WorkConnexions

EC in setting up the article 230 they deemed essential that member states could challenge an act that they have passed. This established a wait and see approach that gave member states the possibility to alter an act and to say that in practise it does not work for them. It provided a check and balance on the legislative capacity of the EC.

In subsection 4 they intended rights to private person in the form of non privileged applicants. This has proven to be controversial as the non privilege applicant must demonstrate that the decision concerns them. As stated in the sub section it must show that it is of direct concern to them. One could argue that every act is of direct concern as all acts effect the members of the EC. For example the introduction of the single EU currency. For those member that take an anti EU stand they could argue this point on question of erosion sovereignty of its member state.

One example of this is the ruling is in Codorniu where there was dispute over the use the name Cremant. The ECJ ruled that it could be challenged even though it was regulation. It was shown that where it had direct concern for an individual the regulation could be challenged. Notable there have been no other cases that have followed this.

A better example is the Plaumann case. Where they raised a case for individual concern, to lift an import duty on Clementine’s. After the Germany government asked the EU to authorise only ten percent import duty and was dutifully refused Plaumann succeeded in raising the case under individual concern. There have been several cases after this that have been denied locus standi due to the fact that they had too large a share of the market. The key factor here is that you must be in a class that cannot be joined by anyone else. Then you are in a fixed class. It is also important to note that there is a time limit of two months to bring the action from whenever you found out about it. The result of this is that very few applications are brought against article 230. As the requirements placed upon a non privileged applicant is narrow. It must concern a decision which is addressed to the person or concern a decision or a regulation equivalent to a decision that is of individual concern to that person.

Article 234 does not provide much better accessibility for the man on the street to seek readdress for community acts. As the purpose of 234 is for the ECJ to provide assistance in the interpretation of community law. It is very much a one way street. In that if EC law benefits your case you can than apply to the ECJ for interpretation who will offer assistance but not application (Arsenal v. Reed) One other notable use is when it is used as a delaying tactic as rulings from the ECJ often take considerable time (Samex Aps 1983) There is another positive factor in article 234 that if there is a question concerning EU law and there is no national court of appeal than they may refer the matter to the ECJ.

ECJ can refuse to hear case bases upon the CILFIT principle. This generally provides less help for individuals seeking redress. As the question it asks is EC law relevant.

Article 241 however is very interesting in that it provides a back door to indirectly challenge any act or article in the EC Treaty. It is done by asking a national court to ask the ECJ for a preliminary ruling to declare the measure invalid. The can be demonstrate by ‘Les Verts’ who sought a fairer distribution of money for political campaigns in France under EC law.

It would seem that there is little real evidence of individuals being able to claim any real benefit from challenging or seeking annulment EU law. Although the mechanism are in place to facilitate that process. There appears to be very little use of it. The court of human rights would be a more logical destination but as that is not formally adopted by the EU it give individuals little redress.