Remedies Essay - European Law

EU Law Supervision 3 - Q 6 (a) The United Kingdom ("UK") is advised to bring an action for annulment under Art 263 TFEU ("Art 263"). It would be eligible as a so-called 'privileged' applicant by virtue of Art 263(2); the Regulation itself is a reviewable act by virtue of Art 263(1) as it is a legislative act of the Council; and the proceedings would be instituted within the two month time limit dictated by Art 263(6). Pursuant to article 263(2), the UK is advised to argue that the Regulation infringes an essential procedural requirement. Two avenues lie open. First, as Art 43 TFEU forms the basis of the Regulation, the UK may submit, as highlighted at para. 32 by the European Court ("Court") in UK v Council, that Art 43(1) was not followed, as, on the facts, there is no evidence that the Council relied on a Commission proposal when enacting the Regulation. Secondly, as in Roquette, the UK may submit that Art 43(2) was not followed, for both the European Parliament nor the the Economic and Social Committee were consulted. (b) Alpha would be advised to bring an action for annulment under Art 263. Though not a 'privileged applicant', Alpha has standing pursuant to Art 263(4), as it is a legal person to whom the act was addressed evidenced by it being named in the regulation, akin to the situation in International Fruit Company. As above, the proceedings would be within the time limit. Whilst Alpha may also, for reasons explained above, submit 'infringement of an essential procedural requirement' as a ground in the action, a further possible ground may be 'infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application' (Art 263(4)). Alpha is advised to submit that imposing a twentyfold