• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Why is Judicial Review standing for cases against the EU so limited?

Jun 9, 2007
Just reading on the Inuit case (Case T-18/10 September 2011) - admissibility for standing in cases of JR against the EU institutions is strictly limited to the ECJ interpretation of the requirements of the Treaty, in comparison with the more broad scope for standing given in cases against the Member States based on also interpreting ECHR rights. Under Atricle 47 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights it is crucial to grant an effective remedy, while Article 46 says right of access to courts is a fundamental right.

The ECJ grants standing for cases against the institutions restrictively to only those individually and directly affected (in other words it must affect them almost uniquely). Yet in, for example, the DEB case (2010) the Charter requirements under Article 47 were very prominent in granting standing for an action against a Member State. So it is one rule for allowing standing to bring cases against the EU institutions, and another entirely for those bringing cases against the Member States!

Can this hypocritical dichotomy survive accesssion to the ECHR next year? And why was the provision on standing in the Lisbon Treaty virtually left unchanged (and hideously worded)?

Dublin 4

Well-known member
Feb 6, 2011
Busy Tox- so I'll just give a supportive bump :p


Well-known member
Sep 1, 2008
Sounds like the EU is institutionalising racism via the back door. First the Roma, next the (former) Eskimaux, and then who comes after?

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies