This chapter examines if the systems of evidence in annulment, failure to act proceedings, and actions for damages, are designed to support private parties’ access to and participation in actions brought directly before the EU courts. Against the backdrop of evidence theory and the so-called procedural abilities doctrine, this chapter argues that, in the context of direct actions, the principle of effective judicial protection receives a restrictive reading. As a result, the requirements that private parties must meet to launch those actions do not, in practice, give way to broad procedural abilities and an unhindered access to the Union courts. These requirements thus seem designed to uphold a (strong) presumption of lawfulness of the EU legislature’s normative action, seeking to preserve the stability and coherence of EU law, rather than to ensure an effective access to, and exercise of the legal remedies included in the EU Treaties’ system of procedures.

This chapter considers judicial review of the EU Institutions and bodies. Acts are subject to review if there is no formal competence to adopt them; the use of a power for a purpose other than that for which it was granted; a manifest error of assessment; a breach of rights of process; or infringement of the Treaties or any rule of law relating to their application, such as fundamental rights. Privileged applicants – the Member States, Parliament, the Commission and Council – have unlimited standing to challenge a measure. Semi-privileged applicants – the Court of Auditors, European Central Bank and Committee of the Regions – may bring an action to protect their institutional prerogatives. All other parties may only challenge acts addressed to them; regulatory acts which entail no implementing measures and are of direct concern to them; and all other acts which are of direct and individual concern to them. Parties can also sue EU Institutions for damages where three conditions are met: the EU Institution has infringed a rule of law intended to confer rights on them, that breach is sufficiently serious and there is a direct causal link between the breach and the loss sustained.

This chapter explores the role accorded to the principle of equality of Member States in the case law of the Court of Justice and national courts reviewing measures of financial assistance. At the same time, it investigates the extent to which the common interest, as the expression of the principle of solidarity, features as a consideration before those courts. The chapter opens with a brief description of financial assistance measures to gain a sense of how their versatile nature influenced judicial review. It then analyses judicial review of the European Stability Mechanism and the resulting Memoranda of Understanding at the national level in respect of access, remedies, and the interpretation of the principles of solidarity and equality. An analogous exercise is then conducted in respect of the EU courts. The chapter lastly reflects upon judicial interactions taking place between the EU and the national level and comments on the overall status of legal accountability in the EU judicial space.