Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review: The European Union

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 39))

Abstract

The present contribution explores the approach of the Court of Justice of European Union towards the review of discretionary decisions adopted by the European Union (EU) administration. The analysis shows that the review of the European courts on the discretionary choices of the EU administration revolves around the concept of ‘manifest error’. This term has acquired a different meaning throughout time, evolving from a very light review towards a deeper review, entailing an examination of whether the factual basis of a decision justifies the outcome of the decision itself. Furthermore, whenever the EU authorities are vested with the discretionary powers to weigh conflicting interests, the control of the European courts is exercised both through the tool of ‘manifest error’ and through the proportionality review. This review is relatively limited and will lead to a finding of unlawfulness only in cases of serious flaws.

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 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
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.

    Regulation EU 2015/2422 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Euratom) [2015] OJ L341/14.

  2. 2.

    Please note that infringement proceedings and preliminary rulings will not be further dealt with in this contribution, as they do not have the nature of ‘judicial review of administrative action’.

  3. 3.

    Baran (2017), p. 295.

  4. 4.

    Prek and Lefèvre (2019), p. 344.

  5. 5.

    See e.g. Fritzsche (2010), p. 364; Schwarze (2006), p. 297; Widdershoven (2019), p. 53.

  6. 6.

    See further on this point, Mendes (2016), pp. 419–452.

  7. 7.

    Advocate General Leger calls this form of appraisal ‘discretion of “technical” nature’, see Opinion in C-40/03 P, Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV v Commission ECLI:EU:C:2005:93, para. 46; Schimmel and Widdershoven prefer the term ‘margin of appreciation’: Schimmel and Widdershoven (2009), p. 65. Paul Craig refers to this concept as ‘jurisdictional discretion’: Craig (2012), p. 404.

  8. 8.

    Fritzsche (2010), p. 364.

  9. 9.

    See e.g. Case 78/74, Deuka, Deutsche Kraftfutter GmbH, B. J. Stolp v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel, ECLI:EU:C:1975:44; Case 98/78, A. Racke v Hauptzollamt Mainz, ECLI:EU:C:1979:14.

  10. 10.

    See e.g. Case C-77/09, Gowan Comércio Internacional e Serviços Lda v Ministero della Salute ECLI:EU:C:2010:803 concerning the question of whether a substance meets the safety requirements of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market.

  11. 11.

    See e.g. Case 42/84, Remia and Others v Commission EU:C:1985:327, para. 34. In the context of the Common Agricultural Policy see Case 98/78, A. Racke v Hauptzollamt Mainz, ECLI:EU:C:1979:14.

  12. 12.

    Craig (2012), p. 411.

  13. 13.

    Anderson (2014), p. 434.

  14. 14.

    Azoulay (2001), pp. 429–430.

  15. 15.

    Craig (2012), p. 415.

  16. 16.

    Craig (2012), pp. 415–416.

  17. 17.

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

  18. 18.

    Ibid., paras 13 to 15.

  19. 19.

    C-12/03 P, Tetra Laval, ECLI:EU:C:2005:87. For an examination of the Tetra Laval test and the distinction between establishing the facts which are relevant in the decision-making and the appraisal of these facts, and the different review of the European courts see Schimmel and Widdershoven (2009), pp. 61 ff.

  20. 20.

    C-12/03 P, Tetra Laval, ECLI:EU:C:2005:87, para. 39.

  21. 21.

    C-12/03 P, Tetra Laval, ECLI:EU:C:2005:87, para. 39. This test has been reiterated in a long line of case law after that. See recently C-389/10 P, KME Germany and others v. Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2011:816, para. 121; T-177/13, TestBioTech eV and Others v. Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2016:736 para. 79. For an examination of Tetra Laval and the subsequent case law Meij (2009), pp. 8–21.

  22. 22.

    See e.g. T-377/07, Evropaïki Dynamiki - Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v. Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2011:731, para. 22 and the case law cited therein.

  23. 23.

    Kalintiri (2016), p. 1285 with further references on the debate surrounding the standard of review in economic cases.

  24. 24.

    T-13/99, Pfizer Animal Health SA v Council of the European Union, ECLI:EU:T:2002:209, para 172.

  25. 25.

    C-12/03 P, Tetra Laval, ECLI:EU:C:2005:87, para. 39. Of course whether the EU courts do carry out this review in practice and have the instruments to do so, is a different question. See further on this point Kalintiri (2016), pp. 1311–1312.

  26. 26.

    Baran (2017), p. 307.

  27. 27.

    C-413/06, P Bertelsmann AG and Sony Corporation of America v Independent Music Publishers and Labels Association (Impala) ECLI:EU:C:2007:790, para. 240.

  28. 28.

    Wils (2010), p. 31; Lavrijssen and de Visser (2006), p. 131; Lenaerts and Gerard, note that “despite the language of Article [263 TFEU], the ‘manifest error of appraisal’ standard for reviewing the application by the Commission of Article [101 (3) TFEU] for instance has considerably evolved over time towards a ‘full review standard’”. Lenaerts and Gerard (2004), p. 340.

  29. 29.

    Baran (2017), p. 311.

  30. 30.

    Widdershoven (2019), p. 56.

  31. 31.

    Leonelli (2018), p. 1248 [emphasis added].

  32. 32.

    Case T-13/99, Pfizer Animal Health SA v Council of the European Union, ECLI:EU:T:2002:209.

  33. 33.

    See Case T-475/07, Dow Agro Sciences Ltd and Others v European Commission EU:T:2011:445, paras. 150–153; Case T-257/07, France v Commission, EU:T:2011:444, para. 87.

  34. 34.

    Case T-187/06, Ralf Schräder v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO), EU:T:2008:511, para. 61.

  35. 35.

    Ibid, para. 62.

  36. 36.

    Case T-85/09, Yassin Abdullah Kadi v European Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2010:418.

  37. 37.

    Case T-85/09, Yassin Abdullah Kadi v European Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2010:418, para. 96.

  38. 38.

    Ibid., para. 142.

  39. 39.

    C-584/10 P, Commission and Others v Kadi, ECLI:EU:C:2013:518, para. 74.

  40. 40.

    Ibid., para. 119.

  41. 41.

    Mendes (2016), p. 436.

  42. 42.

    Ibid., at pp. 419–452.

  43. 43.

    Case 57/72, Westzucker GmbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Zucker, ECLI:EU:C:1973:30.

  44. 44.

    Ibid., para. 14.

  45. 45.

    Craig (2012), p. 442.

  46. 46.

    See e.g. Case C-390/95 P, Antillean Rice Mills and Others v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1999:66, para. 48; Joined Cases C-37 & 58/06, Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH et al. v Hauptzollamt Hamburg Jonas, ECLI:EU:C:2008:18, para. 34.

  47. 47.

    C-41/03 P, Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2005:456, para. 54.

  48. 48.

    Craig (2012), p. 442. According to Article 39 TFEU, the objectives of the common agricultural policy are

    1. (a)

      to increase agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress and by ensuring the rational development of agricultural production and the optimum utilisation of the factors of production, in particular labour;

    2. (b)

      thus to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, in particular by increasing the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture;

    3. (c)

      to stabilise markets;

    4. (d)

      to assure the availability of supplies;

    5. (e)

      to ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices.

  49. 49.

    See e.g. Tridimas (2007), Chapter 3; Schwarze (2006), Chapter 5.

  50. 50.

    Craig (2012), p. 592.

  51. 51.

    De Búrca (1993), p. 111.

  52. 52.

    Case T-30/99, Bocchi Food Trade International v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2001:96.

  53. 53.

    Ibid., para. 93.

  54. 54.

    Ibid., para 92.

  55. 55.

    Case C-77/09 Gowan Comércio Internacional e Serviços Lda v Ministero della Salute, ECLI:EU:C:2010:803, where in para. 82 the Court states that review is limited to cases in which the measure at stake is ‘manifestly inappropriate’.

  56. 56.

    Craig (2012), pp. 595–597.

  57. 57.

    Baran (2017), p. 314.

  58. 58.

    Craig (2012), p. 438.

  59. 59.

    See e.g. Prek and Lefèvre who argue that ‘the language of the judgments should reflect the fact that discretion is not a homogeneous concept, and that the intensity of judicial scrutiny may vary accordingly’. Prek and Lefèvre (2019), p. 377.

References

  • Anderson C (2014) Contrasting models of EU administration in judicial review of risk regulation. Common Mark Law Rev 51(2):424–454

    Google Scholar 

  • Azoulay L (2001) The Court of Justice and the administrative governance. Eur Law J 7:425–441

    Google Scholar 

  • Baran M (2017) The scope of EU Courts’ jurisdiction and review of administrative decisions – the problem of intensity control of legality. In: Harlow C, Leino P, della Cananea G (eds) Research handbook on EU administrative law. Edward Elgar, pp 292–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig P (2012) EU administrative law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • De Búrca G (1993) The principle of proportionality and its application in EC law. Yearb Eur Law 13(1):105–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritzsche A (2010) Discretion, scope of judicial review and institutional balance in European law. Common Mark Law Rev 47(2):361–403

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalintiri A (2016) What’s in a name? The marginal standard of review of “complex economic assessments” in EU competition enforcement. Common Mark Law Rev 53(5):1283–1316

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavrijssen S, de Visser M (2006) Independent administrative authorities and the standard of judicial review. Utrecht Law Rev 2(1):111–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K, Gerard D (2004) Decentralisation of EC competition law enforcement: judges in the frontline. World Compet 27(3):313–349

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonelli GC (2018) European Commission v. Bilbaína and Others: the fine line between procedural and substantive review in cases involving complex technical-scientific evaluations. Common Mark Law Rev 55(4):1217–1249

    Google Scholar 

  • Meij A (2009) Judicial review in the EC Courts: Tetra Laval and beyond. In: Essens O, Gerbrandy A, Lavrijssen S (eds) National Courts and the standard of review in competition law and economic regulation. Europa Law Publishing, pp 8–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendes J (2016) Discretion, care and public interests in the EU administration: probing the limits of law. Common Mark Law Rev 53(2):419–452

    Google Scholar 

  • Prek M, Lefèvre S (2019) “Administrative discretion”, “power of appraisal” and “margin of appraisal” in judicial review proceedings before the General Court. Common Mark Law Rev 56(2):339–380

    Google Scholar 

  • Schimmel M, Widdershoven R (2009) Judicial review after Tetra Laval: some observations from a European administrative law point of view. In: Essens O, Gerbrandy A, Lavrijssen S (eds) National Courts and the standard of review in competition law and economic regulation. Europa Law Publishing, pp 51–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarze J (2006) European administrative law, Revised 1st edn. Thomson/Sweet & Maxwell

    Google Scholar 

  • Tridimas T (2007) The general principles of EU law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Widdershoven R (2019) The European Court of Justice and the standard of judicial review. In: de Poorter J et al (eds) Judicial review of administrative discretion in the administrative state. Springer, pp 39–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Wils W (2010) The increased level of EU antitrust fines, judicial review and the European Convention on Human Rights. World Compet Law Econ Rev 33(1):5–29

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Mariolina Eliantonio

Authors
  1. Mariolina Eliantonio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mariolina Eliantonio .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong

    Guobin Zhu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Eliantonio, M. (2019). Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review: The European Union. In: Zhu, G. (eds) Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 39. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31539-9_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31539-9_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-31538-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-31539-9

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation