The entry into force on 1st March 2001 of Regulation 1347/2000 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters and in Matters of Parental Responsibility for Children of Both Spouses (‘the Matrimonial Regulation’) amounts to a landmark in the harmonisation of private international law at European Community level. It deals with direct judicial jurisdiction, and the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments, but not choice of law, in respect of divorce, separation and annulment of marriage, and of custody (in a broad sense) of children of both spouses when determined on the occasion of matrimonial proceedings. It is the first EC measure to enter into force dealing with private international law in family matters, and is likely to be followed up by further such measures, especially in relation to child custody when dealt with independently of any matrimonial proceedings.

This article maps out the channels at the disposal of private parties for challenging the legality of EC measures, and attempts some predictions of the future shape and content of this plank of the EU’s judicial architecture. This area of the law is in a state of flux, particularly in the light of rulings such as UEAPME v. Council, Masterfoods Limited v. HB Ice Cream, Fresh Marine Company AS v. Commission, Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Bergaderm SA, in liquidation, and Jean-Jacques Goupil v. Commission, Bocchi Food Trade International GmbH v. Commission, and most recently, and significantly, Jégo Quéré and Cie SA v. Commission. In this latter ruling the Court of First Instance prescribed a major change to the rules on locus standi under Article 230(4) of the EC Treaty, a hitherto much maligned aspect of the case law, by relaxing the requirement of ‘individual concern’ laid down in that article.