The Alleged Mechanical Nature of National Measures does not Call into Question that National Decisions Constitute Implementing Measures under Article 263(4) TFEU. Comments on T&L Sugars Ltd (CJEU — Judgment of 28.04.2015 (Grand Chamber) — Case C-456/13P

Authors

  • Arjen Meij

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18042/cepc/rdce.52.06

Keywords:

Judicial protection, annulment procedure, direct access of private applicants to EU Courts, regulatory acts of direct concern not entailing implementing measures, Article 47 of the Charter

Abstract

The present judgment of the Court of Justice is the latest piece in a considerable line of case law fleshing out the interpretation of the new limb which has been introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon in Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU with the objective to ensure that individuals do not have to break the law in order to have access to a court. This objective refers to the background of the introduction of the new category of ‘regulatory acts of direct concern to them and not entailing implementing measures’, against which an appeal may be lodged by private individuals. The present case also illustrates the complexity of judicial protection in a multi-layered European/national legal order. Once again the Court of Justice affirms the completeness of the system, the obligation of the member States under Article 19 TEU and the inability of Article 47 of the Charter, which concerns judicial protection, to change the system of judicial review as laid down by the Treaties. However, a constructive and coherent interpretation of standing requirements in the light of the right to effective judicial protection does not necessarily amount to a change of the Treaty provisions. No need, it is suggested, to remind that the Plaumann doctrine itself is not spelled out in the Treaty.

Downloads

Issue

No. 52 (2015): septiembre-diciembre

Section

CASE LAW COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EU

License


Copyright
Submission of a manuscript to the RDCE implies having read and accepted the journal's editorial guidelines and instructions for authors. When a work is accepted for publication, it is understood that the author grants the RDCE exclusive rights of reproduction, distribution and, where appropriate, sale of his manuscript for exploitation in all countries of the world in printed version, as well as any other magnetic, optical and digital media.
Authors shall transfer the publishing rights of their manuscript to RDCE so that it may be disseminated and capitalised on Intranets, the Internet and any web portals and wireless devices that the publisher may decide, by placing it at the disposal of users so that the latter may consult it online and extract content from it, print it and/or download and save it. These activities must comply with the terms and conditions outlined on the website hosting the work. However, the RDCE authorises authors of papers published in the journal to include a copy of these papers, once published, on their personal websites and/or other open access digital repositories. Copies must include a specific mention of RDCE, citing the year and issue of the journal in which the article was published, and adding a link to the RDCE website(s).
A year after its publication, the works of the RDCE will be under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivative 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which allows third parties to share the work as long as its author and its first publication is indicated, without the right to commercial exploitation and the elaboration of derivative works.
Plagiarism and scientific fraud
The publication of work that infringes on intellectual property rights is the sole responsibility of the authors, including any conflicts that may occur regarding infringement of copyright. This includes, most importantly, conflicts related to the commission of plagiarism and/or scientific fraud.
Practices constituting scientific plagiarism are as follows:
1. Presenting the work of others as your own.
2. Adopting words or ideas from other authors without due recognition.
3. Not using quotation marks or another distinctive format to distinguish literal quotations.
4. Giving incorrect information about the true source of a citation.
5. The paraphrasing of a source without mentioning the source.
6. Excessive paraphrasing, even if the source is mentioned.

Practices constituting scientific fraud are as follows:
1. Fabrication, falsification or omission of data and plagiarism.
2. Duplicate publication.
3. Conflicts of authorship.
Warning
Any breach of these Rules shall constitute a ground for rejection of the manuscript submitted.