Just reading on the Inuit case (Case T-18/10 September 2011) - admissibility for standing in cases of JR against the EU institutions is strictly limited to the ECJ interpretation of the requirements of the Treaty, in comparison with the more broad scope for standing given in cases against the Member States based on also interpreting ECHR rights. Under Atricle 47 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights it is crucial to grant an effective remedy, while Article 46 says right of access to courts is a fundamental right.
The ECJ grants standing for cases against the institutions restrictively to only those individually and directly affected (in other words it must affect them almost uniquely). Yet in, for example, the DEB case (2010) the Charter requirements under Article 47 were very prominent in granting standing for an action against a Member State. So it is one rule for allowing standing to bring cases against the EU institutions, and another entirely for those bringing cases against the Member States!
Can this hypocritical dichotomy survive accesssion to the ECHR next year? And why was the provision on standing in the Lisbon Treaty virtually left unchanged (and hideously worded)?