Abstract
In the multi-level European Union (EU) legal system, there are two possibilities to indirectly challenge the EU (administrative) action, namely before a national court through a preliminary question of validity under Article 267 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and before an EU court through the procedure known as the ‘plea of illegality’ and provided for in Article 277 TFEU. The importance of these two systems of indirect review has been stressed time and again by the Court of Justice in the context of allegations that direct access to the EU courts is too restrictive because of the narrow standing conditions to be fulfilled in direct actions. The aim of the chapter is to disprove the supposedly complete nature of remedies of the EU legal system, in particular with respect to the second system of indirect review, namely that which foresees the ‘plea of illegality’ under Article 277 TFEU. First, the restrictive requirements to gain direct access to the EU courts are discussed. Then, the plea of illegality and its main features are examined. Thereafter, an empirical analysis of the use of the plea of illegality is presented. Finally, the plea of illegality is framed in the context of the delicate balance between legality and legal certainty.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Title of host publication | Indirect Judicial Review in Administrative Law: Legality vs Legal Certainty In Europe |
Editors | Mariolina Eliantonio, Dacian Dragos |
Place of Publication | London |
Publisher | Routledge |
Chapter | 11 |
Pages | 1-22 |
Number of pages | 22 |
ISBN (Electronic) | 9781003164302, 9780367758622 |
ISBN (Print) | 9780367758578 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 22 Nov 2022 |