4th March 2011
RE: Potential actions for annulment concerning Best Beer Ltd. imports
Dear CEO of Best Beer Ltd,
The following letter addresses your query regarding actions for annulment in the General Court (GC) as regards to the decision of the Commission to restrict the import of beer to only 10,000 litres per month. Immediately, it is important that the locus standi of a non – privileged applicant, the company has restricted access to courts. However, under Article 263 (4) in the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) there are three situations in which you are able to bring your action before a judicial review.
Firstly, as Beer Best applied…show more content… This is similar to the Piraiki-Patraiki v Commission case in which “authorisation of a the Hellenic Republic addressed to a member state and authorized it to impose a system of quotes on imports from Greece may be of direct concern to Greek exporters where there can be no doubt as to the intention of the authorities of the Member States granted the authorization.”
Additionally, in regards to direct concern, the regulatory clause (Art 263 TFEU) is also a third condition which can seen in the Inuit and Microban case, the definition of ‘direct concern’ is still to be determined. Therefore the non – privileged applicant’s locus standi would most probably have impact on possibilities to challenge Commission regulations, as large part of them should fall under the concept of a ‘regulatory act’. Best Beer would only need to show direct concern, and no implementing measures would be entailed. However, referring back to the Inuit and Microban cases, the General Court found that implementing measure in relation to intervention by the Commission or other Member States would mean remove the right to challenge. If this route was to be
