Rules of Locus Standi (Standing)

This paper will discuss the rules of locus standi (standing) provided for by Article 173 of the European Economic Treaty (EC Treaty), as it was amended by the Treaty on European Union (TEU). The discussion will examine the rules themselves as they were enacted in the Article and will examine how they have been interpreted by the Court of Justice. The discussion will also include a brief look at the other relevant provisions concerning standing in the Treaty, especially Article 184, which concerns the challenge of regulations enacted by Community institutions. The paper will then discuss how these rules have affected the ability of the Community to develop a coherent body of administrative law.

The main Community institutions which are affected by Article 173 are the Council of the European Communities, the Commission of the European Community, and the European Parliament. These three institutions constitute the primary lawmaking bodies in the Community (excluding the member states themselves) and are responsible for promulgating administrative law in the Community. The ability of these institutions to challenge measures promulgated by each other presents the real problem for the development of a coherent body of administrative law in the Community, as will be seen by the end of the paper.

. . .
n of a budget by the European Parliament for the Community is reviewable. Privileged v. Non-Privileged Applicants Among entities seeking to challenge acts under Article 173, there are two categories of applicants: privileged and non-privileged. Privileged applicants include member states, the Commission, the Council, and the European Parliament. These applicants have unlimited standing to bring such actions and it is not necessary for them to prove that they have any interest in bringing the proceedings. Natural and legal persons other than the Community institutions which are privileged are considered non-privileged applicants. Non-privileged applicants have standing only to challenge decisions that are addressed to them or measures which are of direct and individual concern to them. The key issue, therefore, is whether a measure is a decision that is either directed at the applicant or is of direct and individual concern to them. As will be seen below, the Court of Justice's decisions on this issue have not always been consistent. A decision which is addressed to the applicant is clearly open to challenge and the plaintiff will have no problem proving standing. A measure which is labelled as a "decision" is usuall
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Court Justice, Court Justice's, European Parliament, Parliament Council, Community Community, Council Commission, Greece November, Standing Article, Nations Commission, Taiwan Court, article 173, community institutions, european parliament, court justice, legal effects, article 184, bring action, administrative law, decision addressed, natural legal, law relating application, rule law relating, natural legal persons, requirement infringement treaty, essential procedural requirement,
Approximate Word count = 5005
Approximate Pages = 20 (250 words per page)