Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:56:02.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Protecting the Interests of Civil Society in Community Decision—Making—the Limits of Article 230 EC

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Adam Cygan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the Commission's White Paper on European Governance1 and the subsequent Laeken2 Declaration, the participation of civil society in the Community method of decision-making was viewed as the primary way of engaging directly with EU citizens. The White Paper accepts that participatory democracy is created from the bottom up by ‘groups of people dedicated to the disinterested search for the public interest in society’.3 This statement recognises that participation goes beyond the pre-legislative lobbying process. It suggests that the representation and protection of citizens' interests requires ex post judicial protection in circumstances where the legislative measure breaches fundamental rights or if its application infringes principles of procedural propriety. The only vehicle for such judicial protection at the Community level is paragraph 4 of Article 230 EC, which already provides recourse to individuals who are ‘directly and individually concerned’ by an act of the institutions. Direct actions under Article 230 EC are preferable to the indirect protection available in national courts when a preliminary reference can be made under Article 234 EC. This is because national courts cannot declare a Community measure as being invalid or provide a remedy against the Commission. Despite these deficiencies with domestic enforcement actions, the Court's judgments have been consistently of the view that the granting of locus standi under Article 230 EC should be narrowly construed and most significantly does not extend to judicial review actions by representative groups. This is in stark contrast to the practice within the domestic courts of Member States where proxy actions have, in recent years, been encouraged.

Type
Shorter Articles, Comments, and Notes
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 52 , Issue 4 , October 2003 , pp. 995 - 1012
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 COM(2001) 428 European Governance—A White Paper.Google Scholar

2 Laeken Declaration on the Future of Europe, Dec 2001. Available at <http://www.europa.eu.int/futurum/documents/offtext/doc 151201_en.htm>..>Google Scholar

3 See Curtin, D, Postnational Democracy: The European Union in search of a Political Philosophy (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1997), 90.Google Scholar

4 For an illustration of this point and a comprehensive overview of the post-1990 case law under Art 230 EC see A Arnull, ‘Private Actions and the Application for Annulment since Cordoniu’ (2001) 38 CMLRev 7.Google Scholar

5 Defined by Art 230 (4) EC.Google Scholar

6 Until the Treaty of Nice, the European Parliament was only awarded the status of a semiprivileged applicant under Art 230 (3) EC.Google Scholar

7 This occurred on 1 Feb 2003 after a drawn out ratification process because of the need for the second Irish referendum.Google Scholar

8 Art 230 (3).Google Scholar

9 Case 302/87 European Parliament v Council (Comitology) [1988] ECR 5615. The Court of Justice declined to follow the view of Advocate-General Darmon who argued that Parliament should be a privileged applicant for the purposes of protecting its right to participate in the comitology process. However, in Case C-70/88 European Parliament v Council (Chernobyl) [1990] ECR I-2041 less than 20 years later the Court of Justice accepted the institutional balance arguments of Advocate-General Darmon and extended the position of privileged applicant to the European Parliament specifically in those circumstances when it seeks to protect its own privileges. This is discussed more fully below.Google Scholar

10 Art 34 Treaty of Nice.Google Scholar

11 Case T-177/01 Jégo-Quéré et Cie SA v Commission [2002] ECR II-2365.Google Scholar

12 Case C- 50/00 Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council [2002] ECR I-6677.Google Scholar

13 This issue has been the subject of much academic debate for many years. See, eg, Usher, J, ‘Judicial review of Community acts and the private litigant’, in Campbell, A and Voyatzi, M (eds), Legal Reasoning and Judicial Interpretation of Community Law (1996), 121;Google ScholarArnull, A, ‘Private Applicants and the Action for Annulment under Article 173 of the EC Treaty’ (1995) 32 CMLRev 7;Google ScholarNeuwahl, N, ‘Article 173 Paragraph 4 EC: Past, Present and Possible Future’ (1996) 21 ELRev 17.Google Scholar

14 See the Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in Union de Pequeños Agricultores v Council, at para 39.Google Scholar

15 A term used quite frequently by the English courts. See, eg, Greenpeace No 2 below.Google Scholar

16 The liberal approach of the Court to procedural propriety in cases involving Community institutions is in stark contrast to those cases involving Member States, eg, free movement of workers cases or more recently in the ‘Golden Shares’ cases, Cases C-367/98 Commission v Portugal; C-483/99 Commission v France, Case C503/99 Commission v Belgium judgments of 4 June 2002 nyr. Available at <http://www.curia.eu.int/en/index.htm>. In the Golden Shares cases the Court was adamant that Member States must comply with EC law even if this may cause economic hardship..+In+the+Golden+Shares+cases+the+Court+was+adamant+that+Member+States+must+comply+with+EC+law+even+if+this+may+cause+economic+hardship.>Google ScholarFor more on this issue see Szyszczak, E, ‘Golden Shares and Market Governance’ [2002] 29 Legal issues of Economic Integration, 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 See, eg, Belgian law: Conseil d'État, Ville de Liège et Heze, 20.9.91, No 37.676; German Law: Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) 1.12.82 BverwGE 66, 307 (crabfishermen case); Italian law: TAR Lazio, 20.1.95, No 62 Foro Italiano 1995 II-460; French law: Conseil d'État, 24.6.91, Soc Côte d'Azur, Lebon, 1110.Google Scholar

18 See, eg, the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-585/93 Greenpeace and Others v Commission [1995] ECR II-2205, para 51 and approved by the Court of Justice in Case C-321/95P Stichting Greenpeace Council (Greenpeace International and Others) v Commission [1998] ECR I 1651. Discussed below.Google Scholar

19 See, eg, C-ll/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft [1970] ECR 1125; Case 44/79 Hauer v Lad Rheinland-Pfalz [1979] ECR 3727; Brunner v The European Union Treaty [1994] 1 CMLR 57.Google Scholar

20 Judgment of the Court in Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council, at para 49.Google Scholar

21 This was the view of the Court of First Instance in Greenpeace, at 2230–2.Google Scholar

22 Section 31 (3).

23 See, eg, the judgment of Lord Wilberforce in IRC v National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] 2 AC 617, at 630; and Scheimann J in R v Secretary of State for Environment Ex parte Rose Theatre Trust Co [1990] 1 QB 504, at 520.

24 R v Inspectorate of Pollution and another, Ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No 2) [1994] 4 All ER 329.Google Scholar

25 Ibid, at 350.

26 Case C-321/95 Stichting Greenpeace Council (Greenpeace International) v Commission [1998] ECR I-1651, discussed below.Google Scholar

27 R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Ex parte World Development Movement Ltd [1995] 1 All ER 611.Google Scholar

28 Section 1.Google Scholar

29 LJ, Rose discussed this issue at 626-1.Google Scholar

30 See Tomkins, A, ‘Judges Dam(n) the Government’, vol 7, King's College Law Journal (1996–1997)91.Google Scholar

31 At 619.Google Scholar

32 See Order 54 Rules of the Supreme Court.Google Scholar

33 See n 21 above.Google Scholar

34 At 620.Google Scholar

35 8th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).Google Scholar

36 Ibid at 712.

37 A similar argument was put forward by Orton J in Greenpeace (No 2).Google Scholar

38 At 620.Google Scholar

39 For further discussion of these issues see Harlow, C, ‘Public Law and Popular Justice’ (2002) 65MLR 1.Google Scholar

40 See the judgment of the Court in Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council, at para 29. This hostility can be traced back to the early years of the EC. See, eg, Cases 16 & 17/62 Confédération Nationale des Fruits et Producteurs des Fruits et Légumes v Council [1962] ECR 471.Google Scholar

41 The call for an extension of the right to locus standi before the European Court of Justice is not a new phenomenon and has been advanced by several commentators as a part of the solution to the EU's democratic deficit. See, eg, Harlow, C, ‘Towards a Theory of Standing for the European Court of Justice’ (1992) 12 Yearbook of European Law 213 andCrossRefGoogle ScholarFeldman, D, ‘Public Interest Litigation and Constitutional Theory in Comparative Perspective’ (1992) 55 MLR 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42 Advocate General Jacobs also expressed scepticism with the floodgates argument in his Opinion in Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council. See paras 75–81.Google Scholar

43 Seen 39 above, at 8–11.Google Scholar

44 See n 9 above.Google Scholar

45 In fact the Court adopted the view given in the Opinion of Advocate-General Darmon in the Comitology case, who similarly argued for a specific extension to Art 230 EC to allow Parliament to protect its own prerogatives. See para 34 of the Advocate General's Opinion.Google Scholar

46 Ibid, at para 25.

47 See further Arnull, A, ‘Does the Court of Justice have inherent jurisdiction?’ (1990) 27 CMLRev 683.Google Scholar

48 Para 3.Google Scholar

49 Judgment of the Court, para 45.Google Scholar

50 Ibid, para 27.

51 See Harlow, , at 39 above, at 16.Google Scholar

52 For an annotation of the Greenpeace judgment, see Berrod, F, (1999) 36 CMLRev 635.Google Scholar

53 ECR I-1653, at 1681, para 74Google Scholar

54 Directive 85/337/EEC of the Council, 27 June 1985, OJ 1985, L175/40.Google Scholar

55 Though the relevant competent Spanish authorities conducted an impact assessment of the project, this did not occur until over one year after the project had commenced.Google Scholar

56 Opinion of Advocate General Cosmas at para 76.Google Scholar

57 Ibid, para 79.

58 Judgment of the Court, at para 28.Google Scholar

59 Preamble to Council Directive 85/337 EEC.Google Scholar

60 See, eg, Case 26/76 Metro v Commission [1977] ECR 1875.Google Scholar

61 Judgment of the Court, at paras 28ñ9.Google Scholar

62 Case 169/84 Cofaz v Commission [1986] ECR 391.Google Scholar

63 Case 358/89 Extramet Industries v Council [1991] ECR I-2501.Google Scholar

64 eg, such procedural guarantees are contained within Council Regulation 4064/89. On the Control of Concentration Between Undertakings (The Merger Regulation) OJ 1990 L257/90.Google Scholar

65 Judgment of the Court, at para 16.Google Scholar

66 Ibid, para 18.

67 Ibid.

68 Case 302/86 Commission v Denmark [1988] ECR 4607, at para 9.Google Scholar

69 Opinion of Advocate General Cosmas, at para 117.Google Scholar

70 In the context of environmental matters before the Court there are several other cases of failed attempts by NGOs to review Community measures. See, eg, Case T-461/93 An Taisce v Commission [1994] ECR II-733; Case T-219/95R Danielsson v Commission [1995] ECR II-3051.Google Scholar

71 See Berrod above, at 50.Google Scholar

72 Council Directive 90/313 on freedom of access to environmental information, OJ 1990 LI 58/56.Google Scholar

73 For a further discussion on the impact of the Aarhus Convention on EU environmental law generally see Scott, J, ‘Law and Environmental Governance in the EU’ (2002) 51 ICLQ 996.Google Scholar

74 Proposal from the Commission of 29 June 2000 for a Directive on public access to environmental information, OJ 2000 C337/156.Google Scholar

75 Under Art 9 (1) of the Aarhus Convention there is a requirement that the rules on standing must be consistent with the objective of giving the public wide access to justice to any person who considers they have had their right to information violated. However, the Convention does not address procedural questions which are still left entirely in the hands of the signatories.Google Scholar

76 See Macrory, R and Turner, S, ‘Participatory rights, transboundary environmental governance and EC law’, 39 (2002) Common Market Law Review 489, at 519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

77 See, eg, Krämer, L, ‘Public Interest Litigation in Environmental matters before the European Courts’ (1996) 8 Journal of Environmental Law 1;CrossRefGoogle ScholarGerard, N, ‘Access to Justice in Environmental Matters—A Case of Double Standards’ (1996) 8 Journal of Environmental Law 139, and Scott above at n 73.Google Scholar

78 At n 36 above.Google Scholar

79 Case C-309/89 Cordoniu SA v Council [1994] ECR I-1853.Google Scholar

80 Art 37 states that ‘A high level of environmental protection and the improvement of the quality of the environment must be integrated into the policies of the Union and ensured in accordance with the principle of sustainable development.’ It is worth noting though that the Charter includes reference to a large number of social rights which could all be subjected to similar considerations as those advocated by the CFI and Advocate General. See n 87 below.Google Scholar

81 The effective protection of a citizen's fundamental rights has already been acknowledged by the Court, where the rights contained within Art 13 of the ECHR for effective judicial protection have readily been protected by the Court of Justice. See, eg, Case 222/84 Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [1986] ECR 1651.Google Scholar

82 See Bradley, AW, “Administrative Justice: A Developing Human Right’ (1995) 1 European Public Law 347.Google Scholar

83 Judgment of the CFI, at para 47.Google Scholar

84 Ibid.

85 Ibid, para 49.

86 See n 81 above.Google Scholar

87 See, eg, Case C-173/99 R. v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ex parte BECTU [2001] ECR I-4881.Google Scholar

88 Convention Document 354/02, at 2. Available at <http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/02/cv00/00354en2.pdf>..>Google Scholar

89 Case T-122/96 [1997] ECR II-1559.Google Scholar

90 eg, those living in close proximity to the power stations or whose livelihood was affected by the projects. This question of proximity was seen as a crucial issue for the English Court in Greenpeace No 2 and ultimately a key factor in the Court granting locus standi to Greenpeace to bring the representative action. See n 22 above.Google Scholar