• The case of Case C-583/11 P, Inuit Judgment of 3 October 2013, concerned the requirements for standing in annulment actions. It was established that a regulation adopted by the Parliament and Council was a legislative act and therefore not a regulatory act. The term ‘regulatory’ under paragraph 4, Article 263 TFEU referred to actions of general application – excluding legislative acts.

Facts of Case C-583/11 P, Inuit Judgment of 3 October 2013

  • Following an earlier interpretation by the General Court in Case T-18/10 Inuit, this was an appeal against the court’s finding that legislative acts were not included within the term ‘regulatory’
  • The applicants, amongst other grounds of appeal, appealed on the ground that the General Court disregarded their right to effective judicial protection (Article 47 of the Charter) through their judgment

Issues in Case C-583/11 P, Inuit Judgment of 3 October 2013

  • Did the General Court’s judgment disregard the appellants’ right to effective judicial protection by excluding legislative acts from the definition of ‘regulatory’?

Held by the European Court of Justice

  • Appeal dismissed – the General Court had not erred in their ruling, and Article 47 would not apply here.

Findings of the Court

Article 47 “is not intended to change the system of judicial review laid down by the Treaties, and particularly the rules relating to the admissibility of direct actions brought before the Courts” [97]

It is for the Members States to be able to create and establish legal remedies and procedures to give respect to the Chart of Fundamental Rights, specifically the fundamental right to effective judicial protection here [100]

  • This is “reaffirmed by the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, which states that Member States ‘shall provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective judicial protection in the fields covered by European Union law’” [101]

As to the remedies, “the FEU Treaty has made it possible in a number of instances for natural and legal persons to bring a direct action, where appropriate, before the Courts of the European Union” however the intention is not to “create new remedies … other than those already laid down by national law” [103]

  • Specifically to Article 47, which was brought up in the present case, the incompatibility of such does not require the individual bringing the action to “have an unconditional entitlement to bring an action for annulment of European Union legislative acts directly before the Courts of the European Union” [105]