The General Court of the European Union erred in law by finding inadmissible Venezuela’s action for annulment of Regulation (2017/2063) imposing restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Caribbean country (Case T-65/18), Advocate General Gerald Hogan said in his Opinion delivered on Wednesday 20 January (Case C-872/19).
The Advocate General first asks whether the appellant is a “legal person” within the meaning of the TFEU (Article 263). He is of the opinion that the Union judge must follow the established practice of public international law according to which one State authorises another State to bring cases before its national courts, as well as the principle of judicial comity. This practice and principle therefore require EU courts to admit actions brought by sovereign third States in their capacity as legal persons. They also require EU courts to consider that allowing a third State access to the Union courts also ensures respect for the rule of law.
The Advocate General further observes that the condition that a natural or legal person must be directly affected by the decision under appeal requires that two cumulative criteria, namely that: – the measure in question have a direct effect on the individual’s legal position; – this measure leave no discretionary power to the addressees responsible for implementing EU rules.
Mr Hogan notes that the General Court considered only the first of the two cumulative criteria. Contrary to the General Court’s analysis, he observes that the restrictive measures at issue were intended to affect Venezuela specifically and in particular various emanations of the Venezuelan State. And to consider that, by analogy, the Almaz-Antey judgment (Case T-515/15) should be applied to the present case and that the contested provisions prevent the appellant from purchasing certain specific goods and services from certain operators in the Union and thus directly affect its rights and legal interests.
In the end, the Advocate General requests that the procedure be referred back to the General Court for a decision on all outstanding admissibility aspects and on the merits of the case.
See the conclusions: http://bit.ly/3bWVz5C (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)