The EU Courts stand their ground : why are the standing rules for direct actions still so restrictive?
Title: The EU Courts stand their ground : why are the standing rules for direct actions still so restrictive?
Author: RHIMES, Michael
Citation: European journal of legal studies, 2016, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 103-172
External link: http://www.ejls.eu/
The restrictive nature of EU standing rules has long been controversial. They were reformed in Art 263(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which added another head of standing to the existing two heads. Despite this addition, standing continues to be a considerable hurdle to direct challenges. This article seeks to explain why. It does so on two levels. First, it explains how the courts' interpretation of the third head makes it very difficult for most claimants to satisfy. In so doing, it highlights both the flaws in this interpretation, as well as the possibility of adopting more liberal interpretations fully consistent with the text of Art 263(4). Second, it examines, more fundamentally, why the courts support narrow admissibility criteria, even after the opportunity they were given in the Lisbon Treaty to potentially relax those criteria. These justifications in favour of the present approach are exposed as unsatisfactory, and falling short of the court's own promises of effective judicial protection.
Subject: Standing; Direct challenges; Art 263(4) TFEU; Art 230(4) EC; Implementing measures
Type of Access: openAccess