The judgment of 23 April 2015 of the Court of Justice in Case C-376/13 Commission v Bulgaria EU:C:2015:266 sheds interesting light on when the Court considers that an infringement of EU law persists even after the Member State in question has amended its legislation to bring it into compliance.
Let’s get back to the judgment of the Court of Justice’s judgment of 19 March 2015 in Case C-286/13 P Dole Food Company and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe v Commission, EU:C:2015:184 and look at a couple of procedural points that came up. The post on an interesting substantive aspect is here.
The General Court handed down an order recently in Case T-479/14 Kendrion NV v EU represented by the Court of Justice, EU:T:2015:2. It finds that the Court of Justice is the right defendant in an action for damages in a claim for compensation for the loss and damage caused by unreasonable delay in judicial proceedings in the General Court.
A rich and spicy situation ! The General Court dismissing an inadmissibility plea by the Court of Justice.
Here’s some explanation and background how such a situation can arise.
Can an undertaking which has breached national competition law in the past be excluded from a public tendering procedure ?
Yes, answers the Court of Justice in its recent judgment in Generali-Providencia Biztositò Zrt, Case C-470/13, EU:C:2014:2469.
That is an interesting enough point, of course. The judgment is also of interest because the Court seems to take a softer line than usual concerning the admissibility of the question and the lack of cross-border interest in the case as present by the national court.
This judgment concerns the payment of a special tax (and its repayment by the Member State concerned) imposed upon the first registration of a motor vehicle in Romania. Initially this tax was introduced as a motor vehicle pollution tax by an order of 2008 (‘the 2008 Order’) and it was later replaced by the environmental stamp duty by an order of 2013 (‘the 2013 Order’) following the judgments in Case C-402/09Tatu (EU:C:2011:219) and Case C-263/10 Nisipeanu (EU:C:2011:466) which found such pollution tax to be contrary to EU law.
Here’s our second post on the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-583/11 P Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and others v Parliament and Council.
This time, we’ll concentrate on the condition of “individual concern” that individual applicants must meet if they are to have standing to seek the annulment of a measure which is not a regulatory act.
One of the grounds of appeal brought by the appellants in Case C-583/11 P Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami was they claimed the General Court in its Order of 6 September 2011 in Case T-18/10  ECR II-5599 committed errors in the application of the conditions for admissibility of the action. According to settled case-law, a natural or legal person is entitled to bring an action for annulment of an act which is not a decision addressed to that person only if the person is directly and individually concerned by it.
Had the Lisbon Treaty changed that ?