Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T07:00:16.901Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legal Impact of Procedural Irregularities in the Decision-Making of the Council of Ministers of the EC

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

A.E. Kellermann
A.E. Kellermann
Affiliation:
General Secretary and Staff Member, Department of European Law of the T.M.C. Asser Instituut.
Get access

Extract

The need to observe procedural rules by the Community institutions has been underlined by the Court of Justice of the European Communities. In my contribution to this Liber Amicorum I would like therefore to focus attention on the attitude adopted by the Court in setting criteria for procedural requirements.

Reviewing the legality of acts of the Council when the action is brought by a Member State is a noteworthy and curious phenomenon, since the Council consists of representatives of the Member States. Therefore I have focussed my attention especially on the Council and the cases concerning successful actions of Member States against irregularities in the decision-making by the Council.

Type
Research Article
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 39 , Special Issue S1: Law and Reality , October 1992 , pp. 149 - 155
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1991

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. Case no. 68/86, United Kingdom v. Council, [1988] ECR 892.Google Scholar

2. OJ No. L 382/228 of 31.12.1985.

3. OJ No. L 268/1 of 25.10.1979.

4. Case no. 68/86, United Kingdom v. Council, [1988] ECR 885.Google Scholar

5. Case no. 131/86, United Kingdom v. Council, [1988] ECR 905.Google Scholar

6. OJ No. L 95/45 of 10.4.1986.

7. Schermers, H.G., Judicial Protection in the European Communities, 5th edn. (1992) para. 348.Google Scholar

8. Fifth Roquette Case no. 138/79 of 29 10 1980Google Scholar and Maizena Case no. 139/79 of 29 10 1980Google Scholar, [1980] ECR 3360, 3424 respectively.

9. Op. cit. n. 7, para. 354.

10. [1988] CMLR 733 et seq.

11. Case no. C 70/88 of 22 May 1990 (Tchernobyl Case).

12. [1980] ECR 333 et seq.

13. Joined Cases nos. 358/85 and 51/86, [1988] ECR 4846.

14. In Case no. 68/86 the Court did not consider the Council's decision to apply the written procedure as relating to the internal organisation, but as an infringement of an essential procedural requirement.

15. Art. 174(1) EEC: ‘If the action is well founded, the Court of Justice shall declare the act concerned to be void.’

16. OJ No. L 70/16 of 16.3.1988.

17. OJ No. L 74/83 of 19.3.1988.

18. Art 176(1) EEC: ‘The institution whose act has been declared contrary to this Treaty shall be required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice.’

19. Case no. 331/88, not yet published.