Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T01:46:11.174Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who Exactly Benefits from the Treaties? The Murky Interaction Between Union and National Competence over the Capacity to Enforce EU Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2017

Michael Dougan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The question of exactly who benefits from the Treaties, in the sense of which range of persons and bodies should be recognised as legally competent to enforce any given provision of Union law before the national courts, is surprisingly murky. This lack of clarity is due partly to the inherent complexity of the question, as well as to the complication posed by the interdependent relationship between the Union and national legal orders. The confusing approach adopted by the Court of Justice compounds the matter. This chapter discusses some observations on why this is a question which poses particular policy challenges for the Union legal order, before going on to summarise the relevant tools employed by the Court of Justice when addressing issues about the decentralised enforcement of Union law by private and public actors. It is argued that, despite the apparent confusion, it is possible to construct a workable division of labour between the role of Union law in defining its own protective scope (on the one hand) and the discretion of each Member State over access to the courts for the enforcement of Union law (on the other hand). A detailed analysis of the case law is conducted in order to identity the weakest links in the system, or at least those which suffer from the greatest degree of doctrinal and conceptual neglect. The question of who exactly benefits from the Treaties, in the sense of enjoying rights of standing to enforce Union law before the national courts, presents both surprisingly difficult challenges and promising research issues for the future.

Type
Research Article
Information
Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies , Volume 12 , 2010 , pp. 73 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See further, eg, Arnull, A, ‘Private Applicants and the Action for Annulment Since Codorniu ’ (2001) 38 CML Rev 7 Google Scholar; A Albors-Llorens, ‘The Standing of Private Parties to Challenge Community Measures: Has the European Court Missed the Boat?’ [2003] CLJ 72; Lenaerts, K and Corthaut, T, ‘Judicial Review as a Contribution to the Development of European Constitutionalism’ in Tridimas, T and Nebbia, P (eds), European Union Law for the 21st Century: Rethinking the New Legal Order (Volume 1) (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2004)Google Scholar; Koch, C, ‘ Locus standi of private applicants under the EU Constitution: preserving gaps in the protection of individuals’ right to an effective remedy’ (2005) 30 EL Rev 511 Google Scholar.

2 Consider, eg, Case C-50/00 Unión de Pequeños Agricultores [2002] ECR I-6677; Case C-263/02P Jégo-Quéré [2004] ECR I-3425; Case C-15/06 Regione Siciliana [2007] ECR I-2591.

3 Note that certain questions about standing before the national courts can also arise in yet another context, ie where restrictive rules about access to the domestic courts (in general and not necessarily for the purposes of enforcing of any given Union act) are alleged to create a barrier to the free movement of natural or legal persons, eg, Case C-208/00 Überseering [2002] ECR I-9919.

4 Neither this chapter nor its author will pretend to offer any serious engagement with jurisprudential issues about legal rights in general, or under EU law in particular: see further, eg, Downes, A and Hilson, C, ‘Making Sense of Rights: Community Rights in EC Law’ (1999) 24 EL Rev 121 Google Scholar; Beljin, S, ‘Rights in EU Law’ in Prechal, S and van Roermund, B (eds), The Coherence of EU Law: The Search for Unity in Divergent Concepts (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008)Google Scholar.

5 For conceptual discussion, especially in the context of judicial review under English law, see further Craig, P, Administrative Law, 5th edn (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 2003) ch 21Google Scholar.

6 For general discussion of the decentralised enforcement system, see Claes, M, The National Courts’ Mandate in the European Constitution (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2006)Google Scholar.

7 For general discussion of the imperatives of effectiveness and uniformity in the decentralised enforcement of EU law, see Dougan, M, National Remedies Before the Court of Justice: Issues of Harmonisation and Differentiation (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2004)Google Scholar.

8 See further, on the difficulties of distinguishing substantive and procedural rules in the decentralised enforcement of Union law, eg, Smith, R Craufurd, ‘Remedies for Breaches of EU Law in National Courts: Legal Variation and Selection’ in Craig, P and de Búrca, G (eds), The Evolution of EU Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999)Google Scholar; van Gerven, W, ‘Of Rights, Remedies and Procedures’ (2000) 37 CML Rev 501 Google Scholar. See Case C-8/08 T-Mobile Netherlands, judgment of 4 June 2009, nyr: rules governing the burden of proof for the purposes of determining the existence of a concerted practice under Art 101 TFEU form part of substantive Union competition law (and are therefore not to be treated as a procedural issue presumptively governed by national competence).

9 In particular Eilmansberger, T, ‘The Relationship Between Rights and Remedies in EC Law: In Search of the Missing Link’ (2004) 41 CML Rev 1199 Google Scholar. See van Gerven, above n 8.

10 See Lenaerts and Corthaut, above n 1.

11 Eg Case C-281/98 Angonese [2000] ECR I-4139.

12 Eg Case C-379/87 Groener [1989] ECR 3967.

13 See Art 7(3), Regulation 1612/68/EEC, [1968] OJ L257/2.

14 Eg Case 167/73 Commission v France [1974] ECR 359.

15 Case C-224/01 Köbler [2003] ECR I-10239.

16 Case 179/84 Bozzetti [1985] ECR 2301. See, similarly, eg, Case C-446/93 SEIM [1996] ECR I-73; Cases C-10-22/97 IN.CO.GE.’90 [1998] ECR I-6307.

17 Consider, eg, Case C-300/06 Ursula Voß [2007] ECR I-10573 (Germany); Case C-268/06 Impact [2008] ECR I-2483 (Ireland). Consider also, eg, Case C-69/08 Visciano, judgment of 16 July 2009, nyr.

18 See Prechal, S, ‘Protection of Rights: How Far?’ in Prechal, S and van Roermund, B (eds), The Coherence of EU Law: The Search for Unity in Divergent Concepts (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For general discussion of the problems posed by decentralised enforcement for the integrity and functioning of the national systems of judicial protection, see further, eg, Hoskins, M, ‘Tilting the Balance: Supremacy and National Procedural Rules’ (1996) 21 ELRev 365 Google Scholar; Harlow, C, ‘ Francovich and the Problem of the Disobedient State’ (1996) 2 ELJ 199 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Himsworth, C, ‘Things Fall Apart: The Harmonisation of Community Judicial Procedural Protection Revisited’ (1997) 22 EL Rev 291 Google Scholar; Biondi, A, ‘The European Court of Justice and Certain National Procedural Limitations: Not Such a Tough Relationship’ (1999) 36 CML Rev 1271 Google Scholar.

19 See Joined Cases C-317–320/08 Alassini, judgment of 18 March 2010, nyr.

20 See Case C-12/08 Mono Car Styling, judgment of 16 July 2009, nyr.

21 See Davies, G, ‘Abstractness and Concreteness in the Preliminary Reference Procedure: Implications for the Division of Powers and Effective Market Regulation’ in Nic Shuibhne, N (ed), Regulating the Internal Market (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2006)Google Scholar.

22 See Caranta, R, ‘Judicial Protection Against Member States: A New Jus Commune Takes Shape’ (1995) 32 CML Rev 703 Google Scholar and ‘Learning from our Neighbours: Public Law Remedies, Homogenisation from Bottom Up’ (1997) 4 MJ 220.

23 See further, eg, Ruffert, M, ‘Rights and Remedies in European Community Law: A Comparative View’ (1997) 34 CML Rev 307 Google Scholar. Consider also, eg, Prechal, S and Widdershoven, R, ‘The Dutch General Administrative Law: Europe-Proof?’ (2008) 14 EPL 81 Google Scholar.

24 See further, eg, Beaumont, P, Lyons, C and Walker, N (eds), Convergence and Divergence in European Public Law (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2002)Google Scholar; Anthony, G, UK Public Law and European Law (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2002)Google Scholar; Birkinshaw, P, European Public Law (London, Butterworths, 2003)Google Scholar.

25 On direct effect as a help and hindrance in understanding relations between Union and national law, see further, eg, Prechal, S, ‘Does Direct Effect Still Matter?’ (2000) 37 CML Rev 1047 Google Scholar.

26 See further, eg, Dougan, M, ‘When Worlds Collide! Competing Visions of the Relationship Between Direct Effect and Supremacy’ (2007) 44 CML Rev 931 Google Scholar.

27 Eg as in Joined Cases C-6 & 9/90 Francovich [1991] ECR I-5357 or Case C-54/96 Dorsch Consult [1997] ECR I-4961.

28 Eg contrast Joined Cases C-6 & 9/90 Francovich [1991] ECR I-5357 with Case C-441/99 Gharehveran [2001] ECR I-7687.

29 Eg Case 283/81 CILFIT [1982] ECR 341; Case 314/85 Firma Foto-Frost [1987] ECR 4199.

30 Eg Case 14/83 Von Colson [1984] ECR 1891; Case C-106/89 Marleasing [1990] ECR I4135; Joined Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01 Pfeiffer [2004] ECR I-8835; Case C-105/03 Pupino [2005] ECR I-5285.

31 See further, eg, Ruffert, above n 23; Prechal, S, Directives in EC Law, 2nd edn (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005) esp ch 6Google Scholar.

32 For a good example of this argument in practice, consider Case C-431/92 Commission v Germany [1995] ECR I-2189.

33 See further, eg, Downes and Hilson, above n 4.

34 See further, eg, Edwards, D, ‘Direct Effect: Myth, Mess or Mystery?’ in Prinssen, JM and Schrauwen, A (eds), Direct Effect: Rethinking a Classic of EC Legal Doctrine (Groningen, Europa Law Publishing, 2002)Google Scholar; S Prechal, ‘Member State Liability and Direct Effect: What’s the Difference After All?’ [2006] European Business Law Review 299; Dougan, above n 26. But contrast with, eg, Lenaerts, K and Corthaut, T, ‘Of Birds and Hedges: The Role of Primary in Invoking Norms of EU Law’ (2006) 31 EL Rev 287 Google Scholar.

35 Eg Case 75/63 Hoekstra [1964] ECR 177; Case 53/81 Levin [1982] ECR 1035; Case 139/85 Kempf [1986] ECR 1741; Case 66/85 Lawrie-Blum [1986] ECR 2121; Case 196/87 Steymann [1988] ECR 6159; Case 344/87 Bettray [1989] ECR 1621; Case C-357/89 Raulin [1992] ECR I-1027; Case C-337/97 Meeusen [1999] ECR I-3289. See O’Brien, C, ‘Social Blind Spots and Monocular Policy Making: The ECJ’s Migrant Worker Model’ (2009) 46 CML Rev 1107 Google Scholar.

36 Case C-350/96 Clean Car Autoservice [1998] ECR I-2521; Case C-208/05 ITC Innovative Technology Centre [2007] ECR I-181.

37 Case 33/76 Rewe-Zentralfinanz v Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland [1976] ECR 1989 and Case 45/76 Comet BV v Produktschap voor Siergewassen [1976] ECR 2043.

38 Joined Cases C-87–89/90 Verholen [1991] ECR I-3757.

39 Directive 79/7/EEC, [1979] OJ L6/24.

40 See also, eg, Case C-13/01 Safalero [2003] ECR I-8679; Case C-174/02 Streekgewest Westelijk Noord-Brabant [2005] ECR I-85; Case C-432/05 Unibet [2007] ECR I-2271; Case C-12/08 Mono Car Styling, judgment of 16 July 2009, nyr.

41 Case 68/88 Commission v Greece [1989] ECR 2965.

42 See further, eg, Harding, C, ‘Member State Enforcement of European Community Measures: The Chimera of “Effective” Enforcement’ (1997) 4 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vervaele, J (ed), Compliance and Enforcement of European Community Law (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 1999)Google Scholar; Dougan, M, ‘From the Velvet Glove to the Iron Fist: Criminal Sanctions for the Enforcement of Union Law’ in Cremona, M and de Witte, B (eds), Compliance and EU Law: Collected Courses of the Academy of European Law (Volume XX) (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010)Google Scholar.

43 Eg Case C-326/88 Hansen [1990] ECR I-2911; Case C-7/90 Vandevenne [1991] ECR I-4371; Case C-177/95 Ebony Maritime [1997] ECR I-1111; Case C-354/99 Commission v Ireland [2001] ECR I-7657; Case C-156/04 Commission v Greece [2007] ECR I-4129.

44 Eg Case C-253/00 Muñoz [2002] ECR I-7289.

45 Eg Case C-132/05 Commission v Germany [2008] ECR I-957.

46 See the emphasis on effectiveness and uniformity behind the Union law definition of ‘worker’ for the purposes of Art 45 TFEU, eg, in Case 75/63 Hoekstra [1964] ECR 177.

47 See Case C-312/93 Peterbroeck [1995] ECR I-4599; Case C-473/00 Cofidis [2002] ECR I-10875.

48 See further below, section IV.B.2.

49 See further, eg van Gerven, above n 8; Eilmansberger, above n 9.

50 See Eilmansberger, above n 9; Jans, J, de Lange, R, Prechal, S and Widdershoven, R, Europeanisation of Public Law (Groningen, Europa Law Publishing, 2007) ch 7Google Scholar.

51 Case C-350/96 Clean Car Autoservice [1998] ECR I-2521; Case C-208/05 ITC Innovative Technology Centre [2007] ECR I-181.

52 Case C-426/05 Tele2 Telecommunication [2008] ECR I-685; Case C-12/08 Mono Car Styling, judgment of 16 July 2009, nyr.

53 Directive 2003/35/EC, [2003] OJ L156/17. For a critical comparison with the standing rules for judicial review before the Union courts, see Obradovic, D, ‘EC Rules on Public Participation in Environmental Decision-Making at the European and National Levels’ (2007) 32 EL Rev 839 Google Scholar. Consider also Directive 2004/35/EC on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, [2004] OJ L143/56, which makes provision for participation by specified natural and legal persons in the control activities of the competent public authorities.

54 Directive 2009/22/EC, [2009] OJ L110/30.

55 Eg under the Social Security Directive 79/7/EEC, [1979] OJ L6/24: rulings such as Case 150/85 Drake [1986] ECR 1995; Case C-31/90 Johnson [1991] ECR I-3723; Case C-317/93 Nolte [1995] ECR I-4625; Case C-77/95 Züchner [1996] ECR I-5689. Eg under the Social Security Coordination Regulation 1408/71/EEC, last consolidated text published at [1997] OJ L28/1 (before it was largely replaced by Regulation 883/2004/EC, [2004] OJ L200/1): rulings such as Case 143/79 Walsh [1980] ECR 1639; Case C-71/93 van Poucke [1994] ECR I-1101; Case C-308/93 Cabanis-Issarte [1996] ECR I-2097; Case C-411/98 Ferlini [2000] ECR I-8081. Eg under the Public Procurement Remedies Directive 89/665/EEC, [1989] OJ L395/33: rulings such as Case C-249/01 Hackermüller [2003] ECR I-6319; Case C-230/02 Grossmann Air Service [2004] ECR I-1829; Case C-129/04 Espace Trianon [2005] ECR I-7805.

56 Joined Cases C-6 and 9/90 Francovich [1991] ECR I-5357. Consider, eg, Cases C-46 and 48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame III [1996] ECR I-1029; Cases C-178–179 and 188–190/94 Dillenkofer [1996] ECR I-4845; Case C-222/02 Peter Paul [2004] ECR I-9425; Case C-445/06 Danske Slagterier [2009] ECR I-2119.

57 In accordance with the criteria as clarified in, eg, Case C-352/98 P Bergaderm [2000] ECR I-5291; Case C-472/00 P Fresh Marine [2003] ECR I-7541. See further, eg, Tridimas, T, ‘Liability for Breach of Community Law: Growing Up and Mellowing Down?’ (2001) 38 CML Rev 301 Google Scholar.

58 Directive 2008/94/EC, [2008] OJ L283/36.

59 Directive 91/533/EEC, [1991] OJ L288/32.

60 Directive 96/34/EC, [1996] OJ L145/4. See now Directive 2010/18/EU, [2010] OJ L68/13.

61 Eg Case 105/84 Danmols Inventar [1985] ECR 2639; Case C-343/98 Collino [2000] ECR I-6659. This judicial approach has now been codified by legislative amendment: see Arts 2(1)(d) and 2(2), Directive 2001/23/EC, [2001] OJ L82/16.

62 A situation dealt with in more detail below, section IV.C.

63 See A-G Geelhoed in Case C-253/00 Muñoz [2002] ECR I-7289. See further, eg, Lenz, M, Sif Tynes, D and Young, L, ‘Horizontal What? Back to Basics’ (2000) 25 EL Rev 509 Google Scholar.

64 Case 26/62 van Gend en Loos [1963] ECR 1. See further, eg, Craig, P, ‘Once Upon a Time in the West: Direct Effect and the Federalization of EEC Law’ (1992) 12 OJLS 453 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; de Witte, B, ‘Direct Effect, Supremacy and the Nature of the Legal Order’ in Craig, P and de Búrca, G (eds), The Evolution of EU Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999)Google Scholar.

65 See Ruffert, above n 23.

66 Case C-453/99 Courage v Crehan [2001] ECR I-6297, para 22; Joined Cases C-295– 298/04 Manfredi [2006] ECR I-6619, para 57.

67 Case C-453/99 Courage v Crehan [2001] ECR I-6297, para 24; Joined Cases C-295– 298/04 Manfredi [2006] ECR I-6619, para 59.

68 Similarly in Case C-421/05 City Motors Groep [2007] ECR I-653. See further, eg, Komninos, A, ‘New Prospects for Private Enforcement of EC Competition Law: Courage v Crehan and the Community Right to Damages’ (2002) 39 CML Rev 447 Google Scholar; Odudu, O and Edelman, J, ‘Compensatory Damages for Breach of Article 81’ (2002) 27 EL Rev 327 Google Scholar; Reich, N, ‘The Courage Doctrine: Encouraging or Discouraging Compensation for Antitrust Injuries?’ (2005) 42 CML Rev 35 Google Scholar.

69 In particular, Commission, White Paper on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules, COM(2008) 165 final. See further, eg, Eilmansberger, T, ‘The Green Paper on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules and Beyond: Reflections on the Utility and Feasibility of Stimulating Private Enforcement Through Legislative Action’ (2007) 44 CML Rev 431 Google Scholar; Komninos, A, ‘Civil Antitrust Remedies Between Community and National Law’ in Barnard, C and Odudu, O (eds), The Outer Limits of European Union Law (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2009)Google Scholar; Andreangeli, A, ‘From Complainant to Private Attorney General: The Modernisation of EU Competition Enforcement and Private Antitrust Actions Before National Courts’ in Dougan, M and Currie, S (eds), 50 Years of the European Treaties: Looking Back and Thinking Forward (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2009)Google Scholar.

70 Note that natural and legal persons must demonstrate a ‘legitimate interest’ (based on a direct adverse affect on their interests) before they can acquire the formal status of complainant as regards centralised investigations undertaken by the Commission, thus excluding persons or organisations that lodge a complaint on general interest grounds: see, in particular, Commission, Notice on the Handling of Complaints by the Commission under Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty, [2004] OJ C101/05, especially paras 33–40.

71 Though the precise circumstances in which that duty will become engaged remain far from clear: consider, eg, Cases C-430-431/93 Van Schijndel [1995] ECR I-4705; Case C-126/97 EcoSwiss v Benetton [1999] ECR I-3055; Joined Cases C-295–298/04 Manfredi [2006] ECR I-6619; Case C-8/08 T-Mobile Netherlands [2009] ECR I-4529. See further, eg, Prechal, S and Shelkoplyas, N, ‘National Procedures, Public Policy and EC Law’ (2004) 5 European Review of Private Law 589 Google Scholar.

72 See A-G Fennelly in Case C-226/97 Lemmens [1998] ECR I-3711, paras 28ff of the Opinion.

73 Directive 76/207/EEC, [1976] OJ L39/40. See now Directive 2006/54/EC, [2006] OJ L204/23.

74 Case C-345/89 Stoeckel [1991] ECR I-4047.

75 Case C-350/96 Clean Car Autoservice [1998] ECR I-2521; Case C-208/05 ITC Innovative Technology Centre [2007] ECR I-181.

76 Cases C-87-89/09 Verholen [1991] ECR I-3757. Consider also the ability of protected family members to rely, in their own right, upon Regulation 1612/68/EEC, Art 7(2), which nevertheless guarantees equal treatment only to the migrant worker as regards social advantages within the host State, eg, Case 32/75 Cristini [1975] ECR 1085; Case 63/76 Inzirillo [1976] ECR 2057; Case 261/83 Castelli [1984] ECR 3199; Case 94/84 Deak [1985] ECR 1873; Case 157/84 Frascogna [1985] ECR 1739; Case 316/85 Lebon [1987] ECR 2811.

77 Case C-253/00 Muñoz [2002] ECR I-7289; Case C-379/04 Dahms [2005] ECR I-8723; Case C-426/05 Tele2 Telecommunication [2008] ECR I-685. See Weyer, H, Annotation of Tele2 Telecommunication (2009) 46 CML Rev 1737 Google Scholar.

78 Case C-430/04 Finanzamt Eisleben v Feuerbesttungsverein Halle [2006] ECR I-4999. See the Commission’s arguments in Case 158/80 Rewe-Handelsgesellschaft Nord [1981] ECR 1805.

79 Case C-174/02 Streekgewest Westelijk Noord-Brabant [2005] ECR I-85. Consider also, eg, Case C-55/06 Arcor [2008] ECR I-2931.

80 Eg as in Case C-368/04 Transalpine Ölleitung in Österreich [2006] ECR I-9957.

81 For critical engagement with the constitutional nature and functions of the concept of effectiveness under EU law, see further, eg, Accetto, M and Zleptnig, S, ‘The Principle of Effectiveness: Rethinking its Role in Community Law’ (2005) 11 European Public Law 375 Google Scholar; Ross, M, ‘Effectiveness in the European Legal Order(s): Beyond Supremacy to Constitutional Proportionality?’ (2006) 31 EL Rev 476 Google Scholar; Nebbia, P, ‘The Double Life of Effectiveness’ (2007– 2008) 10 CYELS 287 Google Scholar.

82 Linking up to a rather long-standing critique: recall, eg, Coppel, J and O’Neill, A, ‘The European Court of Justice: Taking Rights Seriously?’ (1992) 29 CML Rev 669 Google Scholar; Weiler, J and Lockhart, N, ‘“Taking Rights Seriously” Seriously: The European Court and its Fundamental Rights Jurisprudence’ (1995) 32 CML Rev 51 and 579Google Scholar. Consider also, eg, de Búrca, G, ‘The Language of Rights and European Integration’ in Shaw, J and More, G (eds), New Legal Dynamics of European Union (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1995)Google Scholar.

83 See Weatherill, S, ‘Addressing Problems of Imbalanced Implementation in EC Law: Remedies in an Institutional Perspective’ in Kilpatrick, C, Novitz, T and Skidmore, P (eds), The Future of Remedies in Europe (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2000)Google Scholar.

84 See the broader critique of constitutional asymmetry constructed by Scharpf, F, ‘The European Social Model: Coping With the Challenges of Diversity’ (2002) 40 Journal of Common Market Studies 645 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

85 Eg Case C-72/95 Kraaijeveld [1996] ECR I-5403; Case C-435/97 World Wildlife Fund [1999] ECR I-5613; Case C-287/98 Linster [2000] ECR I-6917; Case C-127/02 Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee [2004] ECR I-7405; Case C-237/07 Janecek [2008] ECR I-6221. Also, eg, Case C-361/88 Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-2567; Case C-59/89 Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-2607; Case C-58/89 Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-4983; Case C-298/95 Commission v Germany [1996] ECR I-6747. The broad idea of empowering ‘interested persons’, as employed in such cases, mirrors that used in more economic contexts, eg, such as Case C-97/96 Daihatsu Deutschland [1997] ECR I-6843.

86 See Case C-253/00 Muñoz [2002] ECR I-7289; Case C-269/99 Kühne [2001] ECR I-9517.

87 Consider Case C-263/08 Djurgården-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening, judgment of 15 October 2009, nyr, especially at para 50.

88 See Beljin, above n 4.

89 A further example arises where private interests are many and dispersed, so that collective actions can provide a more efficient means of redress, and one which does not impose excessive demands upon the judicial system.

90 Consider especially the ‘victim’ test for standing to enforce fundamental rights under the ECHR before the Strasbourg court: see further, eg, Klass v Germany Series A no 28 (1979-1980) 2 EHRR 214.

91 See Dougan, above n 7, ch 1; Prechal, above n 18.

92 Joined Cases C-6 & 9/90 Francovich [1991] ECR I-5357.

93 Case C-453/99 Courage v Crehan [2001] ECR I-6297.

94 Case C-253/00 Muñoz [2002] ECR I-7289. See further, eg, Biondi, A, Annotation of Muñoz (2003) 40 CML Rev 1241 Google Scholar.

95 Eg Case C-131/88 Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-825; Case C-361/88 Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-2567; Case C-59/89 Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-2607; Case C-58/89 Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-4983; Case C-298/95 Commission v Germany [1996] ECR I-6747.

96 Case C-97/96 Daihatsu Deutschland [1997] ECR I-6843.

97 Case C-54/07 Firma Feryn [2008] ECR I-5187.

98 Previously Directive 83/189/EEC, [1983] OJ L109/8. See now: Directive 98/34/EC, [1998] OJ L204/37.

99 Eg Case 152/84 Marshall [1986] ECR 723; Case C-91/92 Faccini Dori [1994] ECR I-3325.

100 Case C-194/94 CIA Security [1996] ECR I-2201; Case C-443/98 Unilever Italia [2000] ECR I-7535. Contrast with the ruling in Case 380/87 Enichem Base [1989] ECR 2491.

101 Assuming those rules are capable of hindering the marketing of a non-conformant product, and of doing so within the context of the relevant dispute, so that their disapplication can be related to the Union’s interest in protecting the free movement of goods by preventive means: contrast, eg, Case C-226/97 Lemmens [1998] ECR I-3711 with Case C-303/04 Lidl Italia [2005] ECR I-7865 and Case C-20/05 Schwibbert [2007] ECR I-9447.

102 See further, eg, Weatherill, S, ‘Breach of Directives and Breach of Contract’ (2001) 26 EL Rev 177 Google Scholar; Dougan, M, Annotation of Unilever Italia (2001) 38 CML Rev 1503 Google Scholar.

103 Case C-159/00 Sapod Audic [2002] ECR I-5031.

104 Case C-201/02 Delena Wells [2004] ECR I-723.

105 Directive 85/337/EEC, [1985] OJ L175/40.

106 See further, for critical discussion, eg, Prechal, S and Hancher, L, ‘Individual Environmental Rights: Conceptual Pollution in EU Environmental Law?’ (2001) 2 Yearbook of European Environmental Law 89 Google Scholar; Wenneras, P, ‘State Liability for Decisions of Courts of Last Instance in Environmental Cases’ (2004) 16 Journal of Environmental Law 329 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

107 Case C-222/02 Peter Paul [2004] ECR I-9425.

108 Case C-237/07 Janecek [2008] ECR I-6221. See further, eg, Jans, J, ‘Harmonisation of National Procedural Law via the Back Door? Preliminary Comments on the ECJ’s Judgment in Janecek in a Comparative Context’ in Bulterman, M, Hancher, L, McDonnell, A and Sevenster, H (eds), Views of European Law from the Mountain: Liber Amicorum Piet Jan Slot (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2009)Google Scholar.

109 Case C-216/02 Österreichischer Zuchtverband für Ponys, Kleinpferde und Spezialrassen [2004] ECR I-10683.

110 Note that A-G Colomer seemed to consider the claimant organisation to fall altogether outside the protective scope of the relevant Union legislation, having no more than a purely factual interest in the relationship between the competent national authority and any new applicant organisation: see Case C-216/02 Österreichischer Zuchtverband für Ponys, Kleinpferde und Spezialrassen [2004] ECR I-10683, paras 27–32 and paras 37–40 of the Opinion.

111 For these purposes, one should include situations where Union legislation makes limited cross-reference to national law for the purposes of fully ascertaining the categories of persons falling within its own protective scope, eg, as with the definition of ‘employee’ for the purposes of the Insolvency Directive 2008/94/EC, [2008] OJ L283/36.

112 Consider, eg, Golder v United Kingdom Series A no 18 (1975) 1 EHRR 524.

113 Eg Case 222/84 Johnston v Chief Constable of the RUC [1986] ECR 1651; Case C97/91 Borelli [1992] ECR I-6313; Case C-7/98 Krombach [2000] ECR I-1935.

114 [2010] OJ C83/389. See, eg, Case C-432/05 Unibet [2007] ECR I-2271; Cases C317–320/08 Alassini, judgment of 18 March 2010, nyr.

115 Case 33/76 Rewe-Zentralfinanz v Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland [1976] ECR 1989 and Case 45/76 Comet BV v Produktschap voor Siergewassen [1976] ECR 2043.

116 From the ECtHR, eg, Philis v Greece (No 1) Series A no 209 (1991) 13 EHRR 741; Holy Monasteries v Greece Series A no 301 (1995) 20 EHRR 1; though consider, eg, Kehoe v United Kingdom, judgment of 17 June 2008, nyr. Under Union law, eg, Case C-12/08 Mono Car Styling, judgment of 16 July 2009, nyr, especially A-G Mengozzi’s Opinion of 21 January 2009. Note also Case C-263/08 Djurgården-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening, judgment of 15 October 2009, esp para 51.

117 Case C-129/04 Espace Trianon [2005] ECR I-7805; Joined Cases C-145/08 & 149/08 Club Hotel Loutraki and Aktor ATE, judgment of 6 May 2010, nyr.

118 Directive 89/665/EEC, [1989] OJ L395/33.

119 See A-G Stix-Hackl in Case C-129/04 Espace Trianon [2005] ECR I-7805, paras 46–58 of the Opinion. Though Union law does not preclude the possibility of individual actions: consider Case C-492/06 Consorzio Elisoccorso San Raffaele [2007] ECR I-8189 (and see further below, section IV.C.).

120 And also the principle of equivalence, since individual actions for compensation, rais ing the legality of administrative acts as a collateral issue, were permitted in fields other than public contracts.

121 See A-G Sharpston’s Opinion of 20 October 2009 in Cases C-145/08 & 149/08 Club Hotel Loutraki and Aktor ATE, judgment of 6 May 2010, nyr, paras 106ff.

122 The purely executive nature of the Member State’s discretion over access to the courts in such situations is evident not only from Cases C-87–89/09 Verholen [1991] ECR I-3757 itself, but also, eg, Case C-174/02 Streekgewest Westelijk Noord-Brabant [2005] ECR I-85; Case C-368/04 Transalpine Ölleitung in Österreich [2006] ECR I-9957; Case C-426/05 Tele2 Telecommunication [2008] ECR I-685; Case C-55/06 Arcor [2008] ECR I-2931; Case C-12/08 Mono Car Styling, judgment of 16 July 2009, nyr.

123 Case C-263/08 Djurgården-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening, judgment of 15 October 2009, nyr. Note also Case C-24/09 Djurgården-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening, judgment of 11 March 2010, nyr.

124 Directive 2003/35/EC, [2003] OJ L156/17.

125 See, in particular, Arts 1(2) and 10a of the amended version of Directive 85/337/EEC, [1985] OJ L175/40.

126 See Case C-427/07 Commission v Ireland, judgment of 16 July 2009, nyr. Note also Case C-216/05 Commission v Ireland [2006] ECR I-10787.

127 Case C-432/05 Unibet [2007] ECR I-2271. See further, eg, Anagnostaras, G, ‘The Quest for an Effective Remedy and the Measure of Judicial Protection Afforded to Putative Community Law Rights’ (2007) 32 EL Rev 727 Google Scholar; Groussot, X and Wenander, H, ‘Self-Standing Actions for Judicial Review and the Swedish Factortame ’ (2007) 26 Civil Justice Quarterly 376 Google Scholar; Arnull, A, Annotation of Unibet (2007) 44 CML Rev 1763 Google Scholar. Consider also, eg, Case C-13/01 Safalero [2003] ECR I-8679; Case C-91/08 Wall, judgment of 13 April 2010, nyr.

128 Case C-268/06 Impact [2008] ECR I-2483.

129 Directive 85/337/EEC, [1985] OJ L175/40.

130 Case C-72/95 Kraaijeveld [1996] ECR I-5403; Case C-435/97 World Wildlife Fund [1999] ECR I-5613; Case C-287/98 Linster [2000] ECR I-6917; see Case C-75/08 Mellor, judgment of 30 April 2009, nyr. The Court has followed a similar approach in other (though similar) legislative contexts, eg, Case C-127/02 Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee [2004] ECR I-7405; Case C-237/07 Janecek [2008] ECR I-6221. Consider also, eg, Case C-269/99 Kühne [2001] ECR I-9517; Case C-343/07 Bavaria and Bavaria Italia v Bayerischer Brauerbund, judgment of 2 July 2009, nyr.

131 Directive 2003/35/EC, [2003] OJ L156/17. On the issues surrounding private standing in environmental disputes more generally, see further, eg, Ward, A, ‘Judicial Review of Environmental Misconduct in the European Community: Problems, Prospects and Strategies’ (2000) 1 Yearbook of European Environmental Law 137 Google Scholar; Somsen, H, ‘The Private Enforcement of Member State Compliance with EC Environmental Law: An Unfulfilled Promise?’ (2000) 1 Yearbook of European Environmental Law 311 Google Scholar; Macrory, R and Turner, S, ‘Participatory Rights, Transboundary Environmental Governance and EC Law’ (2002) 39 CML Rev 489 Google Scholar.

132 In which regard, consider A-G Sharpston’s Opinion of 2 July 2009 in Case C-263/08 Djurgården-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening, judgment of 15 October 2009, nyr, especially para 80.

133 See below, section IV.C.

134 Case C-253/00 Muñoz [2002] ECR I-7289; see section IV.A.2.

135 Directive 76/207/EEC, [1976] OJ L39/40. See now Directive 2006/54/EC, [2006] OJ L204/23.

136 Case 14/83 von Colson [1984] ECR 1891; Case C-271/91 Marshall II [1993] ECR I-4367.

137 Directive 1999/70/EC, [1999] OJ L175/43.

138 Case C-212/04 Adeneler [2006] ECR I-6057; Cases C-378-380/07 Angelidaki, judgment of 23 April 2009, nyr.

139 Eg Case C-326/88 Hansen [1990] ECR I-2911; Case C-177/95 Ebony Maritime [1997] ECR I-1111; Case C-262/99 Louloudakis [2001] ECR I-5547; Case C-156/04 Commission v Greece [2007] ECR I-4129.

140 Contrast, eg, Case C-271/91 Marshall II [1993] ECR I-4367 on effectiveness with Case C-55/07 Michaeler [2008] ECR I-3135 on proportionality.

141 See van Gerven, above n 8.

142 See Dougan, above n 7, esp ch 5.

143 See further, eg, Dougan, above n 42.

144 Case C-132/05 Commission v Germany [2008] ECR I-957.

145 Regulation 2081/92/EEC, [1992] OJ L208/1.

146 Eg Case 14/68 Walt Wilhelm [1969] ECR 1; Joined Cases C-204/00, C-205/00, C-211/00, C-213/00, C-217/00 and C-219/00 Aalborg Portland [2004] ECR I-123.

147 Eg Case 137/85 Maizena Gesellschaft [1987] ECR 4587.

148 Consider also, eg, Case C-45/08 Spector Photo Group, judgment of 23 December 2009, nyr. Contrast with the case law on ne bis in idem in the cross-border criminal law context: consider, eg, Case C-436/04 van Esbroeck [2006] ECR I-2333; Case C-150/05 Van Straaten [2006] ECR I-9327; Case C-367/05 Kraaijenbrink [2007] ECR I-6619. See further, eg, Sharpston, E and Fernández-Martín, JM, ‘Some Reflections on Schengen Free Movement Rights and the Principle of Ne Bis In Idem ’ (2007–2008) 10 CYELS 413 Google Scholar.

149 Obviously excluding situations where Union legislation makes limited cross-reference to national law for the purposes of fully ascertaining the categories of persons falling within its own protective scope, eg, as with the definition of ‘employee’ for the purposes of the Insolvency Directive 2008/94/EC, [2008] OJ L283/36.

150 See Case C-132/05 Commission v Germany [2008] ECR I-957 (discussed above, section IV.B.2.).

151 As referred to above, section IV.A.1. See A-G Mengozzi’s Opinion of 21 January 2009 in Case C-12/08 Mono Car Styling, judgment of 16 July 2009, nyr. Consider, eg, Case C-518/08 Fundación Gala-Salvador Dalí, judgment of 15 April 2010, nyr.

152 Consider, eg, Case C-492/06 Consorzio Elisoccorso San Raffaele [2007] ECR I-8189 (though cf A-G Stix-Hackl in Case C-129/04 Espace Trianon [2005] ECR I-7805, paras 72–76 of the Opinion).

153 Consider the very different interpretations of the provisions on collective redundancies offered by A-G Mengozzi’s Opinion of 21 January 2009 (favouring an ‘in default’ analysis) and the Court of Justice itself (preferring an ‘over and above’ approach) in Case C-12/08 Mono Car Styling, judgment of 16 July 2009, nyr.

154 Case C-216/02 Österreichischer Zuchtverband für Ponys, Kleinpferde und Spezialrassen [2004] ECR I-10683.

155 See above, section IV.A.2.

156 The latter interpretation seems preferable: see A-G Colomer, paras 37–40 of the Opinion, and the Court of Justice, paras 38–40 of the Judgment.

157 Consider, by way of analogy, eg, Case C-442/00 Caballero [2002] ECR I-11915; Case C-300/04 Eman and Sevinger [2006] ECR I-8055.

158 See Prechal, above n 18.

159 Case C-263/08 Djurgården-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening, judgment of 15 October 2009, nyr; Case C-432/05 Unibet [2007] ECR I-2271. See above, section IV.B.1.

160 See A-G Geelhoed in Case C-253/00 Muñoz [2002] ECR I-7289, who appears to suggest that the minimum requirements expected under Union law in such circumstances should be based on the standing requirements applicable to actions for annulment brought by natural and legal persons under Art 263(4) TFEU (ex Art 230(4) EC). For criticism, see, eg, Dougan, M, National Remedies Before the Court of Justice: Issues of Harmonisation and Differentiation (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2004) 298–302Google Scholar.

161 Unless they give rise to an entirely autonomous breach of the primary Treaty provisions, eg, by discriminating on grounds of nationality as regards the range of persons entitled to standing under national law. See Case C-398/92 Mund and Fester [1994] ECR I-467; Case C-43/95 Data Delecta [1996] ECR I-4661.

162 And indeed was explicitly invited to do so by the referring court: see Case C-216/02 Österreichischer Zuchtverband für Ponys, Kleinpferde und Spezialrassen [2004] ECR I-10683, paras 26–28.

163 Again despite explicitly being invited to engage with this point by the referring court: see Case C-216/02 Österreichischer Zuchtverband für Ponys, Kleinpferde und Spezialrassen [2004] ECR I-10683, paras 26–28.

164 Case C-511/03 Ten Kate Holding [2005] ECR I-8979.

165 Case C-12/08 Mono Car Styling, judgment of 16 July 2009, nyr. Consider also, eg, Case C-492/06 Consorzio Elisoccorso San Raffaele [2007] ECR I-8189.

166 See further, eg, Spaventa, E, Free Movement of Persons in the European Union: Barriers to Movement in their Constitutional Context (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2007) esp ch 6Google Scholar.

167 Consider, eg, Cases C-321-324/94 Pistre [1997] ECR I-2343; Case C-254/98 TKHeimdiest [2000] ECR I-2487.

168 Eg Case C-448/98 Guimont [2000] ECR I-10663; Case C-148/02 Garcia Avello [2003] ECR I-11613; Case C-212/06 Government of the French Community and Walloon Government v Flemish Government [2008] ECR I-1683. See, for criticism, eg, Nic Shuibhne, N, ‘Free Movement of Persons and the Wholly Internal Rule: Time to Move On?’ (2002) 39 CML Rev 731 Google Scholar; Spaventa, E, ‘Seeing the Wood Despite the Trees? On the Scope of Union Citizenship and Its Constitutional Effects’ (2008) 45 CML Rev 13 Google Scholar.

169 See further, eg, Dougan, M ‘Minimum Harmonisation and the Internal Market’ (2000) 37 CML Rev 853 Google Scholar.

170 Case C-2/97 Borsana [1998] ECR I-8597. Also, eg, Case C-6/03 Deponiezweckverband Eiterköpfe [2005] ECR I-2753; Case C-82/09 Dimos Agiou Nikolaou Kritis, judgment of 22 April 2010, nyr.

171 Case C-71/02 Karner [2004] ECR I-3025. See further, eg, de Cecco, F, ‘Room to Move? Minimum Harmonisation and Fundamental Rights’ (2006) 43 CML Rev 9 Google Scholar.

172 See Dougan, M, ‘Minimum Harmonisation after Tobacco Advertising and Laval Un Partneri ’ in Bulterman, M, Hancher, L, McDonnell, A and Sevenster, H (eds), Views of European Law from the Mountain: Liber Amicorum Piet Jan Slot (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2009)Google Scholar.

173 In which regard, consider, eg, Case C-382/92 Commission v United Kingdom [1994] ECR I-2435 and Case C-383/92 Commission v United Kingdom [1994] ECR I-2479: the Member State’s decision to offer individual remedies to workers (which, in the light of Case C-12/08 Mono Car Styling, judgment of 16 July 2009, nyr, might well be seen as rights created ‘over and above’ the common Union standard) was judged through the prism of its obligation to impose effective sanctions pursuant to Greek Maize; those individual remedies were found to be in breach of the requirement that penalties against defaulting employers must be effective and dissuasive.

174 See above, section IV.B.2.

175 Similarly in Case C-511/03 Ten Kate Holding [2005] ECR I-8979.

176 Joined Cases C-6 & 9/90 Francovich [1991] ECR I-5357.

177 See further, eg, Dougan, M, ‘The Vicissitudes of Life at the Coalface: Remedies and Procedures for Enforcing Union Law before the National Courts’ in Craig, P and De Búrca, G (eds), The Evolution of EU Law, 2nd edn (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010)Google Scholar. See also, eg, Craig, P, ‘ Francovich, Remedies and the Scope of Damages Liability’ (1993) 109 LQR 595 Google Scholar and ‘Once More Unto the Breach: The Community, the State and Damages Liability’ (1997) 113 LQR 67.

178 Consider, eg, Joined Cases C-46 and 48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame III [1996] ECR I-1029; Joined Cases C-178–179 and 188–190/94 Dillenkofer [1996] ECR I4845; Case C-222/02 Peter Paul [2004] ECR I-9425; Case C-445/06 Danske Slagterier [2009] ECR I-2119.

179 Note that Cased C-300/04 Eman and Sevinger [2006] ECR I-8055 involved an autonomous breach by the Member State of its obligations under the general principles of Union law (in casu, the right to equal treatment) in a situation which clearly fell within the scope of the Treaties, ie because the Member State was exercising its competence, in accordance with Union law, to define the categories of persons entitled to stand and vote in elections to the European Parliament.

180 Contrast with those situations where Union legislation makes limited cross-reference to national law for the purposes of fully ascertaining the categories of persons falling within its own protective scope, eg, as with the definition of ‘employee’ for the purposes of the Insolvency Directive 2008/94/EC, [2008] OJ L283/36: once identified, such claimants are still clearly intended to enjoy rights under Union law, as demonstrated by Joined Cases C-6 & 9/90 Francovich [1991] ECR I-5357 itself. See also, eg, Joined Cases C-94 & 95/95 Bonifaci [1997] ECR I-3969; Case C-261/95 Palmisani [1997] ECR I-4025; Case C-373/95 Maso [1997] ECR I-4051; Case C-278/05 Robins [2007] ECR I-1059.