Category Archives: Annulment action

Case T-30/10 Reagens SpA v Commission: unsubstantiated pleas and length of proceedings

Leave a reply

The General Court’s judgment in Case T-30/10 Reagens SpA v Commission EU:T:2014:253 (alternative link here) doesn’t really break new ground. But it does remind applicants of a few basic truths. In some ways you can sense the impatience of the Court with applicants who forget them.

First, the Court reminds everyone that if you make a plea, you have to argue it and substantiate it. Mere assertions don’t work.

Second, don’t just complain about the duration of administrative proceedings: show how it affected your rights of the defence.  Continue reading →

Joined Cases T-458/10 to T-467/10 and T-471/10 Peter McBride and others v Commission: Need for a legal base, principle of conferral

Leave a reply

The judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2014 in Joined Cases T-458/10 to T-467/10 and T-471/10 Peter McBride and others v Commission EU:T:2014:249 illustrates a basic point: the EU institutions need an express legal base in order to adopt a measure. No legal base, no competence. That’s called the principle of conferral. It is laid down in Article 13 (2) TFEU.

By its judgment, the General Court annulled a series of Commission decisions because they lacked a legal base. The case has quite a story….. Continue reading →

Case C-43/12 Commission v Parliament and Council: Legal basis, opt out

Leave a reply

There were nearly 30 000 deaths caused by road traffic accidents in the EU in 2012 (see table showing the evolution of road fatalities here. That’s a lot.

The Court of Justice’s judgment in Case C-43/12 Commission v Parliament and Council EU:C:2014:298 shows that attempts to put in place effective legislation to reduce the number of fatalities are frought with legal difficulties. Continue reading →

Case C-231/11 P and C-233/11 P European Commission v Siemens AG Österreich a.o. – Joint and several liability

Leave a reply

The Court of Justice (“CoJ”) gave on 10 April 2014 its judgment on appeal in the gas insulated switchgear case C-231/11 P. The dispute concerns a cartel relating to the sale of gas insulated switchgear (“GIS”), a heavy electrical equipment which is used to control energy flow in electricity grids. The case commenced with a leniency application; the Commission then initiated its investigation, which was concluded with the imposition of a fine on several undertakings. Parent undertakings were found jointly and severally liable with their subsidiaries. The Commission decision was challenged before the General Court, which in its judgment in Cases T-122/07 to T-124/07 Siemens AG Österreich a.o v Commission found, inter alia, that the Commission failed to determine the exact amount, i.e. the shares of the fine to by paid by each of the undertakings (both parents and subsidiaries) imposed severally and jointly on them. The General Court even went on to determine itself these shares of the fine to be paid by each undertaking. Its judgment was cross-appealed by the Commission and the undertakings.

Continue reading →

Case T-17/12 Hagenmeyer and Hahn v Commission: Health claims on foods and administrative procedures and deadlines

Leave a reply

The circumstances of some cases seem, well… how can it be said delicately…. a little strange. Take the recent Case T-17/12 Moritz Hagenmeyer and Andreas Hahn v Commission, for example.

The two applicants had applied for a health claim – a reduction of disease risk claim in particular – to be authorised and included in an EU list of permitted claims in accordance with Article 14, 15 and following of Regulation 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods. What was the reduction of disease risk claim in question ? Something to the effect that drinking lots of water regularly can reduce the risk of dehydration and a concomitant reduction of performance. 

Been thirsty, anyone ? And before you drown yourself in fluids, take note of the Boston Athletic Association’s warning on hyponatremia…. Trust me, you don’t want to suffer from hyponatremia. But I digress…

Continue reading →

Case C-209/13 United Kingdom v Council: Enhanced cooperation and transaction tax

Leave a reply

The Court of Justice handed down an interesting judgment in Case C-209/13 United Kingdom v Council EU:C:2014:283 in what promises to be the first of a number of cases about the proposed common system of financial transaction tax. 

The United Kingdom took the matter to the Court of Justice as a precautionary matter. It lost.

What happened was this.  Continue reading →

More on Case C-427/12 Commission v Parliament and Council – Biocides

Leave a reply

Further to our post here on the judgment in Case C-427/12 Commission v Parliament and Council, our friend Alberto Alemanno has posted a very interesting and insightful comment on the substance of the judgment.

He discusses what is the difference delegated acts and implementing acts and the consequences of the judgment in that respect.

Go over to the European Law Blog and read his post !

General Court: Draft of New Rules of Procedure

Leave a reply

The General Court has proposed to the Council, pursuant to Article 254 TFEU, new Rules of Procedure for adoption. You can access the proposal here.

The new rules are a substantial update and seek to modernise and improve the way the ever increasing number of cases is dealt with see our post on statistics for 2013).

Continue reading →

Case C-427/12 Commission v Parliament and Council – Judicial Review, Legislative Action and Reasonableness

1 Reply

Now and again a judgment comes out which has an importance that transcends the issue being litigated in the case. If we, the authors of this blog, were betting types, we’d bet that the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of 18 March 2014 in Case C-427/12 Commission v European Parliament and Council is such a judgment.

Why do we think that ? Because it is, we think, the first judgment that adumbrates expressly a “reasonableness” test for judicial review of legislative activity. If we are wrong about that, please leave a comment setting us right (and I take responsibility for the oversight, not Maria).

Continue reading →

Cases C-132/12 P Stichting Woonpunt and C-133/12 P Stichting Woonlinie – standing – regulatory acts not entailing implementing measures – sua sponte

1 Reply

Here we go again…. Two more judgments of the Court of Justice on the issue of standing and the “regulatory acts which do not entail implementing measures” business in Article 263 (4), third limb, TFEU. On this, se our previous posts here, here and here.

In its judgments of 27 February 2014 in Case C-132/12 P Stichting Woonpunt and others v Commission, unpublished, and Case C-133/12 P Stichting Woonlinie and others v Commission, unpublished, the Court of Justice did two things, one of which is really interesting.

  1. First, it held that even if the plaintiffs did not meet all the conditions required for their actions to be admissible under the amendment to Article 263 (4) TFEU made by the Lisbon Treaty which relaxed the conditions of admissibility of actions for annulment brought by natural and legal persons against acts of the EU institutions, the General Court made a mistake in law by failing to examine whether they did or not. And that is an interesting insight about how that new, relaxed rule on standing should be applied.
  2. Second  – not so exciting – it held that the actions for annulment in these cases were admissible according to the traditional test of individual and direct concern in Plaumann.

Let’s see in more detail.

Continue reading →