386/96 P Dreyfus v Commission [1998] ECR I-2309, paras 44–46; and Case 62/70 Bock v Commission [1971] ECR 897, paras 6–8.

  50. 50.

    Case 25/62 Plaumann v Commission [1963] ECR 95, p. 107.

  51. 51.

    Cf. Case C-583/11 P Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council [2013] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 3 October 2013) (OJ 2013 C 344, p. 14) (EU:C:2013:625), paras 69–71; and Case C-456/13 P T & L Sugars [2015] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 28 April 2015) (OJ 2015 C 213, p. 6) (EU:C:2015:284), para 63.

  52. 52.

    Cf. Joined Cases 106 and 107/63 Toepfer [1965] ECR 405.

  53. 53.

    Case C-132/12 P Stichting Woonpunkt [2014] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 27 February 2014) (OJ 2014 C 112, p. 3) (EU:C:2014:100), para 58.

  54. 54.

    Case C-132/12 P Stichting Woonpunkt [2014] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 27 February 2014) (OJ 2014 C 112, p. 3) (EU:C:2014:100), para 59. Cf., also, Case C-133/12 P Stichting Woonlinie [2014] ECR I-nyr (27 February 2014) (OJ 2014 C 112, p. 4) (EU:C:2014:105), para 46.

  55. 55.

    Cf. Case C-309/89 Codorniu SA v Council [1994] ECR I-1853, paras 21–22.

  56. 56.

    Case T-213/02 SNF v Commission [2004] ECR II-3047, para 69.

  57. 57.

    Case T-370/02 Alphenhein-Camembert-Werk [2004] ECR II-2097, para 66.

  58. 58.

    Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23). Cf., now, Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (OJ 2010 L 95, p. 1).

  59. 59.

    Case C-125/06 P Infront WM [2008] ECR I-1451, paras 71–72.

  60. 60.

    Joined Cases 106 and 107/63 Toepfer [1965] ECR 405.

  61. 61.

    Case C-125/06 P Infront WM [2008] ECR I-1451, para 72.

  62. 62.

    Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in Case C-358/89 Extramet Industrie SA v Council [1991] ECR I-2501, para 33.

  63. 63.

    Case T-107/94 Christina Kik [1995] ECR II-1717, para 39.

  64. 64.

    Case C-583/11 P Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council [2013] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 3 October 2013) (OJ 2013 C 344, p. 14) (EU:C:2013:625). Cf. Sect. 11.1.1.1.

  65. 65.

    Opinion 1/09 of the Court (Full Court) of 8 March 2011 delivered pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU—Draft agreement—Creation of a unified patent litigation system—European and Community Patents Court—Compatibility of the draft agreements with the Treaties [2011] ECR I-1137, para 66.

  66. 66.

    Case C-583/11 P Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council [2013] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 3 October 2013) (OJ 2013 C 344, p. 14) (EU:C:2013:625), para 92.

  67. 67.

    Case C-583/11 P Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council [2013] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 3 October 2013) (OJ 2013 C 344, p. 14) (EU:C:2013:625), para 97.

  68. 68.

    Case C-583/11 P Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council [2013] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 3 October 2013) (OJ 2013 C 344, p. 14) (EU:C:2013:625), para 100.

  69. 69.

    Case C-583/11 P Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council [2013] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 3 October 2013) (OJ 2013 C 344, p. 14) (EU:C:2013:625), para 101.

  70. 70.

    Case C-583/11 P Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council [2013] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 3 October 2013) (OJ 2013 C 344, p. 14) (EU:C:2013:625), para 104.

  71. 71.

    Case C-432/05 Unibet [2007] ECR I-2271, para 64.

  72. 72.

    Case C-583/11 P Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council [2013] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 3 October 2013) (OJ 2013 C 344, p. 14) (EU:C:2013:625), para 104.

  73. 73.

    Case C-583/11 P Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council [2013] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 3 October 2013) (OJ 2013 C 344, p. 14) (EU:C:2013:625), paras 105–106.

  74. 74.

    Case C-274/12 P Telefónica v Commission [2013] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 19 December 2013) (OJ 2014 C 52, p. 12) (EU:C:2013:852).

  75. 75.

    Case C-274/12 P Telefónica v Commission [2013] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 19 December 2013) (OJ 2014 C 52, p. 12) (EU:C:2013:852), para 55.

  76. 76.

    Case C-229/05 P PKK and KNK v Council [2007] ECR I-439; and Case T-341/07 Sison [2011] ECR II-7915.

  77. 77.

    Cf., similarly, Tridimas (2013), p. 368.

  78. 78.

    Case 283/81 CILFIT [1982] ECR 3415.

  79. 79.

    Ullens App no 3989/07 and 38353/07 (2011), paras 55–67.

  80. 80.

    Cf. Pernice (2013), p. 391.

  81. 81.

    Cf. Case C-210/06 Cartesio [2008] ECR I-9641.

  82. 82.

    Cf. Case 13/61 De Geus v Bosch [1962] ECR 45; Case 127/73 BRT I [1974] ECR 51; and Case 146/73 Rheinmühlen-Düsseldorf [1974] ECR 139.

  83. 83.

    Cf., e.g., Case 126/80 Salonia [1981] ECR 1563, para 6; Case C-368/89 Crispoltoni [1991] ECR I-3695, para 11; Case C-186/90 Durighello [1991] ECR I-5773, para 9; Case C-62/93 BP Soupergaz [1995] ECR I-1883, para 10; Case C-143/94 Furlanis [1995] ECR I-2883, para 12; Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, para 61; Case C-129/94 Bernáldez [1996] ECR I-1829, para 7; Case C-104/95 Kontogeorgas v Kartonpak [1996] ECR I-6643, para 11; Case C-67/91 Associación Española de Banca Privada [1992] ECR I-4921, para 26; Joined Cases C-332/92, C-333/92 and C-335/92 Eurico [1994] ECR I-1711, para 17; Case C-446/93 SEIM [1996] ECR I-73, para 28; Case C-7/97 Bronner [1998] ECR I-7791, para 17; Case C-230/96 Cabour [1998] ECR I-2055, para 21; Case C-281/98 Angonese [2000] ECR I-4139, para 18; Case C-6/01 Anomar [2003] ECR I-8621, para 40; Case C-302/97 Konle [1999] ECR I-3099, para 33; Case C-300/01 Salzmann [2003] ECR I-4899, para 32; Case C-480/00 Azienda Agricola Ettore Ribaldi [2004] ECR I-2943, para 72; Case C-250/03 Mauri [2005] ECR I-1267, para 18; Case C-343/90 Lourenço Dias [1992] ECR I-4673, para 20; Case C-167/01 Inspire Art [2003] ECR I-10155, para 47; Case C-314/01 Siemens and ARGE Telekom [2004] ECR I-2549, para 35; and Case C-152/03 Ritter-Coulais [2006] ECR I-1711, para 15.

  84. 84.

    Cf., e.g., Case C-392/05 Alevizos [2007] ECR I-3505, para 64. The wide approach taken by the Court of Justice was evident in Case C-448/98 Guimont [2000] ECR I-10663, where the Court held that it would also give preliminary rulings in purely internal situations because a reply ‘might be useful’ to the national court ‘if’ the national law were to prohibit reverse discrimination (para 23), a matter the Court itself would not check. Furthermore, the Court has laid down what has been coined the Dzodzi principle, according to which preliminary references are also accepted if national law has either made reference to provisions of European Union law or made Union law applicable to domestic situations, cf. Joined Cases C-297/88 and C-197/89 Dzodzi [1990] ECR I-3763, para 36. At first, in Case C-346/93 Kleinwort Benson [1995] ECR I-615, the Dzodzi principle was interpreted as requiring ‘direct and unconditional’ reference to Union law and that the application of Union law be ‘absolutely and unconditionally’ binding on the national court (paras 16 and 20). There has since been some inconsistency as regards the quality of the link between national and Union law that is required for the Court to give a ruling, cf. Case C-1/99 Kofisa Italia [2001] ECR I-207; Case C-267/99 Adam [2001] ECR I-7467; and Case C-306/99 BIAO [2003] ECR I-1. The relationship between the two approaches is moreover unclear, as they both address purely internal situations, but in neither case (neither in the Guimont, nor in the Dzodzi approach) will the Court check if national law actually prohibits reverse discrimination, cf. Ritter (2006), p. 698.

  85. 85.

    Case C-366/10 Air Transport Association of America [2011] ECR I-13755.

  86. 86.

    The Convention on International Civil Aviation, signed in Chicago (United States) on 7 December 1944.

  87. 87.

    The Kyoto Protocol, adopted 11 December 1997, entered into force 16 February 2005, to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change signed 9 May 1992, entered into force 21 March 1994.

  88. 88.

    Air Transport Agreement between the European Community and the United States, 25 and 30 April 2007, cf. Decision 2007/339/EC of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union, meeting within the Council on the signature and provisional application of the Air Transport Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, on the one hand, and the United States of America, on the other hand (OJ 2007 L 134, p. 1), amended by Decision 2010/465/EU of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union, meeting within the Council of 24 June 2010 on the signing and provisional application of the Protocol to Amend the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part (OJ 2010 L 223, p. 1).

  89. 89.

    Case C-366/10 Air Transport Association of America [2011] ECR I-13755, para 84.

  90. 90.

    Case C-366/10 Air Transport Association of America [2011] ECR I-13755, para 107. References were made to Joined Cases 89/85, 104/85, 114/85, 116/85, 117/85 and 125/85 to 129/85 Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and Others v Commission [1988] ECR 5193, paras 14–18; and Case C-405/92 Mondiet [1993] ECR I-6133, paras 11–16.

  91. 91.

    Cf. Sect. 16.5.4.

  92. 92.

    Some differences as regards parliamentary sovereignty may be recalled. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty has a long history and a strong position in English law, cf., in general, e.g., Snyder (1991). Thus, there are no options for reviewing and setting aside legislation. However, there may be a shift in attitude, as was indicated by the House of Lords in its 2006 decision in Jackson v Attorney-General [2006] 1 AC 262. As regards acts that conflict with European Union law, where this conflict is unresolvable via interpretation, disapplication of the parliamentary act was ultimately accepted by the House of Lords in R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd. [1991] 1 AC 603 after the seminal Factortame ruling by the Court of Justice (Case C-213/89 Factortame [1990] ECR I-2433). The situation is different in Germany, where the judiciary can set aside parliamentary legislation as unconstitutional (cf. Article 20(3) of the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz)). The same goes for France (cf. Article 61–1 of the French Constitution). Exceptions and systems with ‘pre-approval’ of parliamentary legislation by the national (supreme) courts may, however, mean that the differences are in practice smaller than might be suggested. Cf., on the topic, Ogorek (2005).

  93. 93.

    Cf. Eliantonio et al. (2013), pp. 67 et seq.

  94. 94.

    Cf., e.g., Hölscheidt (2001), pp. 376–377.

  95. 95.

    Cf., e.g., Singh (2001), p. 214.

  96. 96.

    Cf., e.g., Hölscheidt (2001), p. 378.

  97. 97.

    Cf. Schröder (2014), p. 84.

  98. 98.

    Gersdorf (2009), p. 22.

  99. 99.

    Cf., e.g., Hölscheidt (2001), p. 379.

  100. 100.

    Cf. Chap. 6.

  101. 101.

    Cf., e.g., Hölscheidt (2001), p. 387. A counterpart is that the intensity of the review under German law is high once the action has been deemed admissible. This in itself may contribute to justifying why the concept of rights is not to be understood too widely, inter alia in light of cases where the rights of one party are detrimental to the interests of others.

  102. 102.

    Cf. Eliantonio et al. (2013), p. 68.

  103. 103.

    Brown and Bell (1998), p. 166.

  104. 104.

    Cf. Auby and Cluzel-Métayer (2012), p. 30.

  105. 105.

    An Act to consolidate with amendments the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 and other enactments relating to the Senior Courts in England and Wales and the administration of justice therein; to repeal certain obsolete or unnecessary enactments so relating; to amend Part VIII of the Mental Health Act 1959, the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1968, the Arbitration Act 1979 and the law relating to county courts; and for connected purposes 1981 Ch. 54.

  106. 106.

    R v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex parte National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617 (‘Fleet Street Casuals’) (per Lord Wilberforce). A trade association challenged a tax amnesty granted to casual workers in the newspaper industry. The Revenue had agreed to not seek recovery of unpaid tax, provided that the workers ceased their tactics of tax evasion in the future. The case established that the matter of standing must be decided based on the concrete circumstances, yet in light of earlier cases. This includes taking into account relevant statutory provisions as well as the substance of the applicant’s complaint. Ultimately, it was held that the applicants lacked sufficient interest. Cf., on the case, e.g., Cane (2011), pp. 282–284.

  107. 107.

    R (Grierson) v OFCOM and Atlantic Broadcasting [2005] EWHC 1899; and R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Ex parte World Development Movement Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 386.

  108. 108.

    Ministry of Justice, Judicial Review—Proposals for further reform, Presented to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by Command of Her Majesty, September 2013, 23.

  109. 109.

    Ministry of Justice, Judicial Review—Proposals for further reform, Presented to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by Command of Her Majesty, September 2013, 23.

  110. 110.

    Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (codification) (OJ 2011 L 26, p. 1).

  111. 111.

    Case C-137/14 Commission v Germany [2015] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 15 October 2015) (OJ 2015 C 406, p. 4) (EU:C:2015:683), paras 28–35.

  112. 112.

    Joined Cases C-128/09 to C-131/09, C-134/09 and C-135/09 Boxus [2011] ECR I-9711.

  113. 113.

    Case C-263/08 Djurgården-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening [2009] ECR I-9967.

  114. 114.

    Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 17). Cf., now, Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (codification) (OJ 2011 L 26, p. 1).

  115. 115.

    The Court of Justice gave further guidance in Case C-115/09 Trianel Kohlekraftwerk Lünen [2011] ECR I-3673. An environmental protection organization (Friends of the Earth) sought to contest the validity of a, preliminary and partial, permission to establish a coal-fire power station. The association argued that the environmental impact assessment had not shown that the project was unlikely to have a significant effect on the conservation of some protected habitats, referring to Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), as amended by Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006 (OJ 2006 L 363, p. 368). The former Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17)) Article 10a provided, as noted above, the same two options existing nowadays (Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1)): a review procedure should be available to those ‘having a sufficient interest’ or, alternatively, to those ‘maintaining the impairment of a right, where administrative procedural law of a Member State requires this as a precondition’. As German administrative law generally presupposes that there are individual rights at issue and that the applicant falls within the circle of protected individuals in order to allow for a privately initiated judicial review, the association would not have standing in this matter, since it was assumed that the relevant rules at issue were established in order to meet general, public interests. According to the referring national court, the Higher Administrative Court for the Nordrhein-Westfalen Land (Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen), the decisive criterion for when an individual right would be at issue was the ‘extent to which that provision adequately specifies and delimits the interest or right protected, envisages the way in which the right might be regarded as impaired and determines the class of persons protected’ (para 30). For The Court of Justice it was more or less sufficient to point to the third paragraph of Article 10a, under which environmental protection organizations either have sufficient interest or fulfil the rights condition. In any event, the organization would derive its own right to contest decisions such as that at issue. Thus, the ruling clarifies the general standing awarded to environmental protection organizations. In light of the way the questions to the Court of Justice were framed, the Court took the opportunity to provide further information on the issue of rights. In this matter, the Court, on the one hand, referred to the Member States having a ‘significant discretion … to determine what constitutes impairment of a right’ (para 55). On the other hand, concerning the expression ‘rights capable of being impaired’ in the Article’s third paragraph on environmental protection organizations, it found that this ‘must necessarily include the rules of national law implementing EU environment law and the rules of EU environment law having direct effect’ (para 48). In sum, assessing the eventual impairment is at the discretion of the Member State, but the determination of what is a right lies largely with the Court of Justice. National law can, in practice, only supplement.

  116. 116.

    Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1).

  117. 117.

    Case C-240/09 Lesoochranárske zoskupenie [2011] ECR I-1255.

  118. 118.

    Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in Case C-240/09 Lesoochranárske zoskupenie [2011] ECR I-1255, para 23.

  119. 119.

    Case C-240/09 Lesoochranárske zoskupenie [2011] ECR I-1255, para 47.

  120. 120.

    Case 222/86 Heylens [1987] ECR 4097, para 12.

  121. 121.

    Case C-13/01 Safalero [2003] ECR I-8679, para 56.

  122. 122.

    Case C-97/91 Borelli [1992] ECR I-6313 may also be mentioned. It dealt with an application from an Italian company to the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund for funds. According to the procedural rules, such an application had to be presented and approved by the Member State—in that case represented by a Regional Council—before being forwarded to the Commission for the ultimate decision. The Regional Council issued an unfavourable opinion and the application was not granted by the Commission. The Borelli company wanted to challenge not only the ultimate refusal by the Commission, but also the unfavourable opinion issued by the Regional Council. The Court pointed out that it could not itself review the national measures, but indeed required that the opinion should be reviewable in domestic proceedings. Thus, it required that an act—which in Italy was considered a preparatory opinion and hence not subject to review—had to be treated as reviewable in line with final decisions. There is arguably no reason why this finding should extend to circumstances outside shared decision-making.

  123. 123.

    Case C-1/99 Kofisa Italia [2001] ECR I-207, para 46. References were made to Case 222/86 Heylens [1987] ECR 4097, para 14; and Case C-97/91 Borelli [1992] ECR I-6313, para 14. Cf., also, Case C-226/99 Siples [2001] ECR I-277, para 17.

  124. 124.

    Cf., inter alia, Joined Cases C-372/09 and C-373/09 Fa [2011] ECR I-1785, paras 62–63.

  125. 125.

    Case C-432/05 Unibet [2007] ECR I-2271, para 47.

  126. 126.

    Case C-432/05 Unibet [2007] ECR I-2271, para 59.

  127. 127.

    Case 222/86 Heylens [1987] ECR 4097, para 14.

  128. 128.

    Case C-340/89 Vlassopoulou [1991] ECR I-2357, para 22.

  129. 129.

    Case C-432/05 Unibet [2007] ECR I-2271, para 61.

  130. 130.

    Cf., similarly, but with respect to effectiveness, Lenaerts (2011), p. 20. On the other hand, the Court of Justice also underscored the fact that it does not suffice for judicial protection that the individual’s only option of addressing the legality be to disregard national provisions and subsequently contest their validity once they are subject to administrative or criminal proceedings, cf. Case C-432/05 Unibet [2007] ECR I-2271, para 64. This is a position which echoes that of the European Court of Human Rights (cf. Posti and Rahko v Finland ECHR 2002-VII, 37 EHRR 158, para 64) and must clearly have general validity, despite the fact that there are some cases and statements which are somewhat difficult to reconcile with it (Cf. Case C-263/02 P Commission v Jégo-Quéré [2004] ECR I-3425, para 34; and Case C-13/01 Safalero [2003] ECR I-8679). Cf., similarly, Póltorak (2015), p. 159.

  131. 131.

    Case C-13/01 Safalero [2003] ECR I-8679, para 56.

  132. 132.

    Case C-97/91 Borelli [1992] ECR I-6313, para 13.

  133. 133.

    Case C-269/99 Kühne [2001] ECR I-9517, para 58.

  134. 134.

    Opinion of Advocate General Capotorti in Case 158/80 Rewe [1981] ECR 1805, 1850.

  135. 135.

    Case C-216/02 Zuchtverband für Ponys [2004] ECR I-10683, para 36.

  136. 136.

    Commission Decision 92/353/EEC of 11 June 1992 laying down the criteria for the approval or recognition of organizations and associations which maintain or establish stud-books for registered equidae (OJ 1992 L 192, p. 63).

  137. 137.

    Council Directive 90/427/EEC of 26 June 1990 on the zootechnical and genealogical conditions governing intra-Community trade in equidae (OJ 1990 L 224, p. 55).

  138. 138.

    Cf. Póltorak (2015), p. 119, comparing Case C-216/02 Zuchtverband für Ponys [2004] ECR I-10683 and Case C-253/00 Muñoz [2002] ECR I-7289.

  139. 139.

    Cf. Wenneras (2007), p. 114.

  140. 140.

    Cf. Opinion of Advocate General Colomer in Case C-216/02 Zuchtverband für Ponys [2004] ECR I-10683, paras 27–32 and 37–40; cf. Dougan (2010), p. 99.

  141. 141.

    In general, discretion conferred upon the authority will, naturally, limit the options for review. A special variant of this is where the directive leaves such discretion to the Member States in enacting domestic legislation to implement the directive. The Court of Justice has generally held that individuals should be able to invoke an abuse of discretion and, thus, in fact, non-compliance with the directive in this sort of case. One early example is Case 51/76 Verbond van Nederlandse Ondernemingen [1977] ECR 113. The case concerned value-added tax and one of the referred questions regarded whether the applicant could invoke the directive valid at the time (in order to claim the deduction of turnover tax (Second Council Directive (67/228/EEC) of 11 April 1967 on the harmonization of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes—Structure and procedures for application of the common system of value-added tax (OJ English Special Edition 1967, p. 16). Cf., now, Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1)). As the directive left it to Member States to choose certain derogations from the basic principle of deduction of the tax, judicial review of the Member State’s choices within the scope of this discretion was not possible. However, it was the ‘duty of the national court before which the directive is invoked to determine whether the disputed national measure falls outside the margin of the discretion of the Member States and cannot therefore be considered as a legitimate exception to or derogation from the principle of immediate deduction’ (para 29). In other words, the individual could invoke an abuse of discretion by the Member State via the directive. Similar reasoning was later used in, e.g., Case C-365/98 Brinkmann Tabakfabriken [2000] ECR I-4619.

  142. 142.

    Case 380/87 Enichem Base [1989] ECR 2491.

  143. 143.

    Council Directive 75/442 of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39). Cf., now, Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3).

  144. 144.

    Case 380/87 Enichem Base [1989] ECR 2491, para 24.

  145. 145.

    Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Case C-172/02 Waddenzee [2004] ECR I-7405.

  146. 146.

    Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).

  147. 147.

    Case C-441/99 Gharehveran [2001] ECR I-7687.

  148. 148.

    Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Case C-172/02 Waddenzee [2004] ECR I-7405, para 140.

  149. 149.

    Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Case C-172/02 Waddenzee [2004] ECR I-7405, para 143.

  150. 150.

    Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Case C-172/02 Waddenzee [2004] ECR I-7405, para 142.

  151. 151.

    Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Case C-172/02 Waddenzee [2004] ECR I-7405, para 144.

  152. 152.

    Joined Cases C-87, C-88 and C-89/90 Verholen [1991] ECR I-3757.

  153. 153.

    Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24).

  154. 154.

    Joined Cases C-87, C-88 and C-89/90 Verholen [1991] ECR I-3757, para 26.

  155. 155.

    Lenaerts et al. (2014), p. 119. Cf., also, Tridimas (2006), p. 453.

  156. 156.

    Cf. Póltorak (2015), p. 240; and Sect. 11.1.2.4.

  157. 157.

    Joined Cases C-87, C-88 and C-89/90 Verholen [1991] ECR I-3757, para 24.

  158. 158.

    Dougan (2010), p. 104.

  159. 159.

    Downes and Hilson (1999), p. 131, cf. pp. 133–134.

  160. 160.

    Cf. Sect. 19.2.2. The same Directive (Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24)) was also subject to interpretation in Case C-343/92 Roks [1994] ECR I-571, in which the Court of Justice, referring to Verholen, stated in more general terms that the Directive ‘may be relied upon by individuals who suffer the effects of discrimination in a national provision through another person who himself is covered by the directive’ (para 42).

  161. 161.

    Cf. Sect. 19.2.

  162. 162.

    Cf., e.g., Engstroem (2009), pp. 131 et seq.

  163. 163.

    Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).

  164. 164.

    Case C-127/02 Waddenzee [2004] ECR I-7405, para 19.

  165. 165.

    Cf. Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Case C-127/02 Waddenzee [2004] ECR I-7405, paras 142–144.

  166. 166.

    Case C-127/02 Waddenzee [2004] ECR I-7405, para 66.

  167. 167.

    Case C-127/02 Waddenzee [2004] ECR I-7405, para 69.

  168. 168.

    Waddenzee resembles the judgment in Case C-72/95 Kraaijeveld [1996] ECR I-5403. Kraaijeveld concerned a situation where national authorities had adopted a zoning plan on dykes along Dutch waterways. Kraaijeveld’s business depended on waterway transport and completion of the dyke project would mean that its premises would no longer be located on navigable waterways. The Court of Justice pointed out that when assessing the validity of the plan, the national court would also have to take into consideration the duties imposed on national authorities under the Directive on environmental impact assessments (para 60). Like Waddenzee, this case was not linked to questions of rights, despite the fact that Directive imposes rights on individuals.

  169. 169.

    Case C-345/89 Stoeckel [1991] ECR I-4047.

  170. 170.

    Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40). Cf., now, Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).

  171. 171.

    Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1983 L 109, p. 8). Cf., now, Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37).

  172. 172.

    Cf. Sect. 16.5.2.1.

  173. 173.

    It may be added here that even where it is determined that individual rights are at issue and that there must be options for judicial review, this seems not to be sufficient to affect the intensity of review. Case C-120/97 Upjohn [1999] ECR I-223 concerned a Directive relating to proprietary medicinal products (Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ, English Special Edition 1965–1966, p. 20). Cf., now, Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67)). The licencing authority revoked Upjohn’s authorization to market a prescription drug called Triazolam. Upjohn brought proceedings in order to get the revocation quashed. A central question for the Court of Justice concerned precisely the intensity of the review. Upjohn argued that unless the national court was empowered to fully review the decision, its rights would not be effectively safeguarded. The Court, on the other hand, found that a review of the validity, without empowering the domestic court to substitute the facts established by the licencing authority, was well in line with what required by European Union law (para 37). The Court focused merely on the principles of effectiveness and equivalence and thus, although the Upjohn case concerned the rights of the producer, it seems as if the Court viewed the case just as much from the perspective of administrative control, as from the perspective of protecting individual rights, notwithstanding the reference to rights in the ruling. Cf., also, Prechal (2001), p. 53.

  174. 174.

    Variations on this kind of ordre public rule may be found in the French Code civil, Article 1133 CC, which holds that contracts whose grounds are contrary to ordre public requirements are illegal (‘[l]a cause est illicite, quand elle est prohibée par la loi, quand elle est contraire aux bonnes moeurs ou à l'ordre public’), in combination with Article 1108 CC, under which a contract must have, inter alia, legal grounds for it to be valid. In Germany, Article 134 BGB lays down that a legal transaction that violates a statutory prohibition is void, unless the statute leads to a different conclusion (‘[e]in Rechtsgeschäft, das gegen ein gesetzliches Verbot verstöβt, ist nichtig, wenn sich nicht aus dem Gesetz ein anderes ergibt’). Under Common Law, there is a long line of cases on the illegality of contracts, a doctrine set out by Lord Mansfield CJ in Holman v Johnson [1775] 1 Cowp 341.

  175. 175.

    French law contains a principle of nullity , but differentiates between absolute and relative nullity. Absolute nullity follows automatically from a contract in breach of a statute whose purpose is to protect the interests of the general public and ensure safety. Where, on the other hand, the contract merely violates a rule whose purpose is to protect a party to the agreement, this party has to invoke the nullity, e.g. by claiming that the contract be declared null and void before a court. In Germany, the above-mentioned Article 134 BGB also governs situations where a contract contradicts rules of law which are not considered to reflect ordre public. Still, ‘voidable’ nullity is also available in Germany (‘schwebende Nichtigkeit’/’ Anfechtbarkeit ’). Cf., e.g., van Gerven (1969), p. 515. Under English law, the rules on validity call for rather nuanced appraisal and thus nullity does not necessarily follow. Importantly, unless it is a type of contract expressly banned by a provision, the English courts must assess whether nullifying the agreement which contravenes a provision is necessary in order to give effect to the provision. This may in fact be considered as a variation on the Schutzzweck assessment, as ‘you have to consider not what acts the statute prohibits, but what contracts it prohibits’, cf. St John Shipping Corp v Joseph Rank [1957] 1 QB 267, 283 (per Devlin J). If it is prohibited, it is generally not considered a question of whether the contract is null and void as such, but rather whether it is enforceable. Where a contract is unenforceable, neither party can claim performance or damages for non-performance.

  176. 176.

    Explanations Relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 17) 23.

  177. 177.

    Case C-240/97 Spain v Comission [1999] ECR I-6571, para 99. Cf., critical of the explanations, Weatherill (2014), pp. 179–180.

  178. 178.

    Cf., in general, Davies (2013).

  179. 179.

    Schepel (2004), p. 663.

  180. 180.

    Davies (2013), p. 61.

  181. 181.

    Cf., on the personal (‘workers’) and material (‘pay’) scope, e.g., Barnard (2012), pp. 297 et seq.

  182. 182.

    Case 43/75 Defrenne v Sabena [1976] ECR 455.

  183. 183.

    Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women (OJ 1975 L 45, p. 19), article 4. Cf., now, Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).

  184. 184.

    Case C-281/98 Angonese [2000] ECR I-4139.

  185. 185.

    Case 56/65 Societé Technique Minière v Maschinenbau Ulm [1966] ECR 235, p. 250.

  186. 186.

    Case 48/72 SA Brasserie de Haecht v Wilkin-Janssen [1973] ECR 77, para 5.

  187. 187.

    Case 48/72 SA Brasserie de Haecht v Wilkin-Janssen [1973] ECR 77, para 27.

  188. 188.

    Cf., e.g., Cseres (2011), p. 227; and Whish and Bailey (2015), pp. 347–348.

  189. 189.

    Case 127/73 BRI II [1974] ECR 313, para 14.

  190. 190.

    Case 66/86 Ahmed Saeed Flugreisen [1989] ECR 803, para 45.

  191. 191.

    Case 56/65 Societé Technique Minière v Maschinenbau Ulm [1966] ECR 235, 250.

  192. 192.

    Cf., e.g., Case 319/82 Kerpen & Kerpen [1983] ECR 4173, para 11.

  193. 193.

    Under English law, this is designated as the doctrine of severance—separating the good from the bad—, which was one of the issues in the English Crehan v Courage case (Crehan v Courage Limited; Byrne v Inntreprenneur Beer Supply Co Ltd [1999] EuLR 834 at 896E-901A). The Court of Appeal in this ruling ‘rehearsed various formulations of the severance test propounded over the years without identifying which if any was to be preferred’, cf. English Welsh & Scottish Railway Limited v E. ON UK plc. [2007] EWHC 599 (Comm), para 28. In English Welsh & Scottish Railway Limited v E. ON UK plc., these were subsequently listed as: ‘(i) whether the invalid restraint formed the whole or substantially the whole consideration for the promise; (ii) whether the contract would be so changed in its character as not to be the sort of contract that the parties intended to enter at all; (iii) whether what was unenforceable was part of the main purpose and substance, or whether the deletion altered entirely the scope and intention of the agreement or, on the contrary, left the rest of the agreement a reasonable arrangement between the parties; (iv) whether it would disappoint the main purposes of one of the main parties; and (v) whether the agreement was in substance an agreement for an invalid restraint’ (para 38). Ultimately, the Commercial Court in that case found that the contract at issue ‘would be of a fundamentally different nature’ and wholly void.

  194. 194.

    Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts (OJ 2007 L 335, p. 31), Article 2d.

  195. 195.

    Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), Article 2(6) second subparagraph.

  196. 196.

    Cf., inter alia, Case C-503/04 Commission v Germany [2007] ECR I-6153.

  197. 197.

    Cf. Opinion of Advocate General in Case C-503/04 Commission v Germany [2007] ECR I-6153, para 79.

  198. 198.

    Case C-453/10 Pereničová [2012] (OJ 2012 C 133, p. 7) (EU:C:2012:144).

  199. 199.

    Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

  200. 200.

    Case C-453/10 Pereničová [2012] (OJ 2012 C 133, p. 7) (EU:C:2012:144), para 41.

  201. 201.

    Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

  202. 202.

    Case C-453/10 Pereničová [2012] (OJ 2012 C 133, p. 7) (EU:C:2012:144), paras 42–44.

  203. 203.

    Case C-453/10 Pereničová [2012] (OJ 2012 C 133, p. 7) (EU:C:2012:144), para 45.

  204. 204.

    Case C-159/00 Sapod Audic [2002] ECR I-5031.

  205. 205.

    Case C-159/00 Sapod Audic [2002] ECR I-5031, para 8.

  206. 206.

    Case C-159/00 Sapod Audic [2002] ECR I-5031, para 51.

  207. 207.

    Case C-159/00 Sapod Audic [2002] ECR I-5031, para 52.

  208. 208.

    Case C-159/00 Sapod Audic [2002] ECR I-5031, para 52.

  209. 209.

    Dougan (2003), p. 203.

  210. 210.

    Cf., as one example, Case T-231/97 New Europe Consulting [1999] ECR II-2403, where the claim for restoration of reputation was not considered.

  211. 211.

    Cf., e.g., Rogers (2008), p. 389.

  212. 212.

    The difference between mandatory and prohibitory injunctions is set out, primarily, by describing the duties positively and negatively, i.e. a duty may be to undertake an action (eine Handlung vorzunehmen) or to refrain from an act (eine Handlung zu unterlassen). There is also lex specialis on injunctions. For instance, Article 33 of the Act against Restraints on Competition (Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen; GWB) lays down the general rule that whoever violates a provision of either the GWB or Articles 101 or 102 TFEU or a decision by the cartel authority shall be obliged to the person affected to remediate and, in case of danger of recurrence, to refrain from his conduct. The right holders, the affected persons, are expressly defined as competitors or other market participants affected by the infringement (‘Betroffen ist, wer als Mitbewerber oder sonstiger Marktbeteiligter durch den Verstoβ beeinträchtigt ist.’), as well as other qualified applicants (e.g. consumer associations and the Commission).

  213. 213.

    Cf., e.g., van Boom (2010), pp. 14–15.

  214. 214.

    Cf. London and Blackwall Railway Company v Cross (1886) Ch. D. 354, 369; and Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co (1894) 1 Ch. 287.

  215. 215.

    Cf. American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396.

  216. 216.

    Cf., e.g., Brealey and Hoskins (1998), p. 152.

  217. 217.

    Davies (2010), p. 518.

  218. 218.

    Cf. American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396, 406.

  219. 219.

    Thorne v British Broadcasting Corporation [1975] 1 WLR 1104, 1109.

  220. 220.

    Holleran v Daniel Thwaites [1989] 2 CMLR 917, para 51.

  221. 221.

    Turner LJ, Maxwell v Hogg (1867) 2 Ch App 307, 311.

  222. 222.

    Cf. Martin (2012), p. 813.

  223. 223.

    Cf. van Boom (2010), pp. 16–17.

  224. 224.

    For instance, Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers [1977] AC 435 concerned an individual who applied for an injunction against a union of post office workers, compelling them to perform the statutory duty of postal delivery. The background of the conflict was to be found in a one-week boycott of delivering post to South Africa under the apartheid regime. The House of Lords found that an injunction could not be granted. The applicant had no special interest in this case, rather it was a matter for public enforcement.

  225. 225.

    Cf. Martin (2012), p. 811.

  226. 226.

    Cf. Brown and Bell (1998), p. 166.

  227. 227.

    Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests (Codified version) (OJ 2009 L 110, p. 30).

  228. 228.

    Directive 2004/48/EC of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45, corrigendum OJ 2004 L 195, p. 16).

  229. 229.

    Case C-324/09 L’Oreal v eBay [2011] ECR I-6011, para 144. Cf., also, Case C-70/10 Scarlet Extended v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2011] ECR I-11959, para 31.

  230. 230.

    Case C-275/06 Promusicae [2008] ECR I-271, para 43.

  231. 231.

    Directive 98/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests (OJ 1988 L 166, p. 51), preamble, recital 2. Cf., now, Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests (Codified version) (OJ 2009 L 110, p. 30).

  232. 232.

    Cf. Sect. 12.4.2.

  233. 233.

    Oliphant (2008), p. 255.

  234. 234.

    Case T-156/89 Mordt [1991] ECR II-407, para 150.

  235. 235.

    Cf., for an overview, Ward (2007), pp. 278–283.

  236. 236.

    Cf. Sect. 11.1.1.3.

  237. 237.

    Case C-253/00 Muñoz [2002] ECR I-7289.

  238. 238.

    Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council of 18 May 1972 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ 1972 L 118, p. 1); and Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ 1996 L 297, p. 1). Cf., now, Council Regulation (EC) No 361/2008 of 14 April 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2008 L 121, p. 1).

  239. 239.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ 1996 L 297, p. 1), Article 3(1). Cf., now, Council Regulation (EC) No 361/2008 of 14 April 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2008 L 121, p. 1).

  240. 240.

    Antonio Muñoz y Cia SA v Frumar Ltd [1999] 3 CMLR 684, and [1999] FSR 872, inter alia, para 52.

  241. 241.

    Case C-253/00 Muñoz [2002] ECR I-7289, para 23.

  242. 242.

    Case C-253/00 Muñoz [2002] ECR I-7289, paras 27–28.

  243. 243.

    Case C-253/00 Muñoz [2002] ECR I-7289, paras 29–31.

  244. 244.

    Cf. Wurmnest and Heinze (2011), p. 43.

  245. 245.

    Engstroem (2009), p. 145.

  246. 246.

    Cf., for a slightly different view, Leczykiewicz (2013), pp. 210–211; and Betlem (2005), pp. 134–138.

  247. 247.

    Cf. Dougan (2004), p. 44.

  248. 248.

    Case C-253/00 Muñoz [2002] ECR I-7289, para 30.

  249. 249.

    Case C-54/07 Feryn [2008] ECR I-5187.

  250. 250.

    Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22).

  251. 251.

    Case C-54/07 Feryn [2008] ECR I-5187, paras 36–37.

  252. 252.

    Case C-54/07 Feryn [2008] ECR I-5187, para 38.

  253. 253.

    Case C-54/07 Feryn [2008] ECR I-5187, para 39.

  254. 254.

    Cf., also, Case C-97/96 Verband deutscher Daihatsu-Händler [1997] ECR I-6843.

  255. 255.

    Case C-253/00 Muñoz [2002] ECR I-7289, para 23.

  256. 256.

    van Gerven (2000), pp. 520–521.

  257. 257.

    Cf. Sect. 12.4.

  258. 258.

    Cf., e.g., Case C-7/97 Bronner [1998] ECR I-7791; and Case C-52/07 Kanal 5 [2008] ECR I-9275.

  259. 259.

    Case T-24/90 Automec [1992] ECR II-2223.

  260. 260.

    Case T-24/90 Automec [1992] ECR II-2223, para 50.

  261. 261.

    Cf. Sect. 12.4.4.

  262. 262.

    Case C-271/91 Marshall II [1993] ECR I-4367, para 25.

  263. 263.

    Case C-70/10 Scarlet Extended v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2011] ECR I-11959.

  264. 264.

    Case C-70/10 Scarlet Extended v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2011] ECR I-11959, para 47.

  265. 265.

    Case C-70/10 Scarlet Extended v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) [2011] ECR I-11959, para 48.

  266. 266.

    Case C-360/10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA v Netlog [2012] (OJ 2012 C 98, p. 6) (EU:C:2012:85).

  267. 267.

    Case C-237/07 Janecek [2008] ECR I-6221.

  268. 268.

    Article 7(3) of Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management (OJ 1996 L 296, p. 55), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003 (OJ 2003 L 284, p. 1; ‘Directive 96/62’).

  269. 269.

    Case C-361/88 Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-2567; Case C-59/89 Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-2607; and Case C-58/89 Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-4983.

  270. 270.

    Case C-237/07 Janecek [2008] ECR I-6221, paras 46–47.

  271. 271.

    Case C-237/07 Janecek [2008] ECR I-6221, para 21.

  272. 272.

    Case C-237/07 Janecek [2008] ECR I-6221, para 39.

  273. 273.

    Cf., e.g., Opinion of Advocate General Tesauro in Case C-213/89 Factortame [1990] ECR I-2433, para 23.

  274. 274.

    Arnull (1997), p. 16.

  275. 275.

    Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of 25 September 2012 (OJ 2012 L 265, p. 1),

  276. 276.

    Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 2 May 1991 (OJ 1991 L 136, p. 1, and OJ 1991 L 317, p. 34 (corrigenda)), last amended 19 June 2013 (OJ 2013 L 173, p. 66).

  277. 277.

    Cf., e.g., Case 173/82 R Castille v Commission [1982] ECR 4047, para 5.

  278. 278.

    Case 23/78 R Aldinger v Parliament [1987] ECR 2841, para 13.

  279. 279.

    Cf., inter alia, Case 20/81 R Arbed SA and Others v Commission [1981] ECR 721, para 13.

  280. 280.

    Cf., e.g., Case C-313/90 R Comité international de la Rayonne et des Fibres Synthétiques, Akzo NV, Hoechst AG, Imperial Chemical Industries plc and Snia Fibre SpA v Commission [1991] ECR I-2557.

  281. 281.

    ‘Preliminary’ in the sense that it is ultimately the subject of a ruling after regular proceedings.

  282. 282.

    In some areas, and in particular in public procurement , stricter procedural requirements have been put forward in order ensure an efficient review procedure. For example, the Court of Justice has refused to accept that the adoption of interim measures be conditional upon proceedings on the merits being brought beforehand, cf. Case C-214/00 Commission v Spain [2003] ECR I-4667, para 99–100, and Case C-236/95 Commission v Greece [1996] ECR I-4459, para 11. As these rulings concern the Court’s interpretation of the Directive on procedures relating to public contracts (Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1)), where speedy review is particularly of the essence, they do not necessarily provide much guidance on what should be required by the principles of effectiveness or adequate judicial protection. It should also be noted that, even where there is no appeal against the interim order, the national court does not have a duty to refer questions to the Court of Justice in accordance with Article 267 TFEU (Article 234 TEC(A), Article 177 TEEC) in proceedings which only concern interim relief, cf. Case 107/76 Hoffmann La-Roche v Centrafarm [1977] ECR 957, para 6. The reason is partly the need for a speedy decision, but also the fact that if proceedings are later brought before a national court in order to obtain a ‘final’ ruling on validity, this court may refer—or even be obliged to refer—the matter to the Court of Justice.

  283. 283.

    Case 314/85 Foto-Frost [1987] ECR 4199, para 15–17; Joined Cases C-143/88 and C-92/89 Zuckerfabrik [1991] ECR I-415, paragraph 17; Case C-6/99 Greenpeace France and Others [2000] ECR I-1651, para 54; Case C-344/04 IATA and ELFAA [2006] ECR I-403, para 27; and Joined Cases C-188/10 and C-189/10 Melki and Abdeli [2010] ECR I-5667, para 54.

  284. 284.

    Case 314/85 Foto-Frost [1987] ECR 4199, para 14.

  285. 285.

    Joined Cases C-143/88 and C-92/89 Zuckerfabrik [1991] ECR I-415.

  286. 286.

    Council Regulation (EEC) No 1914/87 of 2 July 1987 introducing a special elimination levy in the sugar sector for the 1986/87 marketing year (OJ 1987 L 183, p. 5).

  287. 287.

    Joined Cases C-143/88 and C-92/89 Zuckerfabrik [1991] ECR I-415, para 16.

  288. 288.

    Cf. van Gerven (1995), pp. 689–690.

  289. 289.

    Cf. Joined Cases C-143/88 and C-92/89 Zuckerfabrik [1991] ECR I-415, para 33.

  290. 290.

    Cf. Joined Cases C-453/03, C-11/04, C-12/04 and C-194/04 ABNA [2005] ECR I-10423, paras 105 et seq. Case C-465/93 Atlanta [1995] ECR I-3761 was connected with a previous case between Germany and the Council (Case C-280/93 Germany v Council [1994] ECR I-4973), in which Germany had sought to obtain annulment of a Council Regulation on the common organization of the market in bananas (Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organization of the market in bananas (OJ 1993 L 47, p. 1). Cf., now, Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671)). The Court of Justice had ruled in favour of the Council. Atlanta Fruchthandelgesellschaft had successfully applied to be registered as an importer, but had received a licence for a significantly smaller tariff quota than what the company had been able to import in previous years. Consequently they sued the authorities, invoking the invalidity of the decision (or that a larger quota be granted). In this context, they also alleged that the Regulation was invalid. During the proceedings, Atlanta applied for an interim injunction obliging the authorities to grant them further licences. The national court—Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main—granted the injunction and at the same time referred questions to the Court of Justice on both the possibility for a national court to grant interim relief and on the substantive matters of the case. Given the previous ruling in Zuckerfabrik, it was not surprising that the Court of Justice found that the national court had to be able to grant some kind of interim protection. The main difference was that the Zuckerfabrik case concerned a mere suspension of the enforcement of European Union law, while Atlanta concerned the ordering of a positive obligation (the granting of further licences) in contradiction with Union law. Nonetheless, the Court did not draw a clear distinction between the two. As to the availability of interim relief it first referred to Article 186 TEEC (Article 243 TEC(A), Article 279 TFEU) in the context of annulment. While Article 185 TEEC (Article 242 TEC(A), Article 278 TFEU) authorized the Court to order application of the contested act to be suspended, Article 186 TEEC (Article 243 TEC(A), Article 279 TFEU) conferred on it the power to prescribe ‘any necessary interim measures’ (Atlanta, para 27). The character of the interim measure would have to be taken into account in the balancing of interests as part of the test on whether the application for interim relief should be accepted. Due to the previous ruling in Case C-280/93 Germany v Council [1994] ECR I-4973, in which the Council Regulation had not been annulled, the Court of Justice was arguably sceptical about the granted injunction and the referral for a preliminary ruling. The Court pointed to the duty for national courts to respect its decisions. As such, it would in concreto be a question of whether the interests in the case at stake were distinguishable from the ones in Germany v Council (Atlanta, paras 48–49). In sum, since Atlanta, interim relief can be ordered by a national court where that court has serious doubts as to the validity of the European Union act, urgent action is required and due account of Union interests has been taken; it is moreover dependent upon the national court respecting any foregoing decisions of the Court of Justice or the General Court. Cf., also, Case C-334/95 Krüger [1997] ECR I-4517, paras 44 and 47.

  291. 291.

    Case C-213/89 Factortame [1990] ECR I-2433.

  292. 292.

    Case C-213/89 Factortame [1990] ECR I-2433, para 21.

  293. 293.

    Case C-213/89 Factortame [1990] ECR I-2433, operative part. Advocate General Tesauro, in his opinion in the Factortame case, formulated the overriding question as whether ‘the obligations which Community law imposes on the national courts concerning the protection of rights conferred directly on individuals’ also included the requirement of interim relief (Opinion of Advocate General Tesauro in Case C-213/89 Factortame [1990] ECR I-2433, para 10). This was clearly considered as a procedural matter; as he noted that—at the time of an application for interim relief—‘the right already exists (or does not) and the provision which confers that right on (or denies it to) the individual is lawful or unlawful’ (para 17). According to Advocate General Tesauro, the Court of Justice would have to determine the existence of the right in the final ruling on the substantive questions (para 19). As to the connection between individual rights and direct effect, the Court of Justice employed slightly different terms. It chose to point to the duty of national courts to ensure ‘the legal protection which persons derive from the direct effect of provisions of Community law’ (Case C-213/89 Factortame [1990] ECR I-2433, para 19, referring to Case 811/79 Ariete [1980] ECR 2545 and Case 826/79 Mireco [1980] ECR 2559. However, the Court also referred to the interim order in the view of the final judgment to be given on ‘the existence of the rights claimed under Community law’ (Factortame, para 21).

  294. 294.

    Case C-432/05 Unibet [2007] ECR I-2271.

  295. 295.

    Joined Cases C-143/88 and C-92/89 Zuckerfabrik [1991] ECR I-415.

  296. 296.

    Cf. Arnull (2011), pp. 51, 56.

  297. 297.

    Case C-432/05 Unibet [2007] ECR I-2271, para 77.

  298. 298.

    Case C-1/99 Kofisa Italia [2001] ECR I-207, paras 46–48; and Case C-226/99 Siples [2001] ECR I-277, paras 17–19.

References

  • Arnull A (1997) Rights and remedies: restraint or activism? In: Biondi A, Lonbay J (eds) Remedies for breach of EC law. Wiley, Chichester, pp 15–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnull A (2011) The principle of effective judicial protection in EU law: an unruly horse? EL Rev 36(51):56

    Google Scholar 

  • Auby J-B, Cluzel-Métayer L (2012) Administrative law in France. In: Seerden R (ed) Administrative law of the European Union, its Member States and the United States, a comparative analysis, 3rd edn. Intersentia, Cambridge–Antwerp–Portland, pp 5–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Barents R (2014) EU procedural law and effective legal protection. CML Rev 51:1437–1461

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnard C (2012) EU employment law, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Beljin S (2008) Rights in EU law. In: Prechal S, van Roermund B (eds) The coherence of EU law, the search for unity in divergent concepts. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 91–122

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Betlem G (2005) Torts, a European Ius Commune and the private enforcement of community law. CLJ 64:126–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brealey M, Hoskins M (1998) Remedies in EC law, law and practice in the English and EC Courts, 2nd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown LN, Bell JS (1998) French administrative law, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cane P (2011) Administrative law, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cseres K (2011) Competition and contract law. In: Hartkamp AS et al (eds) Towards a European Civil Code, 4th edn. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 205–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies PS (2010) Injunction. In: McGhee J (ed) Snell’s equity, 10th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies G (2013) Freedom of contract and the horizontal effect of free movement law. In: Leczykiewicz D, Weatherill S (eds) The involvement of EU law in private law relationships. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon, pp 53–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougan M (2003) Case C-390/99, Canal Satélite Digital, Judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 January 2002, (not yet reported). Full Court. Case C-159/00, Sapod Audic v. Eco-Emballages, Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 June 2002, (not yet reported). Fifth Chamber. CML Rev 40:193–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougan M (2004) National remedies before the Court of Justice: issues of harmonisation and differentiation. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougan M (2007) The Treaty of Lisbon 2007: winning minds, not hearts. CML Rev 45:617–703

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougan M (2010) Who exactly benefits from the treaties? The Murky interaction between union and national competence over the capacity to enforce EU law. CYELS 12:73–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Downes T, Hilson C (1999) Making sense of rights: community rights in E.C. law. EL Rev 24:121–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Eliantonio M et al (2013) Standing up for your right(s) in Europe, a comparative study on legal standing (Locus Standi) before the EU and Member States’ Courts. Intersentia, Cambridge–Antwerp–Portland

    Google Scholar 

  • Engstroem J (2009) The Europeanisation of remedies and procedures through judge-made law: can a Trojan Horse achieve Effectiveness? Experiences of the Swedish Judiciary. Dissertation. European University Institute, Florence

    Google Scholar 

  • Gersdorf H (2009) Verwaltungsprozessrecht, 4. Aufl. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg–München–Landsberg–Frechen–Hamburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Hölscheidt S (2001) Abschied vom subjektiv-öffentlichen Recht? Zu Wandlungen der Verwaltungsrechtsdogmatik unter dem Einfluss des Gemeinschaftsrechts. EuR 36:376–396

    Google Scholar 

  • Leczykiewicz D (2013) The constitutional dimension of private law liability rules in the EU. In: Leczykiewicz D, Weatherill S (eds) The involvement of EU law in private law relationships. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon, pp 199–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K (2011) National remedies for private parties in the light of the EU law principles of equivalence and effectiveness. IJ 46:13–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K et al (2014) EU procedural law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin JE (2012) Modern equity, 19th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogorek M (2005) The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty in comparative perspective. GLJ 6:967–980

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliphant K (2008) The nature and assessment of damages. In: Koziol H, Schulze R (eds) Tort Law of the European Community, 23 Tort and Insurance Law. Springer, Wien–New York, pp 241–271

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pernice I (2013) The right to effective judicial protection and remedies in the EU. In: Rosas A et al (eds) The Court of Justice and the construction of Europe, analyses and perspectives on sixty years of case-law. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 381–395

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Póltorak N (2015) European Union Rights in National Court. 91 European Monographs. Wolters Kluwers, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Póltorak N (2016) Action for damages in the case of infringement of fundamental rights by the European Union. In: Bagińska E (ed) Damages for violations of human rights, a comparative study of domestic legal systems. Springer, Cham–Heidelberg–New York–Dordrecht–London, pp 427–441

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Prechal S (2001) Judge-made harmonisation of national procedural rule: a bridging perspective. In: Wouters J, Stuyck J (eds) Principles of proper conduct for supranational, state and private actors in the EU: towards a Ius Commune. Intersentia, Antwerpen–Groningen–Oxford, pp 39–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritter C (2006) Purely internal situations, reverse discrimination, Guimont, Dzodzi and Article 234. EL Rev 31:690–710

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers WVH (2008) ‘EC Tort Law’ and the English Law. In: Koziol H, Schulze R (eds) Tort Law of the European Community, 23 Tort and Insurance Law. Springer, Wien–New York, pp 365–394

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schepel H (2004) The enforcement of EC law in contractual relations: case studies in how not to ‘Constitutionalize’ private law. ERPL 12:661–673

    Google Scholar 

  • Schröder M (2014) Administrative law in Germany. In: Seerden R (ed) Administrative Law of the European Union, its Member States and the United States, a comparative analysis, 3rd edn. Intersentia, Cambridge–Antwerp–Portland, pp 39–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh MP (2001) German administrative law in common law perspective. Beiträge zum ausländisches öffentliches Recth und Völkerrecht 149. Springer, Berlin–Heidelberg–New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder AE (1991) Britain and the European Economic Community: the decline of parliamentary sovereignty in the international legal arena. ONUL Rev 18:131–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Tridimas T (2006) The general principles of EC law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Tridimas T (2013) Bifurcated justice: the dual character of judicial protection in EU law. In: Rosas et al (eds) The Court of Justice and the construction of Europe, analyses and perspectives on sixty years of case-law. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 367–379

    Google Scholar 

  • van Boom W (2010) Comparative notes on injunction and wrongful risk-taking. MJECL 17:10–31

    Google Scholar 

  • van Gerven W (1969) The concept of provisional validity: the doctrine of nullity refined. In: von Caemmerer E et al (eds) Ius Privatum Gentium, Festschrift für Max Rheinstein, Band II. Mohr, Tübingen, pp 505–521

    Google Scholar 

  • van Gerven W (1995) Bridging the gap between community and national laws: towards a principle of homogeneity in the field of legal remedies? CML Rev 32:679–702

    Google Scholar 

  • van Gerven W (2000) Of rights, remedies and procedures. CML Rev 37:501–536

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward A (2007) Individual rights and private party judicial review in the EU, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2014) Use and abuse of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights: on the improper veneration of ‘freedom of contract’, Judgment of the Court of 18 July 2013: Case C-426/11. ERCL 10:167–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenneras P (2007) The enforcement of EC environmental law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Whish R, Bailey D (2015) Competition law, 8th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wurmnest W, Heinze C (2011) General principles of tort law in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice. In: Schulze R (ed) Compensation of private losses – the evolution of torts in European business law. Sellier, München, pp 39–66

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Private Law, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Bjarte Thorson

Authors
  1. Bjarte Thorson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Thorson, B. (2016). Primary Remedies. In: Individual Rights in EU Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32771-6_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32771-6_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-32770-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-32771-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation