Cost of voting on Lisbon Treaty set to top €50m

[ibis]

Thanks.

Very restrictive conditions on access to the ECJ and no entitlement as of right to have an Irish court refer a point to the ECJ.

There are arguments both ways on the CFR but there is little doubt that the continuing work on the EU legal order treats the ordinary citizen as a pest.

It assumes, as a good and very well-established principle, that people should take a case in the most local possible court. Why pretend that people would rather go to the ECJ than a national court? And why pretend it would be better, or even feasible, for half a billion people to take their cases through a single court?

Really, the constant work of denial leads you to some very strange places.

[He3]

No pretence here. The facts speak. The Irish courts have not once referred an environmental case to the ECJ.

The Irish government knows this and continues on its delinquent way ignoring EC environmental law as far and as long as possible. It knows it is effectively beyond the reach of private citizens who are shut out from any effective Court access.

The Irish government has been condemned in the ECJ for environmental law breaches on average every six months through this decade. That is thanks to the Commission, who have an effective monopoly on access to the ECJ in this context.

Access to justice for a private citizen does not register on the EC/EU radar, which was built in an era when only member states and Community institutions were considered worthy of such privilege.

[ibis]

No pretence here. The facts speak. The Irish courts have not once referred an environmental case to the ECJ.

The Irish government knows this and continues on its delinquent way ignoring EC environmental law as far and as long as possible. It knows it is effectively beyond the reach of private citizens who are shut out from any effective Court access.

The Irish government has been condemned in the ECJ for environmental law breaches on average every six months through this decade. That is thanks to the Commission, who have an effective monopoly on access to the ECJ in this context.

Access to justice for a private citizen does not register on the EC/EU radar, which was built in an era when only member states and Community institutions were considered worthy of such privilege.

Perhaps, then, you should consider voting for the Charter, which changes that position. Not that you will, of course.

[Fergalino]

No pretence here. The facts speak. The Irish courts have not once referred an environmental case to the ECJ.

The Irish government knows this and continues on its delinquent way ignoring EC environmental law as far and as long as possible. It knows it is effectively beyond the reach of private citizens who are shut out from any effective Court access.

The Irish government has been condemned in the ECJ for environmental law breaches on average every six months through this decade. That is thanks to the Commission, who have an effective monopoly on access to the ECJ in this context.

Access to justice for a private citizen does not register on the EC/EU radar, which was built in an era when only member states and Community institutions were considered worthy of such privilege.

I note you dissapprove of the limited access that individuals have to the ECJ.

No doubt you will approve of the the fact that Lisbon, as opposed to Nice, improves the access of individuals to the ECJ.

So you will not doubt what I say, have a look at this explanation from a eurosceptic site. Its a rather good explanation to be fair to them.

http://www.europeanfoundation.org/do...ICLE%20230.mht

[He3]

You have linked to a minimalist change, which will make not an iota of difference to private citizens in the real world.

[ibis]

I note you dissapprove of the limited access that individuals have to the ECJ.

No doubt you will approve of the the fact that Lisbon, as opposed to Nice, improves the access of individuals to the ECJ.

So you will not doubt what I say, have a look at this explanation from a eurosceptic site. Its a rather good explanation to be fair to them.

http://www.europeanfoundation.org/do...ICLE%20230.mht

That does seem reasonably substantial, despite He3's reiteration of his position:

Under present Article 230(4) any natural or legal person have locus standi “against a decision addressed to that person or against a decision which, although in the form of a regulation or a decision addressed to another person, is of direct and individual concern to the former.” Therefore, any person or business can challenge the legality of certain EC acts before the Court of First Instance, if he/she can prove that the act is of “direct and individual concern.”

The criteria of the “individual concern" has been strictly interpreted by the Court. This provision creates difficulties for the individual to enforce their rights and entitlement to an effective remedy. The Lisbon Treaty amended this provision which reads "Any natural or legal person may, under the conditions laid down in the first and second paragraphs, institute proceedings against an act addressed to that person or which is of direct and individual concern to him or her, and against a regulatory act which is of direct concern to him or her and does not entail implementing measures."

Hence, an individual may challenge any act addressed to him, not just decisions. If it is not addressed to the plaintiff, he/she will have to prove that the act is of direct and individual concern. Any natural or legal person may also challenge a regulatory act if no further implementation is required and if he can prove direct concern, there is no need to prove individual concern. This provision liberalises locus standing on regulatory acts. Thus, it will liberalise the rules on standing for actions for annulment of regulatory acts. The Lisbon Treaty provides for a paragraph which provides for “Acts setting up bodies, offices and agencies of the Union may lay down specific conditions and arrangements concerning actions brought by natural or legal persons against acts of these bodies, offices or agencies intended to produce legal effects in relation to them.".

I appreciate He3's concern that people may not use the channel thus provided, but it's hard to see what one can do about that exactly. A concerned group can very simply form itself into a legal person by creating a limited company - something like the Libertas Institute, for example - to take the case.

[Fergalino]

You have linked to a minimalist change, which will make not an iota of difference to private citizens in the real world.

Amazing how you read all sorts of things into articles with minimamlist changes when it suits you, yet you discount ohters when that suits.

[ibis]

Amazing how you read all sorts of things into articles with minimamlist changes when it suits you, yet you discount ohters when that suits.

Amazing indeed...almost as if the facts were less important than his agenda.

[evercloserunion]

Yep, that counts as very little.

I wonder why your doubt counts for so much more than mine?