No standing for the Inuit in Luxembourg

12 October 2013 by

ipTteC6iztnEInuit Tapiriit Kanatami et al v. European Parliament, CJEU, 3 October 2013 (read judgment), following Advocate General Kokott, 17 January 2013, read opinion and my post

This important case is all about “standing” before the EU courts, namely the ability to complain about some EU act that affects you. Lack of standing means that even if a measure was wrong and unlawful, you cannot get your foot in the door of the court. Domestic rules are quite relaxed, though proposals by Government to make it more difficult to sue Government and other public authorities are currently being consulted upon. But you cannot say that an EU law is unlawful without going to Luxembourg.

The EU Courts have always been very restrictive about the circumstances in which an individual can do so. A brief blip (C-50/00 UPA) a few years ago by a UK Advocate-General suggesting that things be done differently was squashed by the Court. And since then it has been one-way traffic in the EU Courts, brushing off criticism from NGOs and indeed the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee in 2011 (see here). For a good summary of the EU case law up to 2011, see the ACCC at [20]-[31]

Recent Treaty amendments in Lisbon have, it will be seen, made little difference to the result.

The case concerned Inuit seal traders who wished to challenge an EU Regulation. This  prohibited the placing of seal products on the EU market unless they were traditionally hunted or occasional or on a non-profit basis. But could the traders go to Luxembourg to say it was unlawful and should be annulled?

The shape of Article 263

One needs to tangle with Article 263 of Treaty on the Functioning of the EU.  I called it previously a masterpiece of opacity and I need to explain how it works – in terms drawn from my last post.

It sets the tests for direct complaint to the EU Courts. By Article 263(1) and (2) Member States and EU Institutions can challenge the lawfulness of “acts” (which includes legislative acts) of EU institutions in the EU Courts. But the bar is set much higher for others by Article 263(4) – with some lettering inserted by me :

Any natural or legal person may, under the conditions laid down in the first and second paragraphs, institute proceedings against

(A) an “act” addressed to that person or

(B) which is of direct and individual concern to them, and

(C) against a regulatory act which is of direct concern to them and does not entail implementing measures.

(A) only helps the tiny number of persons actually named in a measure.

The phrase “individual concern” in (B) has been narrowly defined by the EU Courts since the early 1960s. This Inuit case is about an EU ban on seal goods – it is not enough to be an EU seal good importer for such a ban to be of “individual concern”. You have to be distinguished individually in the measure – the fact that your trade is affected like that of all other seal goods importers is too generic to be “individual”. “Direct” is not so difficult –  it is “direct” if the act directly affects the legal situation of the applicant, and leaves no discretion to those who have to implement the act. If discretion is allowed, then you may be able to challenge the institution exercising that discretion, rather than the law under which the discretion is exercised.

This leaves (C), a creation of the Lisbon Treaty, which was intended to broaden the standing rules – but by how much?  Note it still has to be of “direct” concern (which hurdle some of our Inuit claimants scrambled over). But, and this was the major problem for the Inuit, (C) does not cover all EU acts – only “regulatory” ones, whatever that means. It does however get rid of the requirement that the regulatory act be of “individual” concern in addition to being of “direct” concern.

The judgment

Arguments about (C)

The Court decided that regulatory acts in Article 263(4) do not include legislative acts. The act under challenge in this case was EU Regulation 1007/2009 made by the EU Parliament and Council, and was therefore a legislative act and unchallengeable. Contrast, say, an implementing regulation made by the Commission alone, filling in the details not dealt with in the primary Regulation, which could be challenged under Article 263(4) if of direct concern.

The phrase “regulatory act” is not defined in TFEU. As I pointed out in my previous post, one has to be careful about assuming that a regulation is a regulatory act, because the reg- prefix to “regulatory act” only occurs in about half of the official EU languages.

The Court, following the lead from the AG, looked into the legislative history of the amended Article 263 (then 230) which was rooted in the proposed Constitution which the EU never got.

Facing a proposal for an amendment to Article 230(4) to include “an act of general application”, the Praesidium drafting the Constitution did not adopt this, but chose the present wording. As a note from the drafters recorded, this enabled

a distinction to be made between legislative acts and regulatory acts, maintaining a restrictive approach in relation to actions by individuals against legislative acts (for which the ‘of direct and individual concern’ condition remains applicable).   [59] 

So this history strongly supported the arguments of the EU institutions which said that their legislative acts could not be challenged under Article 263(4) 

Arguments about (B) – “individual”

Our Inuit also argued that the interpretation of “individual” concern found in the case law was too narrow. They relied on AG Jacobs’ opinion in UPA which proposed a criterion of “substantial adverse effect.”

The difficulty about this argument, as the Court pointed out, was that the Lisbon Treaty, drafted in the light of the settled case law on “individual,” chose not to make an amendment to (B), and decided to modify standing rules by amending (C). Indeed the travaux preparatoires for the proposed Constitution expressly said that (B) was not to be altered: [70].

So we are to stay with the test which goes back to Plaumann in the early 1960s – “individual” concern means that the person is affected “by reason of certain attributes peculiar to them, or by reason of a factual situation which differentiates them from all other persons and distinguishes them individually in the same way as the addressee of a decision.”

Prospectively, this is almost impossible to satisfy, with its only area of likely application where the decision has retrospective impact on the applicant.

Policy reasons

The standing rules apply in actions for annulment  – proactive action, using the law as a sword. But they do not stop someone arguing defensively that he should not be prosecuted under the law, because it is invalid. Where the measure is an EU law, that can only be determined by an EU court, and domestic courts have to refer the case to the CJEU if they think there is any real doubt about it. This means that cases get to the CJEU in which individuals can in effect get a law struck down, but only reactively.

A-G Jacobs in UPA made all the obvious points about why this was not a very sensible way of going about things, not least because it might involve deliberate law-breaking in order to trigger a prosecution. Better to know where you stand as early as possible. And this is all the starker in the Inuit case. The Inuit would have to get their stock from Qikiqtarjuaq or wherever into the EU and then be prosecuted for it.

The Court did not really engage with these points, once it had decided that Lisbon had positively decided to leave the existing case law alone.

A-G Kokott had engaged with the reasoning. She said that it was always open to an individual to seek an opinion as to lawfulness from a domestic body and to request confirmation that the requirement or ban in question is not applicable to him. A negative decision by the national authority must, on grounds of effective legal protection, be open to review by national courts, which may refer the question of the validity of the underlying EU act to the Court for a preliminary ruling. If it were a matter for an EU body, the individual may request confirmation that the requirement or ban in question is not applicable to him. The body would have to decide on that request.

A negative decision by that body would, on grounds of effective legal protection, have to be regarded as a decision within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU, against which the person to which it is addressed could bring an action for annulment pursuant to the first variant of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, in the course of which he would be free to make an ancillary challenge in accordance with Article 277 TFEU to contest the lawfulness of the underlying EU legislative act. [122]

Helpful advice from the A-G as to how to get your case permissibly into the CJEU.

Effective remedies

The Inuit also sought to rely on the right to an effective remedy in their arguments about the narrowness of the standing rules. They relied upon Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and  Articles 6 and 13 ECHR as general principles of EU law.

I described this earlier as a bootstraps argument. If you cannot get standing out of Article 263(4), then the Charter is never going to get it for you. It would only be if there was a real doubt after looking at the terms of the Treaty.

The CJEU followed the A-G on this.  Article 47 was not intended to change the system of judicial review in the Treaties; see the Explanation on Article 47 of the Charter. So even though the conditions of admissibility in Article 263(4) had to be interpreted in the light of the fundamental right to effective judicial protection,

 such an interpretation cannot have the effect of setting aside the conditions expressly laid down in that Treaty

Comment

We are where we thought we were. Repeated attempts to batter down the door of standing have failed.

Let’s leave the last word to the ACCC in 2011 on the CJEU case law about standing as it affects environmental matters

94. With regard to access to justice by members of the public, the Committee is convinced that if the jurisprudence of the EU Courts, as evidenced by the cases examined, were to continue, unless fully compensated for by adequate administrative review procedures, the Party concerned would fail to comply with article 9, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the [Aarhus] Convention

Well, it does continue. 

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: