Has the Action for Failure to Act in the European Union Lost its Purpose?

• Authors: Inga Daukšienė , Arvydas Budnikas
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This article analyzes the purpose of the action for failure to act under article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The statements are derived from the analysis of scientific literature, relevant legislation, practice of the European Union Court of Justice (CJEU) and the European Union General Court (EUGC). Useful information has also been obtained from the opinions of general advocates of the CJEU. The article of TFEU 265, which governs the action for failure to act, is very abstract. For this reason, a whole procedure under the article 265 TFEU was developed by the EU courts. The original purpose of the action for failure to act was to constitute whether European Union (EU) institution properly fulfilled its obligations under the EU legislation. However, in the course of case-law, a mere EU institution’s express refusal to fulfill its duties became sufficient to constitute that the EU institution acted and therefore action for failure to act became devoid of purpose. This article analyzes whether the action for failure to act has lost its purpose and become an ineffective legal remedy in the system of judicial review in the EU. Additionally, the action for failure to act is compared to similar national actions.

Keywords

EN

Action for failure to act; European Union; article 265 TFEU; judicial protection

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Baltic Journal of Law & Politics
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 7
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 209-226

Dates

published

2014-12-01

received

2014-12-01

accepted

2014-12-30

online

2015-03-11

Contributors

author

Inga Daukšienė

• Associate Professor Mykolas Romeris University, Faculty of Law (Lithuania)

author

Arvydas Budnikas

• Doctoral Student Mykolas Romeris University, Faculty of Law (Lithuania)

References

• 1. Biber, Eric. “Two Sides of the Same Coin: Judicial Review of Administrative Agency Action and Inaction.” Virginia Environmental Law Journal No. 26 (2008): 462 - 504.
• 2. Due, Ole. “Legal Remedies for the Failure of European Community Institutions to Act in Conformity with EEC Treaty Provisions.” Fordham International Law Journal No. 14 (1990): 341-358.
• 3. Hartley, Trevor. The Foundations of European Union Law. 8th edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.
• 4. Lang, John T., and Colin Raftery. “Remedies for the Commission’s Failure to Act in ‘Comitology’ Cases.” European Law Review No. 36 (2011): 264-275.
• 5. Laule, Gerhard. “Action for Failure to Act in State Aid Cases: Case T-95/96, Gestevision Telecinco SA v. Commission of the European Communities, Judgment of 15 September 1998.” Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa No. 32 (1999): 376-385.
• 6. Lenaerts, Koen, Ignace Maselis, and Kathleen Gutman. EU Procedural Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.
• 7. Reimann, Mathias, and Joachim Zekoll. Introduction to German Law. Hague: Kluwer law international, 2005.
• 8. Schermers, Henry, and Denis Waelbroeck. Judicial Protection in the European Union. 6th edition. Kluwer Law International, 2001.
• 9. Schwarze, Jürgen. European Administrative Law. Revised 1st edition. London: Sweet&Maxwell, 2010.
• 10. Smit, Hans, and Peter Herzog. The Law of the European Communities: A Commentary on the EC Treaty. New York: Matthew and Bender, 1998.
• 11. Steiner, Josephine, Lorna Woods, and Philippa Watson. EU Law. 12th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
• 1. Ainsworth v. European Commission and European Council. European Union Court of Justice, 1987, no. 271/83.
• 2. Air France v. European Commission. European Union General Court, 1994, no. T-3/93.
• 3. Alfastar Benelux SA v. European Council II. European Union General Court, 2013, no. T‑274/12.
• 4. Alfons Lütticke v. European Commission. General advocate Gand of CJEU, 1966, no. 48/65.
• 5. Asia Motor France v. European Commission. European Union General Court, 1992, no. T-28/90.
• 6. Asklepios v. European Commission. European Union General Court, 2007, no. T‑167/04.
• 7. Bayer CropScience v. European Commission. European Union General Court, 2005, no. T‑34/05R.
• 8. Bergbau v. High authority. European Union Court of Justice, 1960, no. 41/59.
• 9. Borromeo v. European Commission. General advocate Gand in CJEU, 1970, no. 6/70.
• 10. Branco v. European Commission. European Union General Court, 2000, no. T-194/97.
• 11. Buckl v. European Commission. European Union Court of Justice, 1992, no. C-15/91.
• 12. Camera Care v. European Commission. General advocate Warner of CJEU, 1980, no. 792/79 R.
• 13. Campsider v. European Commission. European Union Court of Justice, 1985, no. 25/85R.
• 14. Cantine v. European Parliament. European Union General Court, 2000, no. T-103/99.
• 15. CEVA v. European Commission. European Union General Court, 2003, no. T-344/00.
• 16. Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Official Gazette, 2008, no. C 115/47.
• 17. Echebastar v. European Commission. European Union Court of Justice, 1993, no. C-25/91.
• 18. Echebastar v. European Commission. General advocate Gulmann in CJEU, 1992, no. C-25/91.
• 19. Elz v. High Authority. European Union Court of Justice, 1961, no. 22/60.
• 20. ENU v. European Commission. European Union Court of Justice, 1993, no. C-107/91.
• 21. Eurocoton v. European Council. European Union General Court, 2000, no. T-213/97.
• 22. European Commission v. European Council. European Union Court of Justice, 2014, no. C-377/12.
• 23. European Commission v. European Council. General advocate Yves Bot in CJEU, 2013, no. C‑63/12.
• 24. European Commission v. European Parliament and European Council. European Union Court of Justice, 2014, no. C-427/12.
• 25. European Commission v. Ryanair. European Union Court of Justice, 2013, no. C‑615/11P.
• 26. European Parliament v. European Council. European Union Court of Justice, 1985, no. 13/83.
• 27. European Parliament v. European Council. European Union Court of Justice, 2013, no. C‑196/12.
• 28. GEMA v. European Commission. General advocate Capotorti in CJEU, 1979, no. 125/78.
• 29. Germany v. European Commission. European Union Court of Justice, 1984, no. 84/82.
• 30. Goldstein v. European Commission. European Union General Court, 1998, no. T-286/97.
• 31. Hake v. European Commission. European Union Court of Justice, 1970, no. 75/69.
• 32. Irish Cement v. European Commission. European Union Court of Justice, 1998, no. C-166/86.
• 33. Jogamar v. European Commission. European Union Court of Justice, 1999, no. C-249/99P.
• 34. Kohler v. European Court of Auditors. European Union Court of Justice, 1984, no. 316/82.
• 35. Law on Administrative Proceedings. Official Gazette, 1999, no. 8-1029.
• 36. Magnus Killinger v. European Commission and European Parliament. European Union Court of Justice, 2005, no. C‑396/03.
• 37. Meroni v. High authority. European Union Court of Justice, 1962, no. 21/61.
• 38. National Carbonizing Company v. European Commission. General advocate Mayras in EUGC, 1976, no. 114/75.
• 39. NDSHT v. European Commission. European Union Court of Justice, 2010, no. C‑322/09.
• 40. Netherlands v. European Commission. European Union Court of Justice, 1971, no. C-59/70.
• 41. Nordgetreide v. European Commission. European Union Court of Justice, 1972, no. 42/71.
• 42. Oficemen v. European Commission. European Union General Court, 1997, no. T-212/95.
• 43. Pioneer Hi-Bred v. European Commission. European Union General Court, 2013, No. T-164/10.
• 44. Port v. Bundesanstalt. European Union Court of Justice, 1996, no. C-68/95.
• 45. Regulation Laying down Detailed Rules for the Application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Official Gazette, 1999, no. 659/1999.
• 46. Ryanair v. European Commission. European Union General Court, 2011, no. T‑442/07.
• 47. San Carlo v. European Commission. European Union Court of Justice, 1987, no. 95/86.
• 48. Sánchez v. European Commission and European Parliament. European Union General Court, 2010, no. T-61/10.
• 49. Sateba v. European Commission. European Union General Court, 1997, no. T-83/97.
• 50. Sodima v. European Commission. European Union Court of Justice, 2000, no. C-44/00P.
• 51. Steenkolemijnen v. High authority. European Union Court of Justice, 1959, no. C-17/57.
• 52. Tecnoprocess v. European Commission. European Union General Court, 2011, no. T-264/09.
• 53. TF1 v. European Commission. European Union General Court, 1999, no. T-17/96.
• 54. Usinor v. European Commission. European Union Court of Justice, 1986, no. C-81/85.
• 55. Yusef v. European Commission. European Union General Court, 2014, no. T‑306/10.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/bjlp-2015-0008