Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The European Court of Justice and the Standard of Judicial Review

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion in the Administrative State

Abstract

In this chapter the standards of judicial review applied by the ECJ when assessing Union acts and decisions and those that are imposed by the ECJ on the national courts when reviewing decisions within the scope of Union law, are examined in comprehensive way. It is proposed that the ECJ is strengthening its grip on the level of national judicial review of those decisions and that the formerly applied national autonomy approach is gradually but surely vanishing. Instead the ECJ increasingly transports its standards of review of EU acts to the review to be conducted by the national courts of similar acts and decisions. These standards include a process-oriented review of discretion and margins of appreciation. This process review combines a strict review of the authorities’ establishment of the facts with a test of the statement of reasons. Therefore, it could better be qualified as semi-procedural. This test provides for the necessary compensation for judicial deference in relation to the substance of the decisions concerned.

Rob Joseph Guillaume Marie Widdershoven is professor of European Administrative Law at Utrecht University, the Netherlands, and researcher in the Montaigne Centre for Rule of Law and Administration of Justice. Moreover, he is Advocate General in Administrative Law of the Netherlands.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Prechal et al. 2015, pp. 7–9; Besselink 2007.

  2. 2.

    Cf. in respect of decision-making powers of agencies, the contributions in Scholten and Luchtman 2017.

  3. 3.

    The term national acts ‘within the scope of Union law’ is synonymous—and used interchangeably—with the term national acts ‘implementing Union law’. Both terms refer to the scope of Article 50(1) CFR, as interpreted in Case C-617/10 Akerberg Fransson, ECLI:EU:C:2013:105. They include (a) national decisions implementing specific EU obligations prescribed by secondary or primary Union law, (b) national acts derogating from the fundamental free movement rights and (c) the enforcement of category (a) and (b). Cf. Van den Brink et al. 2015, pp. 150–155.

  4. 4.

    See for this possibility or obligation in more detail, Broberg and Fenger 2014; Lenaerts et al. 2014, Chapters 3 and 6; Ortlep and Widdershoven 2015, pp. 350–360.

  5. 5.

    Lenaerts 2012; Bar-Siman-Tov 2012.

  6. 6.

    Prechal 2015, pp. 43–58; Ortlep and Widdershoven 2015, pp. 399–403.

  7. 7.

    The UK standard of Wednesbury unreasonableness was set in Court of Appeal 7 November 1947, Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Cooperation [1948] 1 KB 223. According to it a court only intervenes if the administrative decision constitutes a misuse of power or is ‘irrational’, meaning that it is ‘so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it (cf. Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions and Others v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985], 1 AC 374 (410)). So, it refers to blatant or manifest errors. See for more details, Thompson 2018, pp. 246–253.

  8. 8.

    See Pünder and Klafki 2018, pp. 88–90. According to German law indefinite legal terms such as ‘public interest’ of ‘public safety’ are fully reviewed by the courts. Moreover, only in exceptional cases the courts recognize a ‘margin of interpretation’ (Beurteilungsraum), which is controlled with limited scrutiny.

  9. 9.

    Case C-120/97 Upjohn, ECLI:EU:C:1999:14, Case C-55/06 Arcor, ECLI:EU:C:2008:244, respectively.

  10. 10.

    Upjohn, point 34. See for this substantive ECJ standard, Section 6, hereafter. From that section it appears that nowadays this judicial deference in relation to the substance of the act is counterbalanced by a strict process review.

  11. 11.

    Arcor, point 169.

  12. 12.

    Case C-71/14 East Sussex County Council, ECLI:EU:C:2015:656.

  13. 13.

    East Sussex County Council, point 58.

  14. 14.

    East Sussex County Council, points 58 and 59.

  15. 15.

    Eliantonio and Grashof 2016

  16. 16.

    Case C-389/10P KME, ECLI:EU:C:2011:816, point 130.

  17. 17.

    KME, point 130.

  18. 18.

    The exercise of unlimited jurisdiction does, however, not amount to a review of the Court’s own motion (KME, point 131). So, it is for the applicant to raise pleas in law against the decision and to adduce evidence.

  19. 19.

    KME, point 121.

  20. 20.

    KME, point 133.

  21. 21.

    Ortlep and Widdershoven 2015, pp. 402–403

  22. 22.

    When sanctioning EU competition law violations the Member States are undoubtedly implementing (or acting within the scope of) Union law. See for both terms note 4, above. Therefore, Article 47 applies to these national sanctions as well.

  23. 23.

    Official Journal L 001, 04/01/2003.

  24. 24.

    Widdershoven and Craig 2017, pp. 335–336.

  25. 25.

    ECtHR 27 September, Menarini, App. No. 43509/08.

  26. 26.

    The EJC term ‘sanctions of a criminal nature’ refers to the same sanctions as the ECtHR term ‘criminal charge’. According to Case C-489/10 Bonda, ECLI:EU:C:2012:319, the ECJ applies the ECtHR criteria, set in ECtHR 8 June 1976, Engel, no. 5100/71, to qualify a sanction as ‘criminal charge’ (or, in EJC terms, as a sanction of a criminal nature). On the ground of these criteria administrative fines generally qualify as ‘criminal’.

  27. 27.

    Case C-293/12 Digital Rights Ireland, ECLI:EU:C:2014:238.

  28. 28.

    Digital Rights Ireland, points 46–48, As regards this standard of judicial review the ECJ refers, by analogy, to ECtHR 4 December 2008, S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [Grand Chamber], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 102.

  29. 29.

    Case C-203/15 Tele2 Sverige, ECI:EU:C:2016:970.

  30. 30.

    Gerards 2018; Nussberger 2018.

  31. 31.

    See for both sides of this process review, Gerards 2018, pp. 141 and 155.

  32. 32.

    See for other ECJ cases in which procedural arguments played a (modest) role, Beijer 2018, pp. 190–193, and Lenaerts 2012. The ECJ applies—arguably increasingly—a process review in cases concerning national limitations of free movement rights, f.i. in Case C-320/03 Commission v. Austria, ECLI:EU:C:2005:684. See for other examples Van den Brink et al. 2015, pp. 201–202 and Zglinski 2018.

  33. 33.

    Case C-356/12 Glatzel, ECLI:EU:C:2014:350. In the literature the process review in this case has been criticised, because the legislative process showed some serious flaws. See Beijer 2018, p. 206, with references to other critical literature, who qualifies the case as a ‘bad’ example of process review.

  34. 34.

    To avoid misunderstandings, when reviewing if a EU or national measure limiting a fundamental right is proportionate to the purpose of the limitation the ECJ does take into account whether the act provides for sufficient procedural guarantees, in particular the possibility of judicial review. See Beijer 2018, pp. 196–197, for examples. However, these guarantees are not concerned with the legislative process of the act in question itself.

  35. 35.

    Beijer 2018, pp. 207–208.

  36. 36.

    Case 69/10 Samba Diouf, ECLI:EU:C:2011:524.

  37. 37.

    Samba Diouf, point 56.

  38. 38.

    Samba Diouf, point 61.

  39. 39.

    Official Journal 2013, L 180/60.

  40. 40.

    For instance by Reneman in her commentary on the judgments of the Dutch Council of State of 13 April 2016, ECLI:NL:RVS:2016:890 and ECLI:NL:RVS:2016:956, in AB 2016/195. Cf. more in-depth Reneman 2014, pp. 249–282.

  41. 41.

    Dutch Council of State 13 April 2016, ECLI:NL:RVS:2016:890, and ECLI:NL:RVS:2016:956.

  42. 42.

    Case C-682/15 Berlioz, ECLI:EU:C:2017:373.

  43. 43.

    Berlioz, point 77.

  44. 44.

    See for this and the following consideration, Berlioz, points 78 and 80.

  45. 45.

    Case C-414/16 Egenberger, ECLI:EU:C:2018:257.

  46. 46.

    See for the view of the Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), the preliminary reference of the Bundesarbeitsgericht in Egenberger, point 31 of the judgment.

  47. 47.

    Egenberger, point 55.

  48. 48.

    Schimmel and Widdershoven 2009, pp. 65–66.

  49. 49.

    Case C-331/88 Fedesa, ECLI:EU:C:1990:391. Cf. Van den Brink et al. 2015, pp. 191–194.

  50. 50.

    Case C-310/04 Spain v. Council, ECLI:EU:C:2006:521. See for other relevant case law, Lenaerts 2012, and Van de Brink et al. 2015, p. 182.

  51. 51.

    Spain v. Council, point 133.

  52. 52.

    Spain v. Council, point 134.

  53. 53.

    Spain v. Council, point 135.

  54. 54.

    Case C-58/08 Vodaphone, ECLI:EU:C:2010:321. See on this case extensively, Lenaerts 2012, and Van Gestel and De Poorter 2016.

  55. 55.

    See for this term Lenaerts 2012, p. 8.

  56. 56.

    Cf. Van Gestel and De Poorter 2016. See also De Poorter’s contribution to this volume.

  57. 57.

    See already Case 55/75 Balkan-Import Export, ECLI:EU:C:1976; point 8; Case C-225/91 Matra v. Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1993:239, points 24 and 25; Case C-157/96 National Framers’ Union, ECLI:EU:C:1998:191, point 39.

  58. 58.

    Case C-269/90 Technische Universität München, ECLI:EU:C:1991:438.

  59. 59.

    That this reference is made by a German court is no coincidence. As explained in Sect. 3.2, German courts do normally exercise a more intensive scrutiny of such decisions.

  60. 60.

    Case C-12/03 P Tetra Laval, ECLI:EU:C:2005:87. See on this case extensively Essens et al. 2009, p. 209.

  61. 61.

    See in the area of public health, Joined cases T-74/00 Artegodan, ECLI:EU:T:2002:283: Case T-13/99 Pfizer, ECLI:EU:T:2002:209; and in the environmental law area, Case T-474/04 Germany v. Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2007:332.

  62. 62.

    Schimmel and Widdershoven 2009, pp. 61–68; Caranta 2011, pp. 28–34.

  63. 63.

    Tetra Laval, point 39. In the same vain Case C-413/06 P Bertelmans AG and others, ECLI:EU:C:2008:392.

  64. 64.

    See for the different obligations resulting from the rights of defence in more detail Van de Brink et al. 2015, pp. 237–245.

  65. 65.

    See f.i. Joined Case C-402/05 P and C-41/05 P Kadi and Al Barakaat, ECLI:EU:C:2008:461.

  66. 66.

    For more details, Beijer 2018, pp. 188–190.

  67. 67.

    Tetra Laval, point 39.

  68. 68.

    Case C-544/15 Fahimian, ECLI:EU:C:2017:255.

  69. 69.

    Fahimian, point 42.

  70. 70.

    Fahimian, point 46.

  71. 71.

    Fahimian, point 46.

  72. 72.

    The absence of such reference can—to my opinion—not be explained by the fact that Article 18(4) of Directive 2004/14, contains the right of persons concerned ‘to mount a legal challenge’ against a rejection of an application for a visa. After all, in East Sussex County Council (Sect. 3.2) a similar right of appeal was prescribed in Article 6 of the directive concerned. In that case the ECJ nevertheless did apply the autonomy approach, because the provision did not determine the extent of judicial review. The same goes for Article 18(4) of Directive 2004/14.

  73. 73.

    Schimmel and Widdershoven 2009, pp. 63–65; Caranta 2011, pp. 25–26.

  74. 74.

    Bar-Siman-Tov 2012, 2016.

  75. 75.

    Lenaerts 2012, p. 15.

  76. 76.

    Beijer 2018, pp. 207–208.

References

  • Bar-Siman-Tov I (2012) Semiprocedural Judicial Review. Legisprudence 6:271–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Siman-Tov I (2016) The dual meaning of evidence-based judicial review of legislation. The Theory and Practice of Legislation, 4(2):107–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beijer M (2018) Procedural Fundamental Rights Review by the Court of Justice of the European Union. In: Gerards J, Brems E (eds) Procedural Review in European Fundamental Right Cases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 177–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Besselink L F M (2007) A Composite European Constitution. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Broberg M, Fenger N (2014) Preliminary References to the European Court of Justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Caranta R (2011) Evolving Patterns and Change in the EU Governance and their Consequences on Judicial Protection. In: Caranta R, Gerbrandy A (eds) Traditions and Change in European Administrative Law. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, pp 15–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Eliantonio M, Grashof F (2016) C-71/14, East Sussex Country Council v. Information Commissioner, Property Search Group, Local Government Association (Judgment of 6 October 2015) – Case Note. Review of European Administrative Law 9(1):35–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Essens O, Gerbrandy A, Lavrijssen S (eds) (2009) National Courts and the Standard of Review in Competition Law and Economic Regulation. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerards J (2018) Procedural Review by the ECtHR: A Typology. In: Gerards J, Brems E (eds) Procedural Review in European Fundamental Rights Cases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 127–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K (2012) The European Court of Justice and Process-Oriented Review. Yearbook of European Law 31(1):3–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K, Maselis I, Gutman K (2014) EU Procedural Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussberger A (2018) Review by the ECHR: View from the Court. In: Gerards J, Brems E (eds) Procedural Review in European Fundamental Rights Cases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge pp 161–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortlep R, Widdershoven R (2015) Judicial Protection. In: Jans J et al (eds) Europeanisation of Public Law. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, pp 333–435

    Google Scholar 

  • Prechal S (2015) Europeanisation of National Administrative Law. In: Jans J et al (eds) Europeanisation of Public Law. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, pp. 39–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Prechal S, Widdershoven R J G M, Jans J H (2015) Introduction. In: Jans J et al (eds) Europeanisation of Public Law. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, pp 3–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Pünder H, Klafki A (2018) Administrative Law in Germany. In: Seerden R (ed) Comparative Administrative Law. Intersentia Publishing, Cambridge pp 49–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Reneman M (2014) EU Asylum Procedures and the Right to an Effective Remedy. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon

    Google Scholar 

  • Schimmel M, Widdershoven R J G M (2009) Judicial Review after Tetra Laval: Some Observations from a European Administrative Law Point of View. In: Essens O et al (eds) National Court and the Standard of Review in Competition Law and Economic Regulation. Europa Law Publishing, pp 51–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholten M, Luchtman M (eds) (2017) Law Enforcement by EU Authorities. Implications for Political and Judicial Accountability. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham-Northampton MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson K (2018) Administrative Law in the United Kingdom. In: Seerden R (ed) Comparative Administrative Law. Intersentia Publishing, Cambridge, pp 197–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Brink J, Den Ouden W, Prechal S, Widdershoven R, Jans J (2015) General Principles of Law. In: Jans J et al (eds) Europeanisation of Public Law. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, pp 135–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Gestel R A J, De Poorter J C A (2016) Putting evidence-based law making to the test: Judicial review of legislative rationality. The Theory and Practice of Legislation 4(2):155–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Widdershoven R J G M, Craig P (2017) Pertinent issues of judicial accountability in EU shared enforcement. In: Scholten M, Luchtman M (eds) Law Enforcement by EU Authorities. Implications for Political and Judicial Accountability. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham-Northampton MA, pp 330–352

    Google Scholar 

  • Zglinski J (2018) The Rise of Deference: The Margin of Appreciation and Decentralized Judicial Review in EU Free Movement Law. Common Market Law Review 55:1341–1386

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Rob Widdershoven

Authors
  1. Rob Widdershoven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rob Widdershoven .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Law and Governance, Tilburg Law School, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Jurgen de Poorter

  2. Department of Public Law and Governance, Tilburg Law School, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Ernst Hirsch Ballin

  3. Law Technology Society and Markets/LAW, Tilburg Law School, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Saskia Lavrijssen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 T.M.C. Asser press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Widdershoven, R. (2019). The European Court of Justice and the Standard of Judicial Review. In: de Poorter, J., Hirsch Ballin, E., Lavrijssen, S. (eds) Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion in the Administrative State. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-307-8_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-307-8_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-306-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-307-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation