Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami v Parliament and Council

Last updated

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami v Parliament and Council
Court European Court of Justice
Citation(2013) C-583/11
Keywords
Judicial review

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami v Parliament and Council (2013) C-583/11 is an EU law case, concerning judicial review in the European Union.

Contents

Facts

The claimants, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, a non-profit Canadian organisation representing over 50,000 Inuit, challenged a regulation of Parliament and Council on seal products. They further argued that to not be allowed a claim under TFEU art 263(4) would be inconsistent with the CFR art 47 on an effective remedy.

The General Court rejected the application, because it challenged a regulation made as a legislative act under TFEU art 289, and this was not a 'regulatory' act under art 263(4). This meant the claimants would have to show individual as well as direct concern.

Judgment

The Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice, upholding the General Court, held that a 'legislative act' is defined by the procedure used to adopt it, not on a functional basis.

53 Next, Article 263 TFEU makes a clear distinction between the right of the European Union institutions and Member States to institute proceedings, on the one hand, and the right of natural and legal persons to do so, on the other. Thus, the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU grants the European Union institutions there listed and the Member States the right to challenge, by an action for annulment, the legality of any act covered by the first paragraph, and it is not a condition of that right being exercised that any legal interest in bringing proceedings is established (see the judgment of 5 September 2012 in Case C‑355/10 Parliament v Council [2012] ECR, paragraph 37 and the case‑law cited). Further, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 263, the institutions and the Committee listed there may bring before the Court an action for annulment of those acts, provided that the action is brought for the purpose of protecting their prerogatives.

54 On the other hand, as regards the right of natural and legal persons to institute proceedings, the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU provides that '[a]ny natural or legal person may, under the conditions laid down in the first and second paragraphs, institute proceedings against an act addressed to that person or which is of direct and individual concern to them, and against a regulatory act which is of direct concern to them and does not entail implementing measures'.

55 First, it must be stated that the first two limbs of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU correspond with those which were laid down, before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, by the EC Treaty, in the fourth paragraph of Article 230 thereof (see, in relation to the latter provision, Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council, paragraphs 34 to 37).

56 Given the reference to 'acts' in general, the subject matter of those limbs of Article 263 is any European Union act which produces binding legal effects (see, to that effect, Case 60/81 IBM v Commission [1981] ECR 2639, paragraph 9; Case C‑521/06 P Athinaïki Techniki v Commission [2008] ECR I‑5829, paragraph 29; Case C-322/09 P NDSHT v Commission [2010] ECR I‑11911, paragraph 45; and Joined Cases C‑463/10 P and C‑475/10 P Deutsche Post v Commission [2011] ECR I‑9639, paragraphs 36 to 38). That concept therefore covers acts of general application, legislative or otherwise, and individual acts. The second limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU specifies that if the natural or legal person who brings the action for annulment is not a person to whom the contested act is addressed, the admissibility of the action is subject to the condition that the act is of direct and individual concern to that person.

57 Secondly, by means of the Treaty of Lisbon, there was added to the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU a third limb which relaxed the conditions of admissibility of actions for annulment brought by natural and legal persons. Since the effect of that limb is that the admissibility of actions for annulment brought by natural and legal persons is not subject to the condition of individual concern, it renders possible such legal actions against 'regulatory acts' which do not entail implementing measures and are of direct concern to the applicant.

58 As regards the concept of 'regulatory act', it is apparent from the third limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU that its scope is more restricted than that of the concept of 'acts' used in the first and second limbs of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, in respect of the characterisation of the other types of measures which natural and legal persons may seek to have annulled. The former concept cannot, as the General Court held correctly in paragraph 43 of the order under appeal, refer to all acts of general application but relates to a more restricted category of such acts. To adopt an interpretation to the contrary would amount to nullifying the distinction made between the term 'acts' and 'regulatory acts' by the second and third limbs of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.

59 Further, it must be observed that the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU reproduced in identical terms the content of Article III-365(4) of the proposed treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. It is clear from the travaux préparatoires relating to that provision that while the alteration of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC was intended to extend the conditions of admissibility of actions for annulment in respect of natural and legal persons, the conditions of admissibility laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC relating to legislative acts were not however to be altered. Accordingly, the use of the term 'regulatory act' in the draft amendment of that provision made it possible to identify the category of acts which might thereafter be the subject of an action for annulment under conditions less stringent than previously, while maintaining 'a restrictive approach in relation to actions by individuals against legislative acts (for which the "of direct and individual concern" condition remains applicable)' (see, inter alia, Secretariat of the European Convention, Final report of the discussion circle on the Court of Justice of 25 March 2003, CONV 636/03, paragraph 22, and Cover note from the Praesidium to the Convention of 12 May 2003, CONV 734/03, p. 20).

60 In those circumstances, it must be held that that the purpose of the alteration to the right of natural and legal persons to institute legal proceedings, laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, was to enable those persons to bring, under less stringent conditions, actions for annulment of acts of general application other than legislative acts.

See also

Notes

    Related Research Articles

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">European Union competition law</span> Economic law of the European Union

    In the European Union, competition law promotes the maintenance of competition within the European Single Market by regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies to ensure that they do not create cartels and monopolies that would damage the interests of society.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Comitology</span> Process by which European Union law is modified or adjusted

    Comitology in the European Union (EU) refers to a process by which EU law is implemented or adjusted by the European Commission working in conjunction with committees of national representatives from the EU member states, colloquially called "comitology committees". These are chaired by the European Commission. The official term for the process is committee procedure. Comitology committees are part of the EU's broader system of committees that assist in the making, adoption, and implementation of EU laws.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">European single market</span> Single market of the European Union and participating non-EU countries

    The European single market, also known as the European internal market or the European common market, is the single market comprising mainly the 27 member states of the European Union (EU). With certain exceptions, it also comprises Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland. The single market seeks to guarantee the free movement of goods, capital, services, and people, known collectively as the "four freedoms". This is achieved through common rules and standards that all participating states are legally committed to follow.

    <i>International Transport Workers Federation v Viking Line ABP</i>

    International Transport Workers Federation v Viking Line ABP (2007) C-438/05 is an EU law case of the European Court of Justice, in which it was held that there is a positive right to strike, but the exercise of that right could infringe a business's freedom of establishment under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union article 49. Often called The Rosella case or the Viking case, it is relevant to all labour law within the European Union. The decision has been criticised for the Court's inarticulate line of reasoning, and its disregard of fundamental human rights.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">General principles of European Union law</span> Principles applied by European courts

    The general principles of European Union law are general principles of law which are applied by the European Court of Justice and the national courts of the member states when determining the lawfulness of legislative and administrative measures within the European Union. General principles of European Union law may be derived from common legal principles in the various EU member states, or general principles found in international law or European Union law. General principles of law should be distinguished from rules of law as principles are more general and open-ended in the sense that they need to be honed to be applied to specific cases with correct results.

    <i>O2 (Germany) GmbH & Co OHG v Commission</i> EU competition law case

    O2 (Germany) GmbH & Co OHG v Commission (2006) T-328/03 is an EU competition law case, concerning the requirements for a restriction of competition to be found under TFEU article 101.

    Vatsouras and Koupatantze v ARGE is a case decided by the European Court of Justice which deals with the concepts of 'worker' and 'social assistance' under European Union law.

    <i>Commission v Italy</i> (C-110/05) EU law case

    Commission v Italy (2009) C-110/05 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of goods in the European Union. This case is commonly referred to as 'Italian Trailers', and is predominantly known for establishing the 'market access test'.

    <i>Commission v France</i> (C-265/95) EU law case

    Commission v France (1997) C-265/95 is an EU law case concerning the free movement of goods in the European Union.

    <i>Omega Spielhallen und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn</i>

    Omega Spielhallen und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn (2004) C-36/02 is an EU law case, concerning the freedom to provide services and the free movement of goods in the European Union.

    <i>Liga Portuguesa de Futebol v Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa</i>

    Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional and Bwin International Ltd v Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa (2009) C‑42/07 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of services in the European Union.

    Albany International BV v Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds Textielindustrie (1999) C-67/96 is an EU law case, concerning the boundary between European labour law and European competition law in the European Union.

    Weigel v Finanzlandesdirektion für Vorarlberg (2004) C-387/01 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of workers in the European Union.

    <i>Åklagaren v Fransson</i>

    Åkerberg Fransson (2013) C-617/10 is an EU law case, concerning human rights in the European Union.

    Opinion 2/13 (2014) is an EU law case determined by the European Court of Justice, concerning the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights, and more generally the relationship between the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights.

    Deutsche Post v Commission is a 2011 pair of joined cases, C 463/10 P and C 475/10 P, before the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the scope for judicial review in information injunctions in state aid cases. The opinion, handed down 13 October 2011, interprets Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to mean that any official act on the part of any body, office or agency of the European Union that produces binding legal effects affecting the interests of a natural or legal person is open to challenge before the Court of Justice. Overruling the General Court, the opinion thus strengthens the right to judicial review of administrative acts.

    Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council of the European Union (2002) C-50/00 P is an EU law case, concerning a judicial review of a regulation adopted by the European Union. In this case, the European Court of Justice declined to accept the preliminary opinion of the Advocate General, Francis Jacobs.

    Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2002) C-413/99 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of citizens in the European Union.

    <i>R (Vodafone Ltd) v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform</i>

    R v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (2010) C-58/08 is an EU law case relevant for UK enterprise law, concerning telecommunications.

    <i>Ker-Optika bt v ÀNTSZ Dél- dunántúli Regionális Intézete</i> European Union law case

    Ker-Optika bt v ÀNTSZ Dél-dunántúli Regionális Intézete [2010] ECR, Case C-108/09 is an EU law case concerning a conflict of law between Hungarian national legislation and European Union law. The Hungarian legislation regarding the online sale of contact lenses was considered with regards to whether it was necessary for the protection of public health, and it was concluded that this could have been done by less restrictive measures. Despite the internal measure in this case being categorised as a selling arrangement, which would generally be determined by the discrimination test established in Keck, the Court went on to use a market access test, as per Italian Trailers. Thus, this case is crucial in the recent development of the tests for determining measures equaling equivalent effect.

    References

    This page is based on this Wikipedia article
    Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
    Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.