Bussiness ManagementMBAstrategyHuman ResourceMarketingHospitalityE-commerceInternational Tradingproject managementmedia managementLogisticsFinanceAccountingadvertisingLawBusiness LawEducationEconomicsBusiness Reportbusiness planresearch proposal
英语论文题目英语教学英语论文商务英语英语论文格式商务英语翻译广告英语商务英语商务英语教学英语翻译论文英美文学英语语言学文化交流中西方文化差异英语论文范文英语论文开题报告初中英语教学英语论文文献综述英语论文参考文献
ResumeRecommendation LetterMotivation LetterPSapplication letterMBA essayBusiness Letteradmission letter Offer letter
澳大利亚论文英国论文加拿大论文芬兰论文瑞典论文澳洲论文新西兰论文法国论文香港论文挪威论文美国论文泰国论文马来西亚论文台湾论文新加坡论文荷兰论文南非论文西班牙论文爱尔兰论文
小学英语教学初中英语教学英语语法高中英语教学大学英语教学听力口语英语阅读英语词汇学英语素质教育英语教育毕业英语教学法
英语论文开题报告英语毕业论文写作指导英语论文写作笔记handbook英语论文提纲英语论文参考文献英语论文文献综述Research Proposal代写留学论文代写留学作业代写Essay论文英语摘要英语论文任务书英语论文格式专业名词turnitin抄袭检查
temcet听力雅思考试托福考试GMATGRE职称英语理工卫生职称英语综合职称英语职称英语
经贸英语论文题目旅游英语论文题目大学英语论文题目中学英语论文题目小学英语论文题目英语文学论文题目英语教学论文题目英语语言学论文题目委婉语论文题目商务英语论文题目最新英语论文题目英语翻译论文题目英语跨文化论文题目
日本文学日本语言学商务日语日本历史日本经济怎样写日语论文日语论文写作格式日语教学日本社会文化日语开题报告日语论文选题
职称英语理工完形填空历年试题模拟试题补全短文概括大意词汇指导阅读理解例题习题卫生职称英语词汇指导完形填空概括大意历年试题阅读理解补全短文模拟试题例题习题综合职称英语完形填空历年试题模拟试题例题习题词汇指导阅读理解补全短文概括大意
论文作者:留学生论文论文属性:案例分析 Case Study登出时间:2010-12-17编辑:anterran点击率:11313
论文字数:3032论文编号:org201012171357513223语种:英语 English地区:中国价格:免费论文
关键词:JURISDICTIONTHE COURT OF JUSTICEEU lawCommunity actsMember StatesCommissionthe Council
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE
1. 留学论文 JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EU ACTS
ARTICLE 263 TFEU (ex Art 230 EC)
Reading
Chalmers et al (2006) Chapter 10 OR Craig and de Búrca (2007), Chapters 14 and 15 OR Steiner and Woods (2009) Chapters 12 – and 7.
Having earlier examined the ECJ and its alleged judicial activism we now approach a specific area of its jurisdiction where, arguably, we see this in operation alongside a very marked degree of judicial reticence. In any legal system, the ability to challenge legislation is fundamental and this is equally true of the EU. Articles 263 TFEU is the Treaty provision which provides for judicial review by both EC institutions (so called ‘privileged applicants’) and private individuals. In relation to the privileged applicants, the most interesting aspect is the position of the European Parliament and it is here where we may observe judicial activism. But there is a very big difference between the institutional power to challenge legislation and the limited rights accorded to individuals which have been very restrictively interpreted by the Courts over the years with, indeed, a significant contribution to the case law in 2002 and 2004. It is these two main areas we focus on; the position of the EP and the rights of individual applicants. But before doing so we look briefly at some of the basic rules governing judicial review in EU law.
1. What types of Acts are Reviewable?
An action of annulment is available "in the case of all measures adopted by the institutions, whatever their nature or form, which are intended to have legal effects.": See Case 22/70 Commission v Council [1971] ECR 263. (ERTA)
Whether a particular act does in fact produce legal effects may be sometimes controversial. See for example Cases 8 to 11/66 Cimenteries v Commission [1967] ECR 75 and compare with Case 60/81 IBM v Commission [1981] ECR 2639 and Case 53/85 AKZO Chemie v Commission [1986] ECR 1965 and case C-395/95P Geotronics v Commission.
See also case T-353/00 Le Pen [2003] ECR II- 1729 and
Case C-27/04 Commission v Council [2004] ECR I-6649
Prior to the TEU, no reference was made to acts of the European Parliament. However, it was held in Case 294/83 Les Verts v European Parliament [1986] ECR 1339, 1366 that acts of the European Parliament were reviewable. The new position was incorporated by the TEU in Article 173 (now Art. 230) – in other words, the Treaty writers ‘followed’ the ECJ.
2. Who may challenge Community acts? Who has Locus Standi in judicial review proceedings?
Privileged Applicants
The Member States, the Commission and the Council have unlimited locus standi to bring an action under Article 230. It is not necessary for them to prove that they have an interest in bringing the proceedings.
* Case 45/86 Commission v Council [1987] ECR 1493, 1518
* Case 131/86 United Kingdom v Council [1988] ECR 905, 927
Prior to the TEU, the European Parliament was not expressly mentioned in Article 173 (now 230) but the European Court decided that it had locus standi to bring an action for annulment to safeguard its own prerogatives.
See Case C-70/88 European Parliament v Council [1990] ECR I-2041 (The本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。