We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
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.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.