The Court of Justice of the European Union, after being seized according to art. 56 of its Statute by the organizers of the ECI “One of Us”, has rejected all the grounds of appeal, thus confirming the judgment of first instance and bringing an end to the initiative’s long journey. However, the Court has taken the opportunity to clarify certain aspects regarding the ECI in relation to the Commission’s powers. In particular, it has ultimately confirmed that the Commission’s communication ex art. 10.1(c) of Reg. (EU) no. 211/2011 (now repealed by Reg. (EU) 2019/788) can be subject to judicial review, even as far as political assessments are concerned, but only to verify whether manifest errors have been made. Even though this reasoning may appear acceptable, it still leaves room for criticism, since it doesn’t seem in line with European jurisprudence: in fact, according to the Court, the EU Parliament’s decision on the follow-up to be given to a petition ex art. 4 TEU cannot be subject to judicial review due to the broad political discretion owned by the Institution. Then, the same treatment should be given to the Commission’s communication: once it has provided for a sound motivation of its action, likewise its discretionary political assessment should not be subject to judicial review (not even a limited one).

«A rabbit remains a rabbit»? L’ultima parola della Corte di giustizia sull’iniziativa dei cittadini europei “One of Us” (nota a Puppinck e a. c. Commissione europea, causa C-418/18 P).

omar makimov pallotta
2020

Abstract

The Court of Justice of the European Union, after being seized according to art. 56 of its Statute by the organizers of the ECI “One of Us”, has rejected all the grounds of appeal, thus confirming the judgment of first instance and bringing an end to the initiative’s long journey. However, the Court has taken the opportunity to clarify certain aspects regarding the ECI in relation to the Commission’s powers. In particular, it has ultimately confirmed that the Commission’s communication ex art. 10.1(c) of Reg. (EU) no. 211/2011 (now repealed by Reg. (EU) 2019/788) can be subject to judicial review, even as far as political assessments are concerned, but only to verify whether manifest errors have been made. Even though this reasoning may appear acceptable, it still leaves room for criticism, since it doesn’t seem in line with European jurisprudence: in fact, according to the Court, the EU Parliament’s decision on the follow-up to be given to a petition ex art. 4 TEU cannot be subject to judicial review due to the broad political discretion owned by the Institution. Then, the same treatment should be given to the Commission’s communication: once it has provided for a sound motivation of its action, likewise its discretionary political assessment should not be subject to judicial review (not even a limited one).
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11575/118959
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact