Private parties and the annulment procedure: Can the gap in the European system of judicial protection be closed?

The restrictions imposed on the possibility for an individual to challenge European law measures and the restrictive interpretation of the notion of ‘individual concern’ given by the European Court of Justice have been highly criticised by legal scholars and members of the European judiciary as being against the principle of effective judicial protection. This paper shows how the restrictive interpretation of the notion of ‘individual concern’ developed in the case law of the European Court of Justice. Furthermore, the paper discusses possible improvements to the current system of judicial protection, such as the possibility to introduce a fundamental rights complaint procedure and the obligation of Member States to provide for effective judicial remedies before national courts. Finally, the impact of the modifications made by the Lisbon Treaty to the annulment procedure is assessed

Towards an ever dirtier Europe? The restrictive standing of environmental NGOs before the European Courts and the Aarhus Convention

In European Union law, the existence of an effective remedy to challenge EU actions has been at the core of a heated ongoing debate, since individual applicants and NGOs often have a hard time obtaining locus standi in annulment proceedings, due to the restrictive interpretation given by the European Court of Justice to the standing requirements provided by (the former) Article 230(4) of the EC Treaty. The aim of this paper is to show how access to justice before the EU courts for environmental NGOs has been significantly curtailed up to the present, and to discuss the changes to the standing test brought by the Lisbon Treaty by analysing its content and the (to date) limited interpretation given by the European Courts to the term ‘regulatory act’ introduced by the Treaty. On the basis of this examination, it will be shown how the recent amendments have not changed the position of NGOs who wish to challenge EU environmental measures and how, therefore, a significant gap in judicial protection and a potential violation of Articles 9(2) and (3) of the Aarhus Convention still remain