Web-Companion "Essential EU Law in Charts"

Order: Subscribe to RSS feed

Dear Reader of "Essential EU Law in Charts, 2nd Lisbon edition, 2010". Please take note of the following updates and corrigenda:

Typographical error | p. 297

Page: 297 Chart Number: 12/8 Chart Title: Admissibility: direct and individual concern

The box entitled “Challenging the definition” (right column, fourth row) should read:

Challenging the definition

• Opinion of AG Jacobs in UPA (2002): proceedings before national courts may not provide effective judicial protection. Therefore, reconsideration of the case law on standing under Art. 263 TFEU; less strict conditions would be appropriate.

GC (then: CFI): broader approach in Jégo-Quéré (2002).

The box entitled “But: ECJ adheres to its approach” (right column, fifth row) should read:

But: _CJ adheres to its approach

UPA (2002), Rothley (2004), JégoQuéré (2004).

Main argument: the ECJ cannot change the Treaty.



Published: 3 August 2010